If there is no objection, the meetings are so authorised.

The committee is considering amendment (1) on sheet 3373, moved by Senator Hanson, to the Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025. This is a deferred division. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Is this the kind of heavy-handed approach we want to have? Can universities really be expected to regulate the heinous actions of individuals?

The national code will be created by the Minister for Education under delegated legislation. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills questioned the appropriateness of this. The committee noted a lack of detail in the Universities Accord (National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence) Bill 2025 as to what the code must contain and/or a more detailed explanation in the explanatory memorandum on the need to set the code entirely out in delegated legislation. We must scrutinise the implications of this approach. By allowing the minister to create the national code through delegated legislation, we open the door to government overreach that could undermine the autonomy of our higher education institutions. The stakes are high, and it is imperative that we engage in a thorough discussion about the potential consequences of such broad powers.

Is it really appropriate for a bill of this magnitude to not actually set out the national code and to give the minister such broad powers? At clause 17(q), it says the national code may 'include any other matters that the minister considers are necessary or convenient to give effect to the purpose of the national code'. The broadness of the powers in this bill and the ambiguous nature of its provisions must be questioned in this chamber.

There is also the question of how many layers of bureaucracy we need. This bill will introduce a new dedicated unit of the Department of Education to simply monitor the code. That's more taxpayer money on more regulation. This space already has a national student ombudsman, an action plan addressing gender based violence in higher education and the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032. You cannot regulate your way out of bad behaviour, but adding yet another layer of bureaucracy to an already complex system could lead to inefficiencies and confusion rather than the intended improvements. Why can the government simply not strengthen the powers of the independent regulator TEQSA, and will this new regulatory body actually lower the incidence of gender based violence?

There is also the very pertinent question of priorities. The government has an opportunity to address more than just gender based violence. The coalition has been asking why the government has not introduced the same standards for antisemitism on campus. The fact is that no student should have to choose between their safety and their education, which is why the coalition has moved an amendment calling on the government to establish a code to prevent and respond to antisemitism. Over half of Jewish university students hide their identity at university. How can we support the free expression of ideas at our institutions of learning when our students cannot even feel safe to acknowledge their cultural background? We've seen clear attempts to silence and intimidate Jewish academics, staff and students. That is completely unacceptable. University campuses must be safe for everyone, and that includes Jewish Australians.

The Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism in Australia, Jillian Segal AO, noted that antisemitism is ingrained and normalised in academia and cultural spaces. The special envoy has proposed withdrawing or terminating public funding to universities where antisemitic conduct isn't adequately addressed. This is the kind of measure we should be taking—a removal of taxpayer funding arrangements to incentivise universities to act with purpose and without adding more bureaucrats to the public payroll. The special envoy also recommended a dedicated judicial inquiry be undertaken to address systemic issues, including the investigation of foreign sources of funding for antisemitic activities and academics at universities.

Antisemitism in Australian universities is a cultural and social cancer that needs attention through our schools, universities, media and even the arts, but the Prime Minister refuses to back the report by the special envoy. He won't commit to the actions, won't say what he supports and won't lead. Jewish Australians deserve action not excuses. It is incumbent on the government not to delay but to act, and the Minister for Education won't implement a single recommendation until receiving a report from the Special Envoy to Combat Islamophobia. Why on earth would you wait? There is nothing within the recommendations that would require the government to wait for a report on a separate topic, which incidentally has no known release date. The government can, and must, act now. As the Executive Council of Australian Jewry's co-chief executive Alex Ryvchin said, this is something that cannot and should not wait.

I'm really pleased to be standing in this place and speaking on such an important piece of legislation as the Universities Accord (National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence) Bill. I want to begin by expressing my gratitude to Minister Clare and to all in the government who have worked so hard to get us to this point today. This legislation means so much to so many people, and it marks just the beginning of more accountability for our universities and more protection for the students who attend them.

Now, in this chamber, we know that the issue of student safety on campus isn't new. This has been a decades-long fight, and there has been an enormous amount of work undertaken by advocates, by senators in this place and by the government to get us here today. For decades, advocates have been raising the alarm about the disgusting behaviours that occur on our university campuses and the substandard reporting and response processes that universities have used to avoid scrutiny. It is in large part thanks to that tireless advocacy, of many women in particular, that the Senate agreed to an inquiry into the current and proposed sexual consent laws in Australia back in 2022.

The inquiry received 79 submissions and held public hearings in Canberra, Melbourne and Sydney, and an in camera hearing in Brisbane. I was really pleased to be the deputy chair of the committee and to move for the establishment of that inquiry with my parliamentary colleague Senator Larissa Waters. We delivered a consensus report, supported by all members of the committee of all political persuasions, because we recognised that this issue was too important to not deliver recommendations that could be carried out by the government. We also recognised that the lives of these women and the stories they had to share were well above politics.

The committee took the opportunity, in delivering its report, to thank the witnesses, and I want to thank them again today for the effort they made to attend the inquiry and make it the success that it was. We wouldn't be here today if, throughout that inquiry, they hadn't shared their deeply personal experiences and relived their trauma. It's never easy to do that, but the courage they showed, their generosity and the honesty in the evidence they delivered shaped the recommendations that followed, and they have brought long-overdue national attention to these issues. The inquiry touched on so many subjects and topics across Australia, and it was an honour to bring those things to light and to talk about the issues that impacted so many Australians. But the most confronting and urgent issue the committee found was the sexual assault and harassment rates on campuses of students and, most importantly, the universities' responses to those assaults.

For so many younger Australians, university is their first endeavour in the real world, the first step beyond high school and life at home. Many travel from regional towns to a new city, moving into campuses and dorms to pursue their education and begin building their future dreams. They should be safe and they should be free to study, live, work and socialise without fear. But for too many university students this has also been the beginning of a nightmare. One in 20 university students reported being sexually assaulted on campus. One in six reported being sexual harassed. One in two feel like they can't be heard when they make a complaint. These numbers are unacceptable, and we know that they don't capture the full picture. The evidence presented to the inquiry made it clear that these harms are significantly underreported and that students with disabilities, First Nations students, LGBTIQ students and international students are even more vulnerable, with additional barriers to reporting and seeking justice.

Our government has heard what advocates have been saying for years, that this is not good enough, and it has taken action. Last term, the Albanese Labor government created the National Student Ombudsman. It was a proud moment for this parliament and it was a prouder moment for me to stand next to the minister in the Mural Hall with some of the most incredible student advocates who helped to make it happen. Sharna Bremner from the End Rape on Campus is one of those women. Renee Carr from Fair Agenda, Dr Allison Henry, and Camille from the STOP Campaign—all of these women, and many more, fought to make the National Student Ombudsman a reality. It was a national first. With similar powers to a royal commission, it's job is to investigate complaints against universities themselves, to do what advocates had been demanding for years. This was the first step, and this bill is its companion. I thank all of those advocates, all of those victims-survivors and the minister for getting us to this point today.

This bill creates a standalone regulatory framework—one that prioritises safety, strengthens prevention and demands a higher standard of response from higher education providers when gender based violence occurs. It will finally hold institutions, which include student accommodation providers, accountable for their performance. We heard so many times throughout the inquiry that an assault would occur on student accommodation and that a university would wipe its hands of accountability because it wasn't on university property. Well, that ends through this bill today.

Under this bill, the Minister for Education will have the power to establish the code, setting clear standards that all higher education providers must meet. These standards will ensure that places where students study, work, live and socialise are safe, respectful and inclusive. The national code will require providers to actively work to prevent gender based violence, to respond to it effectively when it occurs and to address the underlying drivers that contribute to it. It will also require institutions to have strong governance arrangements in place right across their operations and at every level of their organisation. And, most importantly, this will be a national requirement, so it doesn't matter what university you go to—this will be the law.

Providers will be required to maintain records demonstrating their compliance with the new framework, and the minister will have the power to determine what records must be kept and how they must be maintained. The rules will also outline the types of information that must be reported to the secretary of the department. If a provider becomes non-compliant or is at risk of becoming non-compliant, they must notify the secretary, and they must also update the secretary if any information previously provided becomes inaccurate. In short, this is a model with teeth. If the universities were capable of keeping themselves accountable and responsible on their own, then this bill wouldn't be required, but they have demonstrated for many years and through our Senate inquiry that this legislation is necessary.

This legislation also means that regulatory actions must be necessary and proportionate. They must support transparency and accountability, and the bill allows the secretary to publicly disclose information about a provider's compliance—but only after giving them the chance to respond. The legislation also ensures that the secretary can work collaboratively across the system, sharing information with all of the agencies involved. This is appropriate and necessary. This will include annual reports on implementation of the framework, and its performance will be tabled in parliament so that progress can be publicly tracked. This, again, is so important to the victims-survivors who shared their stories. At one point, witnesses told us that the only way they could get information about how their own assaults were being dealt with by universities was to lodge FOI or RTI documents. That was the only way they were able to access information about their own cases. We need to make sure that the national code is implemented to stop these types of behaviours.

The national code will commence as soon as possible, and compliance will be required of universities from 1 January 2026 and of non-university providers from 2027. This does provide an opportunity for institutions to prepare, while sending a very clear signal that change is coming. The legislation also delivers on recommendation 16 of our Senate inquiry. It called for an independent taskforce with real power to oversee university responses, and we are delivering that accountability today.

We must also remember that culture doesn't shift through laws alone. Our inquiry heard powerful testimony about the role of rape myths in shaping how victims are treated and how cases are prosecuted. We need education, training and cultural change to break down these myths on campus, in courtrooms and across the broader community. Changing the law is vital, but changing culture is just as urgent. That's why the inquiry also called for ongoing data collection through a regular student safety survey to be conducted by universities. I support that call.

If we are taking this issue seriously, then we must measure our progress with transparency and accountability, and we must make sure that those reports are public. That's what this bill will do today. But we also call on the universities to join us in this project. I know that they would want to keep their students safe, and we are acting today to ensure that that is happening.

Finally, before I finish, I do want to acknowledge someone who worked tirelessly behind the scenes to bring all of this work forward, a former staff member of mine and a former student advocate, Hannah Smith. Hannah championed this inquiry from the very beginning. She connected stakeholders, worked through the detail and made sure the voices of survivors and advocates were at the heart of this work. Although Hannah has now left the parliamentary staffing team to pursue another incredible journey, motherhood, I want to thank her for all of her efforts. It is incredible how tenacious some young women can be when they stand shoulder to shoulder with each other. That's exactly what Hannah did with all of the other student advocates. They hopefully will deliver this history-making legislation.

We know that this is not the end of the journey—in fact, we know it is just the beginning—but it is a solid and meaningful start. The bill sets a national standard, one that makes it clear that gender based violence has no place in Australian higher education. Every student has the right to feel safe. Every staff member has the right to be respected. Every institution has a responsibility to make that a reality. I want to say thank you again to the advocates, the survivors, my colleagues and those who never gave up. I remind the Senate that this inquiry report was delivered on a consensus basis, and I hope that this bill gets that same support from all areas of the chamber, because this is one of those times where we should stand up above politics and deliver justice for these victims-survivors.

I rise to join with my colleagues in indicating the coalition does strongly support the Universities Accord (National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence) Bill 2025 and its purpose, and that is to establish a national code to prevent and respond to gender-based violence in higher education. This bill makes it very clear that everyone on a university campus—students, staff and residents—has the right to be safe. As we have already talked about in this debate, the Universities Australia national student safety survey revealed alarming figures that one in 20 students reported being sexually assaulted, one in six reported sexual harassment, over half of students didn't understand the formal reporting processes and almost half were unaware of where to get support. There is no doubt that the universities sat on their hands in the face of this deeply concerning safety issue on university campuses and did far too little for far too long.

After my two years as the former shadow minister for education, I can only say that I am deeply disappointed in the regulator, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, which failed to throw the book at universities and hold them accountable. TEQSA has a number of existing powers which it did not use as it should have, but also it did not exercise its statutory right to suggest to the minister that it needed further powers. Then, of course, when we had the antisemitism crisis on university campuses, it sat there doing almost nothing before rushing around in a last-minute, one-minute-to-midnight attempt to make up for lost time. During this period, in the first 12 months when I was the shadow minister, the Minister for Education, Mr Clare, also did very little in relation to these matters. He only got on the bus very late in the piece.

There is strong bipartisan support—or tripartisan support, I assume, if I include all members of the crossbench—and that is a very good thing, but it should not have got to this. We have a higher education regulator that is there to hold universities to account, overseen by the minister and the government. Unfortunately, for far too long, the minister did not do enough, and the regulator sat on its hands and did not seem to understand the urgency of the situation on university campuses. That is really disappointing because, as we've heard in a number of inquiries, including before the education legislation committee, many young people, mainly women, on university campuses have really suffered. We need to make sure that the universities, in every respect, give a voice to these complaints. Yes, of course, there is always the option, when a criminal act has been committed, to go to the police, but there are many other issues that arise on university campuses in relation to safety that, frankly, have been swept under the carpet for far too long.

I want to particularly acknowledge the work of advocates like Fair Agenda, End Rape on Campus and The STOP Campaign. I work very closely with those organisations to support their incredible work to improve the safety of students and staff on campus. I do want to raise, however, that, rather than give TEQSA the powers it needs to properly enforce the conduct of universities, the government, led by the minister, has decided to give the administration of the code to the Department of Education. I learnt—I was quite shocked to learn—that there will be 16 or so staff within the Department of Education charged with administering this code, which seems an extraordinary number of people. I think what that does say is the minister does not have the ticker to improve the performance of the regulator. The regulator should be throwing the book at universities in relation to student safety. The minister should be ensuring the regulator, answerable to him, is doing his job. I think he has also failed to do that. But, be that as it may, I think it is important that we provide bipartisan support in every respect to this bill, and that has very much always been the coalition's position.

However, there is one glaring oversight in relation to student safety on campus, and that is the antisemitism crisis on university campuses. While the government has been responsive to issues of sexual harassment, sexual assault and the safety of women in lecture theatres, on the grounds of universities and in student accommodation, the minister and this government have not been responsive in relation to the safety of Jewish students on campus. Frankly, that is a disgrace. That is why we are moving a second reading amendment to this bill, to implement a code to prevent and respond to antisemitism. For the last two years, and particularly since October 7, I've prosecuted the case in relation to what Jewish students have endured on campus. Antisemitism is a vile stain on any civilised society. It is not only an attack on the Jewish community; it is also an assault on the values of tolerance, diversity and freedom which defines our country.

Since the heinous Hamas terrorist attacks of 7 October 2023, we have witnessed a shocking surge in antisemitic hate across our nation. It is hard to comprehend what has unfolded: the firebombing of the Adass Israel Synagogue in Melbourne and, more recently, the synagogue in East Melbourne; the attack on the Sydney childcare centre; vile graffiti on schools and burnt-out cars; and the most recent vile attack on the Jewish restaurant in Melbourne.

All in all, we have seen an absence of leadership from the Albanese government over antisemitism in this country. It's all very well for the Prime Minister to stand with the wonderful antisemitism envoy, Jillian Segal, and welcome her very significant report to combat antisemitism in Australia. But I say—and I was burning with rage as I watched this—what a disgrace that the Prime Minister is up there with the antisemitism envoy, welcoming her work over many months but not indicating that the government will even consider or accept one of the recommendations by the antisemitism envoy. That is just an absolute disgrace.

Jewish Australians deserve better, and, as I say, when we don't stand up for Jewish Australians, it says a lot about our failure to stand up for social cohesion across our country. I am reminded of one of the most powerful conversations I had when I was the shadow minister. It was at a rally, a religious freedom alley, in Western Sydney, and an Islamic school's leader came up to me, and he said, 'Thank you for what you are doing to fight antisemitism on university campuses.' I said, 'Wow, that is incredible; that means so much to me, from the leader of an Islamic school.' And he said, 'My families and my students do not want to go to universities riddled with hate and division, so thank you for what you are doing and for what the coalition is doing.'

I was really proud to take, on behalf of the coalition, a comprehensive policy to the last election, which included: establishing a commission of inquiry into antisemitism at Australian universities, to be led by an eminent jurist; a requirement on all universities to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, IHRA, definition of antisemitism, which is strongly supported by the antisemitism envoy—in fact, the Student Ombudsman is using that very definition when looking at and determining cases of antisemitism; developing a national higher education code to prevent and respond to antisemitism, the subject of the second reading amendment—and that would cover both staff and student safety; and the prohibition of encampments and other activities designed to intimidate and vilify students and staff. What a disgrace. Those encampments went on for months on university campuses, and Jason Clare, the minister, never said a thing. It is just extraordinary that at no time did he ever speak out and say this is not appropriate. Jewish students, particularly at the University of Sydney and the University of Melbourne, were hiding in the shadows. Many were too afraid to go to their university.

We also took a policy obligating universities to report antisemitism complaints to the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, enabling referral to Home Affairs if necessary. Our policy also included a very strong conviction that students on visas who are found guilty of antisemitic misconduct must be deported and that there should be an antisemitism specialist within the office of the National Student Ombudsman to address incidents and support affected students. Along with Alan Tudge, in earlier days of course, I was a very strong advocate for the National Student Ombudsman. I'm very pleased that the minister picked up the idea of the ombudsman, which of course came from the coalition. But, in order for the ombudsman to do her job properly, she needs to have appropriate experts, particularly on the issue of antisemitism. So it is really concerning that that resource, which we put up in an amendment in the Senate, was also rejected.

I just want to say, in relation to this pushback that we've seen about antisemitism on university campuses: Marcia Langton compellingly argued in her column in the Australian in January 2025 that there is 'no excuse for allowing Jewish hate to fester on our campuses'. She said:

Academic freedom is not freedom of speech; these are very different concepts and rights. Only academics are entitled to academic freedom, and this right is conditional on their work conforming with the rigorous rules of the academies and their disciplines that relate to evidence, ethics and integrity.

Freedom of speech is also limited by laws relating to defamation, racial and other forms of discrimination. University administrators and anti-Semitic protagonists alike have conflated the two concepts; one seeking refuge against their responsibilities on false grounds and the other seeking free licence on our campuses to spread anti-Semitism and hatred.

We also took a range of other important policies to the election, including an antisemitism taskforce, a security package for Jewish schools, some support under Crime Stoppers and, of course, our commitment to rebuild the Adass Israel Synagogue. Our message is very simple: the coalition stands with Jewish Australians every step of the way.

So I would hope and trust that this second reading amendment will get the support of the Senate, because it is just not good enough that we don't have a code after what we have seen on university campuses—a true antisemitism crisis against students and against staff. Much more needs to be done, and for this prime minister to stand up with the antisemitism envoy and then not commit to do anything, I say, is an absolute disgrace.

Across this country, students walk through the gates of our universities with a sense of hope—hope for the opportunity to study, hope for knowledge and hope for the freedom necessary to create the context in which you can learn and grow. But, sadly, for far too many, especially women and gender-diverse people, that sense of opportunity is undermined by fear—fear of harassment, fear of violence and fear that, if they do speak out, they will not be believed or supported.

We now know from years of evidence that gender based violence, particularly sexual harassment and sexual violence, continues to occur at alarming, unbelievable and unacceptable rates in Australia's higher education sector. It's happening in lecture halls, laboratories, staff offices and student accommodation; it's happening at university bars and at social functions; and it's happening behind the closed doors of institutions that for too long have failed to adequately respond to this massive problem.

We know that many students and staff simply do not know where to turn. They don't know where to seek support. They don't know how to make a formal complaint. For those who do undertake that learning and navigate the system, their experiences, by report, are too often marked by confusion, delays and disappointment. I recall asking in this place, in estimates, for an answer to a question about whether trauma informed care was available at the end of a phone for a student who rang to report a sexual assault or a sexual violence incident, and the whole concept of trauma informed response capacity wasn't even on the agenda. It's just not good enough.

For years, students have called for change. They've reported their experiences. They've published surveys. They've gone to the media. They've begged for leadership. But what they received instead was silence from those who should have known better: their leaders in their institutions.

For almost a decade under the former coalition government, the crisis that I have just described was placed in the too-hard basket. Universities were left to respond on their own, with no binding national standards, no consistent accountability and no clear consequences for that failure. The result has been devastating, not just for the individuals who've suffered harm but for the trust that Australians place in our higher education institutions, and it's a cost that shouldn't be borne by the generations who are now experiencing university. They deserve better. That is why this government is acting.

Today we are debating the Universities Accord (National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence) Bill 2025. This bill is a critical step in addressing gender based violence across our universities and our higher education providers. This particular piece of legislation is part of a broader action plan to address gender based violence in higher education. Happily, that was agreed to by all of the education ministers of the states and territories across this country, through negotiation and in accord with the leadership of Minister Clare, Labor's minister for education, on 23 February 2024.

One of the key pillars of that plan, the establishment of the National Student Ombudsman, has already come into effect, commencing on 1 February this year. The ombudsman provides students with a dedicated and independent body—independent of the university—to escalate complaints, including those relating to gender based violence, when their institutions fail them. That was an important first step in keeping students safe and ensuring that their voices are heard, particularly at a moment when they need someone to listen, to hear them, in a trauma informed way.

This bill follows that action, and it's the next step. It will establish a new standalone regulatory framework designed to reduce the incidence of gender based violence in the higher education sector. It will set the clear expectation that universities and higher education providers must take real action, not just put in draft policies, documents that sit on shelves, complying with a public reveal of care and not followed up by any action. It impels these institutions to prevent violence that is gender based. It compels them to support victims-survivors and to hold perpetrators to account. For the very first time, these expectations will be backed by enforceable standards and national oversight.

At the heart of this legislation is the creation of a new higher education code to prevent and respond to gender based violence, simply referred to as the national code. The code will set out best practice standards that all higher education providers must meet. It will embed prevention at the core of institutional culture, ensuring that the factors driving gender based violence are actually understood, then addressed and continuously acted upon. It will require institutions to deliver evidence based education and training, to conduct gender impact assessments and to develop meaningful gender equality action plans. Crucially, the code will ensure that all responses to gender based violence are trauma informed and victim centred, delivered by staff who have the necessary training and the expertise to respond appropriately and not inflame the wounds that are already being experienced by the reporters.

The message is very clear: the responsibility for change in our university sector to prevent and respond to gender based violence sits at the very top of those institutions. It's not something to palm off to someone down the food chain, to some lower-level person in the organisation, and have the distance of: 'It wasn't my fault. It wasn't my responsibility.' This puts the leaders right in the middle of the response to gender based violence. It demands that they understand what's happening. It demands that they undertake the necessary training to inform themselves of what an authentically trauma based response is and to maintain their awareness of progress with regard to that. Vice-chancellors and chief executives will be personally accountable for their institution's compliance with the national code. The governing bodies of our universities will be required to receive regular reports on incident data and institutional responses to that reality. So the days for the blind spots are over. There is no more plausible deniability for the leaders of these august institutions that see people in a position where their rights have been violated, where the trauma they experience impacts them and where they had a right to believe that they could be safe on their learning journey—or even on their teaching journey.

This legislation also establishes a new specialist unit within the Department of Education to monitor and enforce compliance with the code. I note the contributions of some before me who take issue with this despite declaring bipartisan support, and I just bemoan the fact that the necessary push to create some difference or individual relevance for senators here does not serve the people that this legislation is directed towards. If we're on a unity ticket on this, let the speeches sound like that. Let Australian people have the confidence that there is genuine unity in this place. No cute debating points of difference—if you're on board, be on board, because this sector needs unity after years and years of neglect. This particular unit will be equipped with strong powers to support its role, and it will have enough people to do the job, people who will be serving the public of Australia in doing their job, where there has previously been a blind spot. Quibbling about the appropriateness of that seems entirely inappropriate to me.

The unit will have the authority to investigate concerns, to issue compliance notices, to pursue civil penalties and to provide enforceable undertakings where providers fail to meet their obligations. It'll also support institutions to get this right through clear guidance, education and ongoing advice. And, because accountability demands transparency, the bill enables a secretary of the department to publicly disclose a provider's compliance record. No more hiding in the shadows. This is about a dose of sunlight into a sector that should have fixed its own problems a long, long time ago and not left a trail of people subject to gender based violence in our institutions of higher learning.

Annual reports on the unit operations will be tabled in both houses of parliament. The secretary will also be empowered to share information with other regulatory bodies, ensuring a coordinated response across government. The legislation is not being introduced in isolation. As I said, it forms part of the package alongside the Universities Accord (National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2025. That consequential bill makes necessary amendments to the Higher Education Support Act 2003, ensuring that compliance with the national code becomes a formal quality and accountability requirement for all approved higher education providers.

Together, this collection of bills sends a very clear message: the era of silence, inaction and self-regulation is over. That was a failed experiment in trust. We're placing our trust in this legislation to change those entrenched, resistant behaviours where asymmetry of power has led to the festering of negative outcomes for young people, particularly young women, in our higher education institutional settings. This government will not accept a system where students are told to endure, to stay quiet or to seek help elsewhere. We will not tolerate a culture where the prestige of the university or the higher education institute is prioritised over the safety of the very students that they are set up to serve. Because every student—every single one of them, in all their glorious diversity—has the right to study, work and live free from violence, free from discrimination, free from fear and free from sexual violence.

The Universities Accord (National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence) Bill is a vital step forward, but we know that legislation alone, while it leads public debate and strengthens enforcement, is not alone able to bring about the change that we need. It is not a panacea. What we're talking about here today is not just rules and regulations. We're talking about ethical disposition. We're talking about cultural practices. We're talking about change to longstanding practices where the victims were those who were subject to gender based violence. We are talking about leadership and about institutions choosing to listen, to believe and to act. This is about backing survivors who've spoken up—good on you. To every single one of you: thank you for what you've brought to the conversation, and I am so sorry for your lived experience.

That knowledge has come at great personal cost to too many Australians, and we want to make sure that their courage is not in vain. This is about a government that takes responsibility, that takes action and that honours the commitments it gave to the Australian people at the last election.

I rise to speak on 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. As has been articulated by my colleague Senator Duniam, the opposition supports these bills and the intent of these bills. Fundamentally, these bills are about protecting the rights and dignity of university students, particularly the right to attend university and pursue higher education free from gender based violence.

In her speech to the National Press Club, the Leader of the Opposition, Sussan Ley, made it clear that she considers the current situation of gender based violence and domestic violence to be our nation's greatest shame, and I agree with her. It is a shame. It is a shame on our nation and it requires concerted action, not just in terms of crisis support and management, but also in terms of early intervention and prevention.

These bills establish a new standalone regulatory framework to reduce the incidence of sexual assault and sexual harassment on our campuses and to hold higher education providers to account to ensure that they provide a safe place for their students to study.

The incidence of sexual assault and harassment on university campuses was highlighted in University Australia's National Student Safety Survey in 2021. This survey found that one in 20 students had been sexually assaulted since they started university and one in six had been sexually harassed. Let me repeat that so we actually understand how many people that is—how many young people who had embarked on the beginning of what should have been an exciting tertiary education journey and what they had been faced with instead. One in 20 students had been sexually assaulted since they started university and one in six had been sexually harassed. Around one in two students who experienced sexual assault and sexual harassment knew nothing or very little about the avenues available to them for support or about any formal reporting process. That is unacceptable.

The coalition strongly supports the Universities Accord (National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence) Bill and its purpose, as I have outlined, in establishing a national code to prevent and respond to gender based violence in our universities and in higher education. We affirm that everyone on a university campus—students, staff and residents—have the right to be safe as they work and as they learn.

This bill is necessary because the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, TEQSA, has failed to hold universities accountable in relation to this massive problem. TEQSA has existing powers to highlight university failures, but it did not act, putting at risk students and staff at universities. And the minister did not strengthen TEQSA's powers or hold that regulator to account.

This bill will establish a specialist unit within the Department of Education to act as the new regulator. We have concerns about placing regulatory responsibility within the Department of Education rather than strengthening the independent regulator, and we note that embedding this function within the department risks politicising regulation and potentially undermining confidence in impartial enforcement. However, we are absolutely committed to supporting new initiatives in the higher education sector that aim to prevent and respond more effectively to the pervasive issue of gender based violence on our campuses.

We acknowledge the work of advocates, like Fair Agenda, End Rape on Campus and the STOP Campaign, to improve the safety of students and staff on campuses. However, more action needs to be taken by this government to respond to the proliferation of antisemitism on university campuses, which is why we have moved a second reading amendment to the bill. 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 that Jewish students, particularly young female Jewish students, are facing at universities.

Universities should be life-transforming places. Young people and mature-age students do extraordinary work to become eligible to go to university, and there is also a great cost in attending university. Students should be safe when they are there, and we should ensure that mechanisms and frameworks are in place to ensure that they can be safe. Students should be able to go there and freely debate their ideas. They shouldn't be afraid of identifying, in respectful debate, who they are, where they come from or what they believe. We have a growing problem in this country with a culture that says, 'If you don't agree with me, I'll come out and destroy you.' That needs to end, and the first place that we need to try and stop that is on our campuses. We should be able to debate freely and respectfully without targeting each other based on our gender or our faith. There have recently been many attempts to silence and intimidate Jewish academics, Jewish students and Jewish staff, and that needs to end.

In addition to creating a code to prevent and respond to antisemitism, this amendment would make it clear that all higher education students, staff and providers—everyone on a higher education campus—have the right to be safe, and it would impose on universities a range of obligations concerning student and staff safety, which is very important given the alarming increase in antisemitic incidents on campuses—over the last 18 months in particular.

I think what we need to fundamentally accept here is that our universities have changed and that behaviour on campuses has been allowed to spiral outside of what we would consider to be okay. Young women should not feel unsafe on a university campus. They shouldn't have this conflict: 'I'm so excited I got here; I'm so excited that I did so well that I was able to achieve my goal, but, now that I'm here, I have to be afraid,' or, 'I have to be careful,' or, 'I have to be worried about whether somebody is going to attack me or target me.' As people in this place who can make a difference, we have to accept that this can never happen again, and that is why this legislation is so important. We in this place all have an obligation to address this national shame wherever it presents itself, whether it is on our campuses or elsewhere. I commend the Senate for the way in which it has engaged in the debate on this bill and I commend the bill to the Senate.

I note that this is not my first speech. I rise to speak on the Universities Accord (National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence) Bill 2025. This is the time of year when universities across the country are holding their university open days. Attending a university open day is an exciting experience for so many young people. It's a day when visitors see endless future opportunities before them. Campuses often feel like magical places on that day. There are talks, demonstrations, hands-on experiments and endless information stalls giving away biscuits, lollies and all forms of promotional material. Excitement is undoubtedly in the air as so many young people explore how to launch their future and expand their horizons. However, it is devastating that, for way too many young women, this journey can later turn into devastating physical and mental harm through sexual assault and rape.

Contrary to what some people believe, the threat of sexual assault hasn't rapidly diminished as the number of women attending university has increased. It is still a real and present danger for young women on campuses across Australia. Even at open days, you can hear this danger lurking, as older and past students say to prospective students, 'This study centre is open 24/7, but, if you're ever leaving here at night, make sure someone walks you off campus.' We know that one in six students report experiencing sexual harassment and one in 20 report sexual assault since starting university.

We also know that, far too often, complaints and reports of assault are being swept under the carpet. Victims are ignored, doubted or pressured into silence. This disgusting behaviour is often wrapped up in a veneer of virtue: 'You don't want people to talk about this. It will hurt your reputation,' 'He was drunk and didn't mean it. You don't want to ruin the rest of his life over that,' 'You know this college is a special place. We need to protect the reputation of all the students here,' and, 'He is a very good professor. He got carried away. He will apologise and we will reprimand him, but you wouldn't want him to never work again.' Or it is just blatantly dismissive: 'She didn't get the grades she wanted, so she put in a complaint,' 'She was pretty drunk herself,' 'There was a lot of touching going on at that party,' and, 'I'm sorry but there were no witnesses, so there's no proof.' And the worst excuse of all: 'It's just part of the culture.'

We know that the negative consequences of sexual harassment and sexual assault can last a lifetime. It can rob a woman of all the joys and benefits of her education, making attending university a millstone around her neck rather than a stepping stone to her future. Many young women living in on-campus residential halls have detailed incidents of sexual harassment, rape and stalking in their accommodation on campus, which, let's face it, is sexual harassment, rape and stalking in their homes. A number of those women have shared how their universities did not take them seriously.

It is important that we hear these voices of lived experience in this place. It is important we bring this horror out into the light. So I would like to read some of the quotes from some of the responses to the #IDeserveSafety survey detailed in the STOP Campaign's submission to the Australian Universities Accord panel in September 2023. So many respondents told the survey about their personal and horrendous experiences, like respondent No. 44:

I experienced assault as a young adolescent. I was so excited to leave my home town and attend university, live on campus and make friends. It was one of the worst experiences of my life—and that is saying something. The culture on campus was indisputably unsafe and toxic.

This doesn't just happen behind closed doors. Women report regular and repeated sexual harassment and assault in public settings. Respondent No. 22 spoke of the regular assault she experienced whilst playing sport:

I was grabbed on the arse multiple times by another residential hall's player whilst playing AFL, and goaded with "I bet you like that" …

Respondent No. 51 shared this horrible story of assault occurring in front of people:

Last year, I went to my friend's apartment to get ready for the student association's start of semester party. Here, I met her roommates, including a new student who had just started his degree. A man, who after hearing us talking about my past sexual assault, chose to drug and repeatedly sexually assault me based on what he'd just heard. I was sexually assaulted at the university bar, which was witnessed. I was sexually assaulted at another location, also witnessed. I was then raped in the public bathroom at the university residence, and the nightmare only ended when security staff asked for the door to be opened.

In case some people think we've moved past the age of 'She was asking for it,' let me quote from the experience of young women assaulted at university while they were drunk. Respondent No. 25 said:

I was so drunk I couldn't walk when it happened, but both of my perpetrators carried me back to one of their residences, where I was later assaulted by them both. I was confused and scared and felt like it was somehow my fault. It took me almost six months to come to terms with the fact that I had been assaulted.

Respondent No. 18 said:

It took me a long time to see this—

their experience—

as an assault because attitudes around drunk sex are generally that [non-consensual drunk sex] is acceptable.

I want to be clear—there are many stories like this, stories of what should be the best days of your youth turning into the worst. What makes it even worse is the betrayal by some university staff when complaints are downplayed or ignored. Respondent No. 48 said:

… countless senior staff members would regularly blame alcohol for assault and shame victim-survivors for their 'behaviour' that 'caused' them to be raped … a senior executive of the the university told 100 students in a session at our hall that students can be expect to be raped if they drink, and another Head of Hall would actively blame students who disclosed they were raped if they had had any alcohol when it happened … it reinforced harmful rape myths and stereotypes that alcohol rapes people… when in actual fact people rape people.

Respondent No. 35 said that, in response to an act of violence by another student, they immediately went for support. They said:

They turned us away and told us we would ruin her life if we went to the police. We received no support and had to figure this out ourselves, as international students in a foreign country … I ended up moving to another city because … I also wanted to get away from that educational institution who was only focused on protecting the offender to avoid bad PR.

And these students are being trained to work as professionals. Respondent 8 said:

… the university's decision to impose a mere six-month suspension for rape has left me feeling betrayed and unprotected.

Most distressing is the fact that, upon his return, he was permitted to engage in clinical placements at a hospital, working with vulnerable individuals.

And, just in case anyone thinks these are largely isolated incidents, listen to the words of respondent 3:

Almost every single woman in my life has experienced some form of sexual violence at university. A member of my family was sexually assaulted in her first year of university by someone at her college. My good friend was sexually assaulted in our first year by one of our friends … I have been harassed, grabbed and groped by men at college parties and out dancing with my university friends. I have been followed down the road to my university college at night. I have friends who have experienced sexual violence but do not recognise it as such—either because they didn't know how to characterise what has happened to them, or because they were gaslit by people around them to play it down or to let it go.

And the impact of this violence is significant. Respondents to that same survey reported the devastating consequences for them: nervous breakdowns, dropping out, failing subjects, withdrawing socially, panic attacks, PTSD, depression, losing friends, living in fear and institutional mistrust. That is why this bill is so important. This bill will force universities across Australia to take rape, sexual assault and gender based violence on campus and in residential colleges seriously.

This bill is a key measure of the Action Plan Addressing Gender-based Violence in Higher Education, which was agreed to by all Australian education ministers on 23 February 2024. Already the National Student Ombudsman, another key measure of the action plan, has been established, and it commenced operations on 1 February this year. The ombudsman gives students a place to escalate complaints about the actions or inactions of their university, including gender based violence complaints. No longer will there be nowhere to go when the university hierarchy turns a blind eye. The ombudsman is an independent body that can investigate how complaints were handled.

This bill is the next step and is about addressing the systemic approach by universities to gender based violence. This bill allows for the Minister for Education to create a national code that requires universities to address both the violence and the factors that contribute to it. They will be required to actively work to change both systems and culture in relation to violence against women on campus. Systems will need to be put in place to educate students and staff as well as listen to victim complainants and deal with complaints in a trauma informed way.

The code requires vice-chancellors and CEOs to make a whole-of-organisation plan and to report to their governing bodies every six months on the actions they are taking to implement it. Every institution must implement trauma informed complaint handling responses and train staff on how to respond to disclosures. Action plans are required to change culture and processes, as is regular reporting of incident data. And efforts to prevent and respond to gender based violence are being mandated.

There will also be a new specialist unit in the Department of Education to monitor and enforce the national code. This unit will be able to help universities meet their obligations. There will be annual reporting on the unit's operations, and this will be tabled in both houses of parliament. Critically, as well, the secretary will be able to report on whether universities are complying with the code. We know that the power to name and shame is a powerful motivator for compliance, and I hope that the very existence of the code will mean that it never has to be used.

Gender based violence is a scourge on our society and is significantly costing our country in every possible way. It costs us in mental health and wellbeing; it costs us in health and social services; it costs us in policing and justice; it costs us in productivity and talent; and, most importantly, it is stealing the positive futures of our young women. I am proud that this government has listened to the experience of so many young women and is acting on gender based violence in higher education.

I rise to speak on 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.

While the coalition does have some concerns about giving regulatory authority to the Department of Education, rather than strengthening the independent regulator, we are supportive of this bill. Sexual assault and sexual harassment are unacceptable in any context, and the statistics reported in Universities Australia's 2021 National student safety survey around incidents on university campuses are incredibly concerning. Every student deserves to feel safe when they go to their place of education. That is why the coalition supports the purpose of this bill—to establish a national code to prevent and respond to gender based violence.

But, in addition to our support of this bill, the coalition also seeks an important amendment—to introduce a national higher education code to prevent and respond to antisemitism. As I mentioned, the coalition believes that everyone on university campuses should feel safe, but we know that, unacceptably, that is not the case for many Jewish Australians. The fact is that Jewish Australians do not feel safe—not in their places of education and, more broadly, not within our society.

I went to Israel following the attacks of 7 October. I've been to the places where murder and harrowing atrocities were committed. I've seen the footage and images of things that no-one should ever have to see or experience—places and scenes that are burned in my mind. I saw the outworking of hatred which has no place in a democratic society.

Israel is a long way from Australia, yet Jewish Australians right here are facing those same hateful attitudes. That, as I have said many times in this chamber, is an indictment on the Albanese government. I have long pointed to the immediate aftermath of the October 7 attacks and the lack of action taken by the Prime Minister. When we saw those protests and chants being shouted on the steps of the Sydney Opera House in the days after those attacks, the Prime Minister did not step up and show the kind of leadership that Jewish Australians needed. Since then, we have only seen things get worse.

The crisis of antisemitism which now exists in Australia is just that: it's a crisis. Yet we're seeing that young people under the age of 35 simply don't recognise the nature of this crisis. We're hearing that they do not understand the severity of antisemitism and they are not treating it properly. Quite frankly, it is no wonder, because, when we look at the way antisemitism has been treated by our very own prime minister, especially the way he has failed to deal appropriately with antisemitism on university campuses, it makes perfect sense that young people don't think there is a crisis.

Students at universities should be able to focus on getting an education and setting themselves up for a life of success and opportunity. Universities should be places where ideas can be freely debated and discussed. But the rampant nature of antisemitism has seen those ideas being stifled, particularly the ideas of Jewish academics, staff and students. It is an appalling development but, again, not surprising under Anthony Albanese's Labor government. They have failed to ensure that Jewish Australians, whether they be academics, staff or students, are able to engage safely and freely within our universities.

This is why the coalition sees the amendment proposed today as being of the utmost importance. We must do more. We must do better for everybody. The proposed national higher education code to prevent and respond to antisemitism is absolutely crucial if we are to have any hope of combating antisemitism properly. The proposed code will do a number of things. It 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 impose a range of obligations on universities concerning student and staff safety. Those obligations are incredibly important in light of the alarming increase in antisemitic incidents on university campuses since the October 7 attacks. Finally, it would require higher education providers to comply with recommendations of the National Student Ombudsman concerning the national higher education code to prevent and respond to antisemitism.

The coalition is absolutely committed to the protection and safety of Jewish Australians, which is why we moved this amendment yesterday and why we moved a similar amendment when this legislation was before the House of Representatives earlier this year. Since the legislation was before the House earlier this year, the government's own Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Jillian Segal AO, has prepared a report which highlights the fact that antisemitism has been ingrained and normalised in academia and cultural spaces. The special envoy has recommended a number of measures which this Albanese Labor government must take seriously. With respect to universities, the special envoy has offered to work with government to terminate or withdraw funding from those universities where antisemitic conduct is occurring. That is the kind of action that we need to see being backed by the Prime Minister—the kind of action which will actually have an impact and actually hurt those who fail to comply, and the kind of action that is more than empty words but has real consequences. The special envoy has also recommended that, if significant problems remain in universities at the start of the 2026 academic year, there should be a dedicated judicial inquiry.

Thank you, Senator. The time has come for us to proceed to two-minute statements.

We need immediate action to protect the integrity of female sport. This is not about exclusion; it's about preserving the right to compete safely and to succeed on merit. We are increasingly seeing biological males participating in women's and girls' competitions. This undermines decades of progress in women's rights and threatens the basic fairness that sporting categories exist to uphold. Education and sporting authorities must now develop nationally consistent sex based guidelines that reflect biological reality, not ideological fashion. We tell our daughters that, if they train and work hard, they can achieve their dreams. But that promise rings hollow if they are asked to compete against individuals with innate physical advantages. We must do more to protect female athletes from being sidelined not only on the field but in their aspirations. It would be a shame to see young girls walking away from sport not because they lack ability but because they no longer see a level playing field. This isn't a fringe concern. This is about safety, fairness and dignity. Real inclusion doesn't mean sacrificing the rights of many for the sake of a few. Let everyone play, but maintain female-only categories in competitive sport. That's how we ensure equality of opportunity.

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has found that biological sex matters in sport and that single-sex categories are lawful and legitimate. Australia should follow Britain's lead and bring clarity and confidence to our own framework. For decades, we've had male and female divisions, just as we've had age and weight classes, for a reason: to keep competition safe and fair. Let me be clear—transgender students deserve compassion and support, but gender identity cannot override the facts of biology when it comes to— (Time expired)

It's a privilege to rise today to speak about my friend Louise Bilato, who recently stepped down as the executive officer of the Northern Territory Road Transport Association. I first met Louise around eight years ago after Bill Shorten appointed me shadow assistant minister for road safety. I was adamant about engaging with the leaders of transport associations around the country and met Louise in that capacity.

What became very clear to me early on was Louise's passion for road safety and, equally, the viability of the road transport industry. Louise attended numerous roundtables and meetings of road transport and road safety advocates, and Louise always spoke so passionately about the need to engage in conversation so that better outcomes could be delivered for truck drivers, road transport operators and general road users. While speaking for an interview in Outback Mag in 2020, Louise said the following about the job:

The job is very much about driver safety and welfare, supporting industry to be the best possible version of itself, and working closely with governments and other relevant agencies to identify ways to do things better.

She also said:

There's a lot of listening, lobbying, educating, negotiating and sharing of information. An important task is to articulate critical issues on the national stage so that remote Australia's voice isn't drowned out by big city issues.

This has been my experience of Louise; she's never afraid to speak her mind and say what needs to be said in the interests of our great industry.

Here are some words from another friend, Cam Dumesny from the Western Roads Federation:

On behalf of the Western Australian transport industry and the Australian transport industry more generally, I pay tribute to the outstanding contributions Louise has made to our industry especially for Remote and Northern Australia.

I have had the privilege of meeting a number of the Bilato family. What a magnificent family. All the strength to them.

Every week in Australia, women and children suffer at the hands of male partners and former partners. Already this year, at least 23 women have been murdered due to family and domestic violence. It was devastating this week to read that there's been a surge in domestic and family violence in my home state of Queensland. Women's Legal Service Queensland answered more than 15,700 calls for help in the 2024-25 financial year, and that's a 10 per cent increase on the previous year. We've also heard that Women's Legal Service, nationally, are turning away 52,000 people each year because they don't have the funding they need to keep up with demand.

The Albanese government's funding continues to fall short of the $1 billion per year that the women's safety sector says they need to ensure that everyone who seeks help can get it. Current Commonwealth funding is just above three-quarters of what the sector says is needed to meet demand, and that figure's already out of date, and we know demand has increased. This condemns one-in-four to one-in-five women to being turned away to go back to violence. We are a wealthy country; that is not acceptable.

It will take systemic action to stop violence against women—tackling the root causes and transforming harmful social norms—but it will also require adequate funding of the organisations that do the hard work on the front lines of this epidemic. Around 95 per cent of all victims of violence, including sexual violence—irrespective of their gender—experience violence from a male perpetrator, so engaging all men and boys is imperative to transforming our culture of gendered violence. Prevention must be prioritised to stop women being killed by men's violence and to dismantle our persistent rape culture.

I'm proud that the Greens have got a comprehensive policy package to address this national crisis, but we need the government to come to the table with the funding required to tackle this national crisis.

Australia once rode on the sheep's back. That was an expression that was so very true for so many regional and rural parts of our great country. Well do I remember the stories of a single bale of wool being sold and that farmer going out and purchasing a new vehicle from the proceeds of that single bale. But, under this Labor government, we have seen the undercutting and the destruction of this once great Australian industry. Just in the last few years—since this government came to power—the value of Australian wool exports has plummeted from $3½ billion. It is currently on a trajectory to hit $2 billion next year. That is a decline of almost 40 per cent in the time of this Labor government. In attacking this industry and in closing down a key part of the sheep industry, this Labor government has undermined regional communities right across this state.

In particular, one area that has been completely forgotten and ignored by this government is the wool industry. Yes, there's a pittance for the shearing industry, but the wool industry itself and those people who work in the supply chain of the wool industry have been completely ignored. One particular wool buyer I was speaking to saw a 30 per cent decline in his income in the last year alone. Wool supplies are drying up as this Labor government decimates and destroys confidence in the great merino sheep industry of Australia. It's a disgrace, and I'll never stop fighting for our great sheep industry. (Time expired)

Australia is widely recognised as a global leader in sustainable forest management. A recent report from ABARES confirms that Australia's native forestry sector is sustainable and plays a key role in climate change mitigation. The report shows that just 0.05 per cent, or around 65,000 hectares, of our native forests are sustainably harvested each year to produce timber and wood fibre products. By law, all public native forests harvested for timber must be regenerated. This ensures that Australia has a sovereign supply of essential timber products—like housing frames, flooring, decking, furniture, packaging and paper—all while maintaining biodiversity and supporting climate goals. This is particularly timely as last Sunday, 27 July, marked National Tree Day here in Australia.

This month, the Albanese government released the Timber Fibre Strategy, which sets out a pathway for strengthening the entire supply chain, from processing to manufacturing. It sets out six priority areas and 128 actions aimed at building a stronger, more sustainable forest industry—one that supports Australia's housing needs, climate targets and, importantly, local jobs. In addition to the strategy, the Albanese government is investing $300 million in the forestry industry, including $100 million for research and innovation, $100 million to improve the wood-processing sector, $73 million to expand plantations and $10 million to train more workers. With Senator Cadell as my co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Forestry, Timber and Paper Products, I look forward to doing the hard work this term in making sure we continue to support this important sector. (Time expired)

Last week, administrators Deloitte lodged their report into the former owners of Brindabella Christian College. I thank the many people from the Brindabella Christian College community for their bravery in coming forward to my office, some of them speaking publicly, about the goings-on at the school.

The Deloitte report confirms a litany of alleged breaches of the Corporations Act. We knew things were bad; this report exposes just how bad things were. The administrators found that the directors put their own financial interests before the college's. Between 2021 and 2024, about $30,000 was donated to the Liberal Party on a company credit card held by one of the directors. This is despite the fact that they are a registered charity and are prohibited from supporting political parties.

They owed creditors, including staff, parents and the ATO, $12.2 million, despite getting more than $10 million of Commonwealth money in just one year—money that should have gone towards the education of young people. The company credit card was used to pay for hotel accommodation and Uber Eats takeaway food purchases. Directors travelled to the United States to buy a hugely expensive robot dog, at a cost of more than $460,000, at a time when they were already trading while insolvent. The administrators found that the directors attempted to reclaim property in the days before administrators came in and could be criminally prosecuted for their offences. I hope the authorities will now prosecute them to the full letter of the law.

The Brindabella Christian College school community was put through years of hardship. What struck me the most was the absolute culture of fear of reprisals. Again, I thank the good people in the school community who have stepped up and seen a huge change to their college.

I congratulate the Majha Youth Club Brisbane for organising another outstanding sports carnival. Thank you to all the participants and the many members of Queensland's wonderful Punjabi community who gave their support. It was really heartwarming to see three generations of the same family cheering on the participants. It was also heartwarming to watch the children give an oath of sportsmanship where they pledged to uphold the rules, respect each other and honour their elders. These are children being raised with the very, very best of values.

Thank you to President Jatinder Singh and his team of volunteers for their work. Thank you to the sponsors, and thank you for providing me with the opportunity to start a few races, even though my lack of timing caused a few false starts.

I congratulate all members of the Loving Care Group of the Buddha's Light International Association for another successful fundraising dinner and another successful year of helping those in need. Since its formation in 2005, the Loving Care Group has donated more than $2 million through 219 donations to organisations doing wonderful work in our community. This includes charities providing emergency and disaster relief, medical research, and education.

I commend Mrs Emily Wang, the Loving Care Group leader for the year, for her passion and commitment to the cause. I give my heartfelt thanks to committee director and advisor Madam Yuan Fu for her outstanding leadership over so many years. The generosity of spirit of Madam Yuan Fu is an inspiration for all Australians. The Queensland Loving Care Group is a great blessing for our beautiful country.

It is with immense pride that I can rise to say today that the Albanese government is delivering on our commitment to Queensland families. The Albanese government's latest tranche of improvements to paid parental leave conditions came into effect on 1 July 2025—just a few short weeks ago. That means around 180,000 families a year will benefit from an additional two weeks paid parental leave, boosting the total to 24 weeks of paid leave. This will increase to 26 weeks, or roughly six months, of leave by 1 July next year. For the first time ever, superannuation will be paid on the government's paid parental leave. Paid parental leave was the only form of paid leave that didn't have super paid on it, but the Albanese government has fixed this.

I remind everyone in this place that it was a Labor government, the Gillard government, that introduced paid parental leave in this country. We know that, on average, women retire with 24 per cent less super than men due to career breaks for caregiving. In addition to increasing leave to 24 weeks, we will increase the leave time that parents can take off together to four weeks, to support each other in those critical early days of welcoming a newborn.

We know that time at home supports better child development outcomes, emotional security and early cognitive stimulation. This structural reform isn't just an investment in Australian families; it's an investment in Australia's future health, our wellbeing, our happiness and our economic productivity. Critically, the scheme remains gender neutral and encourages parents to share care, fostering greater equality at home and reducing the traditional care burden for women.

In the Albanese government, Australians have a modern parliament legislating for a modern Australia. As a new mum of a young son, I couldn't be more proud of that.

If you've ever wondered what you'd be doing at the start of a collapse of global industrial civilisation, it's what you're doing right now. Climate breakdown and biodiversity collapse are upon us.

How is this parliament responding? Well, the opposition is mired in a debate. They're mired in climate denial, discussing whether they should abandon their net zero emissions commitment. The government, while preening its climate credentials, has an emissions reduction target that is pathetic in ambition, bears no relationship to science and is never even going to be met. It's approving new coal and gas mines hand over fist, clear-felling native forest as fast as it can and continuing to use public funds to encourage corporations to burn fossil fuels. Both the government and the opposition passed draconian laws to imprison people who seek to peacefully defend nature and save the climate.

The solutions are so, so simple: stop approving new coal and gas mines, transition rapidly to renewables, stop clear-felling and burning our native forests, electrify our transport systems, end public subsidies for burning fossil fuels and end the government sanctioned destruction of nature—that we are not doing these things speaks to an abject failure of our political system and of all of us. If the politics can't end the existential threat, then more and more people will look for another way. The cracks in the social contract that binds us will continue to widen. Colleagues, the time for urgent action is now. If we're not going to act now, then when will we ever act? If we're not going to act, the price of our collective failure does not bear thinking about.

One of the things I have spent a bit of time in recent years talking about is local history in Tasmania. It's one of those things that some might describe me as nerdy for liking, but it is a passion—my colleagues agree with that assessment. The reason I raise it is that there is a certain individual in Tasmania who's done a great amount of work in recent times to bring to life some local history that, of course, has for many, I think, been forgotten. I'm talking about a fellow by the name of Rob Parsons, who's become quite a bit of a YouTube hit for exposing and exploring some of Tasmania's forgotten history, particularly on the west coast. I was touched to see a video that Mr Parsons put together recently about a Chinese prospector who helped discover the great goldfields in western Tasmania, around Brown Plains—just near Corinna, past Waratah—and how racism back at that point in time meant that Mr John Ah Choo, the Chinese prospector, was forgotten. He had one request, which was to be buried as an Englishman.

This Mr Parsons went off into the wilderness to try and locate Mr Ah Choo's grave. He went to the lengths of doing research to try and locate where he was buried, to tell the story of this individual and of the community he was a part of, and, ultimately—as a wonderful act of recognition of some of our prospectors who have long been forgotten in Tasmania's history—he created a huon pine headstone that would be erected in Mr Ah Choo's memory.

So I say to Mr Rob Parsons of north-west Tasmania: thank you for bringing to life such a unique, niche part of our history that many would drive past or have forgotten about. It's an important part of the story we have as a state. I'm proud that Tasmanians are taking time and an interest and are putting research into trying to interpret some of the things that, as I said, have been forgotten to time. Well done to him.

'They promised you safe and effective; instead, they delivered sudden and unexpected.' So reads the billboard erected by NZDSOS—a group of 9,000 New Zealand doctors, health professionals and academics. There are 9,000 of them; courage is contagious. Their byline is, 'It's time to remove the government from the consultation room.'

For many years, I've spoken about the primacy of the doctor-patient relationship. I've spoken against the insidious influence of health bureaucrats creeping into that relationship—influence exerted to benefit the pharmaceutical industry over the interests of everyday Australian patients. I've spoken about the abuse of power and regulatory capture of Ahpra and health regulators. In recent months, I have joined the fight against the Queensland health department's decision to destroy biological samples taken from 10,000 volunteers and used to test the safety and efficacy of COVID injectables. A bad decision that, I'm happy to say, has been overturned. Thank you, Premier Crisafulli from Queensland. I always say 'injectables' because these dangerous, killer products are not vaccines; they're a biological experiment which failed. Tens of thousands of people died, and many more live with adverse reactions, which is bureaucrat-speak for them having their health and lives destroyed.

One Nation will close the Therapeutic Goods Administration and its related crony committees, filled as they are with personnel that pharmaceutical companies employed, funded, educated and now seek to regulate. Australians were healthier and safer when the health department made these decisions with the benefit of close parliamentary scrutiny. We must go back to that system. One Nation is preparing legislation to prevent the revolving door between parliament, the Public Service and private industry, so a person cannot go from regulating big pharma to working for big pharma. We continue to call for a royal commission into our COVID response. We must understand how the disproportionate, homicidal response to a bad flu killed many tens of thousands of people and maimed many more. Justice must be served or more people will die. (Time expired)

Scott Reef is a vibrant ocean sanctuary off the coast of my home state of WA. This reef is home to dolphins, green turtles and rays, some species found nowhere else in the world. Devastatingly, this majestic reef is under threat from Woodside. Our ocean is facing so many threats: climate change, deep sea mining and fossil fuel drilling. Without protection, the ocean and the vibrant life it supports face catastrophic collapse. We need urgent action to protect our oceans. We need this government to stop Woodside pillaging Scott Reef. Woodside intends to drill up to 57 gas wells around the reef. The science is known. Woodside's project is an unacceptable threat to our marine ecosystem. If the government allows Woodside to proceed, the devastation will be irreversible. Woodside's plan must not go ahead.

I know the WA government is beholden to the gas industry. Look at their donations records; look at their policy settings. The North West Shelf is Australia's largest gas export facility, yet Western Australians are getting next to nothing. This project will see huge amounts of gas given away royalty free—an estimated $215 billion of gas. They're not paying us for the gas they're exporting, and they're driving up the cost of domestic gas. It is a stitch-up. It is a rip-off. It is not too late. The government has the opportunity to save Scott Reef. We must ratify the Global Oceans Treaty and establish a network of high seas ocean sanctuaries. Save Scott Reef.

My condolences to the families of Kumanjayi Walker and the Warlpiri community. I acknowledge the unceded sovereignty and independence of the Warlpiri nation. May Kumanjayi rest in power.

In 2019, a racist cop shot and killed 19-year-old Kumanjayi Walker in his grandmother's home. The officer was found not guilty of murder by a jury with no Aboriginal representation. This month, the coroner's report confirmed what we know: racism kills, and police are a racist institution. The report was delayed after NT police killed Kumanjayi Walker's cousin, Kumanjayi White. The coroner found racism is normalised and rewarded in the Northern Territory police and complaints by First Peoples are routinely ignored.

The Albanese government has just spent over $200 million to fund the racist police in the Northern Territory. The royal commission warned that more police only lead to more deaths. Police are an outdated and overused policy response. We need self-determined first responses grounded in care and community.

The Walker family was deeply distressed that the report's recommendations had no accountability for racist cops. The Northern Territory chief minister was angered by the coroner's findings and is now moving to defund the entire Northern Territory coronial system. This is a full-blown attack on truth and accountability for every family who has lost someone, and it should not be allowed. The Prime Minister and Minister McCarthy must use all their powers to pull this extremist Northern Territory government into line before any more people are killed. (Time expired)

Imagine a world where Apple get to decide the resources for their biggest competitors, Samsung, Google and Microsoft—how many staff they have, how much money they get and what materials they have access to. Apple would make sure that they get the best deal out of that and that Samsung, Google and Microsoft get a pretty rough deal so they can't compete on the same level as Apple anymore.

That's what's happening here in parliament. The Prime Minister gets to decides how many staff everyone gets. He gets to decide for himself, the opposition and Independents. Eighteen months ago I warned this power could be used for political gain. Fresh off an election, we've seen the Prime Minister treating staff resources like a bag of lollies in the playground. Take a look at the crossbench: some senators get two lollies; some senators even get three. If you've been a bit difficult to work with you only get one lolly, and Senator Payman, who famously quit the Labor Party, gets none. If that's not a blatant misuse of this power, I don't know what is. I raised my concerns in this chamber. Labor just said, 'This is how things have always been done.' It's like when a kid realises they're in trouble and quickly goes, 'It wasn't my fault.'

This power to set staffing numbers needs to sit with an independent body. That way, there are no political agendas involved. Everyone gets the staff they need to do their job for the people they represent. We don't trust politicians to set their own pay; that's why we have the Remuneration Tribunal. So why wouldn't they do staffing allocations, too?

For a party that's all about working together, Labor sure has a strange way of showing it. The Prime Minister wants to bring decency back to politics. Fixing this tired old rule that's stopping politicians from doing the job they're elected to do would be a really great start.

The Albanese Labor government believes you should be able to afford the medicine you need without worrying about the cost. That's why, from January, Australians won't pay more than $25 for their PBS scripts. This week, our government is introducing new laws to make that happen. The last time medicines were $25 was in 2004. I've seen some examples given by other senators about what was happening. For North Queenslanders, that means Travis Norton was the captain of the North Queensland Cowboys, who were still playing at Dairy Farmers Stadium.

A lot has changed since 2004 but Labor's commitment to Medicare never will. When we talk about cheaper medicines, we're not talking about numbers on a page; we're talking about parents being able to fill their child's prescription without cutting back on groceries. This is all about fairness and delivering on our commitment to tackle the cost of living. The Albanese Labor government has already cut the cost of medicines once, and now we're doing it again. When we did attempt to cut the cost of those medicines in the last term, those opposite voted against cheaper medicines six times. Those opposite voted against delivering cost-of-living relief when Australians needed it the most. Well, Labor created Medicare, we'll always protect it and now we are strengthening it.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. During the election campaign, the Prime Minister told Australians:

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

Minister, can you confirm that all Australians will only need their Medicare card to see a GP, or did the Prime Minister mislead the voters?

I thank Senator Ruston for her question on Medicare, one of Australia's great achievements as a nation and, importantly for us on this side of the chamber, one of the great Labor achievements for our country. That is why Labor built Medicare, and that is why the Albanese Labor government has gone about strengthening Medicare. We have made the single largest investment in Medicare since its creation over 40 years ago, an $8½ billion package to deliver more bulk-billing and more doctors so that Australians can see a doctor for free. Australian patients and families will save hundreds of dollars a year.

Senator Ruston, a point of order?

My question was very specific. The Prime Minister made a promise that the only thing that you would need when you went to the doctor would be your Medicare card. Could you direct the leader to be specific to that, because it appears as if the Prime Minister is misleading Australians.

Thank you, Senator Ruston. The minister is—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Just a moment, Senator Wong.

Order! Senator Ruston, withdraw that comment.

I withdraw.

Thank you.

I heard that!

Senator Watt, withdraw.

I withdraw.

He was saying it about me.

I beg your pardon. Well, that doesn't make it okay; it is still worthy of a withdrawal. Back to the point of order: the minister is being relevant, and I will continue to listen to her response.

Perhaps I should explain to Senator Ruston that actually that's what bulk-billing is about. It's about making sure that we do everything we can as a government to ensure that Australians can see a doctor for free, and the way you deliver that as a government is through bulk-billing, and that is why it does matter that we on this side of the chamber have made the single largest investment in Medicare since its creation. That is why it does matter that we on this side of the chamber have expanded bulk-billing incentives to all Australians and created an additional new incentive payment for practices that bulk-bill every patient. This will mean that nine out of 10 GP visits will be bulk-billed by 2030. So, yes, Senator, that does all matter.

Are you rising on a point of order, Senator Ruston?

Yes, on relevance. My question was very specific. The Prime Minister made a statement—

Senator Ruston, there is no need to repeat the question.

No, I wasn't, actually—

The minister has gone directly to—

Could I finish my point of order?

Not by repeating the question.

No, I wasn't going to repeat what I'd asked. I asked a very specific question about a comment by the Prime Minister and I'm seeking to have the leader respond as to whether that is actually correct and whether she stands by the comments of the Prime Minister. Are they correct?

Thank you, Senator Ruston. The minister has gone to your question directly. Minister, please continue.

I always stand by the comments of the Prime Minister—unlike some of those opposite, who appear never to stand by the commitments of their leader. Yesterday we had the amazing example of the coalition running out of the chamber so they didn't have to vote differently on the net zero motion. The whip and the frontbencher disappeared.

Opposition senators interjecting—

I know it's embarrassing. (Time expired)

I invite you, Senator Ruston, to ask your first supplementary.

On the Today Show this morning the Minister for Health, Disability and Ageing, Mark Butler, conceded that some Australians will need more than their Medicare card, stating, 'We never said that there would be 100 per cent bulk-billing.' This is at direct odds to what the Prime Minister's statement was: 'One card covers it all. Not your credit card—your Medicare card.' Who is correct, the Prime Minister or the minister?

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order across the chamber! Minister Wong?

Honourable senators interjecting—

Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Order across the chamber! I've called Senator Wong. Minister Wong?

The numbers I gave you—which are: nine out of 10 GP visits being bulk-billed by 2030—are exactly the same numbers that were provided in the campaign and formed part of the announcement. Senator Ruston, given that you encouraged Mr Dutton to sign up to the policy immediately, I assume that you also read the detail in the policy which made it clear that it was nine out of 10 visits to be bulk-billed by 2030.

Here is the question to the coalition: are they for more bulk-billing for Australians or not? One seems to discern from the question that Senator Ruston doesn't actually like the increase in the bulk-billing incentives, which are designed to ensure that nine out of 10 visits can be bulk-billed by 2030. We are a government that is proud to invest the largest investment in Medicare since its inception. It is a pity those opposite are still carping. (Time expired)

Senator Ruston, second supplementary?

Now that the health minister has conceded Australians will in many cases still need their credit card to see a GP, how does the Prime Minister justify repeatedly continuing to tell the public that all they need when they go to the doctor is their Medicare card?

The Prime Minister, every single Labor member of parliament and senator, and every single Labor member of the party support Medicare. We are supporters of Medicare. That is the difference between this side and that side. Senator Ruston, I know you want to come in here and complain that somehow the election was stolen from you because nine out of 10 doesn't mean 10 out of 10, but if we can give you just a small piece of advice, it is this: maybe instead of engaging in the culture wars and the net zero fight you have been in for nearly 15 years, you could talk about things Australians are really interested in, like Medicare?

Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Ruston?

On a point of relevance, I am just seeking to understand about Medicare as to whether the Prime Minister is going to continue to tell Australians that all they need to go and see the doctor now is their Medicare card.

I will direct Senator Wong back to the question.

We are always happy to have a debate on Medicare, Senator Ruston. I think Australians know who they can trust when it comes to Medicare and, Senator Ruston, it is not your side of politics.

My question is to the minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. This week the Albanese Labor government has continued to deliver cost-of-living relief to Australians and the agenda we took to the election. At the same time, the government is planning for the future, adding renewables to the grid and building the green economy of the future. Why is it important for the government to address climate change and provide policy certainty during the transition to a net zero economy?

I thank Senator O'Neill for the question. It is an important question, one around how government responds to the global challenge of the transition to a net zero economy—something that countries right around the world are dealing with right now. Our focus through the campaign was to focus on cost-of-living measures, whether they be Medicare, energy bill rebates, HECS debt relief and all of those areas we have invested in and will be delivering upon during this term. We also went to the election with a very clear agenda when it comes to tackling not only the challenges of climate change but also the opportunities that come with the net zero future. Over on this side of the chamber, we settled whether or not climate change was real some years ago and have been aligning our policy response to that.

Earlier in question time, Senator Cash said that they were going to get better as an opposition. There are some smart responses I could make to that, but I think Senator Canavan made that response on my behalf when he said the coalition is 'irrelevant' right now. Maybe that's a little bit harsh, Senator Canavan, on your colleagues. But this is the mob that had, in government, 22 energy policies and didn't land one of them. Remember that? They kept rethinking their energy policy. They'd take it to the party room, and it was all over. They did that 22 times in government. They didn't land one of them, and then in the last term, as opposition, they had another one: nuclear. That didn't go so well, did it? So, perhaps, there are 23 energy policies they haven't been able to land.

Yesterday, we saw them all scarper out of the chamber so that they didn't have to give a view on it. That's what we saw. This government supports the energy transition and the opportunities that come with it, including the jobs that our community— (Time expired)

Senator O'Neill, first supplementary?

Thank you so much for that answer and for explaining policy certainty. Electricity generation accounts for about one-third of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. To achieve our climate targets, we need to stay the course on the energy transition. How have the Albanese Labor government supported business and industry to seize the benefits of the transition, and how are we supporting households to do the same?

I thank Senator O'Neill for another very important question. Renewable energy is the cheapest form of power—

Not according to the CSIRO!

so we are supporting business and industry—I really did want to get you going, Matt. Thanks; I appreciate it! We are delivering our Future Made in Australia plan, which supports Australian businesses; committing $20 billion to Rewiring the Nation; and providing the certainty needed for investment in new energy through the Capacity Investment Scheme.

We can see what's happening over there: the coalition is 'irrelevant', according to Senator Canavan. There's no particular rush to land a position, and all of those opposite obviously support all the efforts that are being taken, except for the two senators that did manage to vote yesterday. We noticed it; believe me. We saw you all race out.

Your frontbencher went, your whip went, and your person in the chair didn't vote either. (Time expired)

Senator O'Neill, second supplementary?

What is the cost to the economy and to households of not taking climate change seriously?

There is a cost to not taking action on climate change, and we've seen it. Anyone who lives in any of the areas affected by, or who watched any of, the more extreme weather events that have occurred—including all the way up the New South Wales coast and into Queensland, with the flooding event—saw it.

Senator Cash pretends that yesterday's nonvote by her entire team—earlier today, Ms Ley was asked whether or not there was any directive to senators about not attending the vote for net zero yesterday. The Leader of the Opposition's response was that 'we are regularly in touch with senators and we are regularly in touch with members via the whip and via the Manager of Opposition Business'.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Yes, we saw it. Of course they were in regular contact, because you all disappeared out of the chamber.

On a point of order, President, standing order 193(1) says:

A senator shall not reflect on any vote of the Senate …

So I wonder if Senator Gallagher might actually abide by the standing orders.

Senator Duniam, I think your interpretation is very liberal—I don't mean that in the party sense—but I am going to invite the minister to come back to her ministerial responsibilities.

Post your ruling on the point of order, I would make the point that the standing order refers to a vote. In fact, we're talking about the absence of a vote.

Senator Wong, in making my ruling, I was also being quite generous. Minister Gallagher.

While we get on with the transition to a net zero economy and all the work that that entails, we'll watch you continue to vacate the space and leave the chamber and show absolutely zero leadership.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. President Trump has today indicated that he is considering increasing the base-level tariff on all countries that don't have tariff agreements with the US to between 15 and 20 per cent, which could double the 10 per cent tariff previously announced for Australia. Minister, can the Prime Minister confirm whether Australia will be subject to a 10 per cent, 15 per cent or 20 per cent tariff from the United States?

Minister Wong—

What a stupid question.

Sorry, Senator Wong, if you would just resume your seat. Senator Ruston?

I was wondering whether you might reflect on the fact that senators from the other side are referring to questions asked by the opposition as 'stupid' and whether that is parliamentary.

Order! Senator Sterle, just keep your thoughts to yourself. Minister Wong.

Well, we did see the comments of the President of the United States and we'll continue to engage. I would say the advice to date is the US position is still being determined. I would make the point, through you, President, that obviously a change to the baseline tariff wouldn't just affect Australia; it would affect all countries who are subject to the baseline tariff. As you know, we are subject to the baseline tariff, not higher tariffs as other countries are. We are confident of our competitive position, and you would have seen that this government has made a great effort to open up more markets, in terms of the China market and other markets in our region, but also the United Arab Emirates and other diversification. This is about trade which is good for the economy.

This is about the United States.

Senator Cash, I'll take the interjection. The thing is that Australians do understand that the US administration is taking a different approach on this. Australians do understand the challenges that we face—

The interjections across the chamber are disorderly. Senator Watt and Senator Cash, the Minister is answering the question. Minister.

Perhaps I'll go back to this point. It is clear that President Trump envisages a different role for the US in the world, and that includes in relation to trade, and that change is much greater than the first time he was President of the United States. I think Australians do understand, President, the challenges that we face as a consequence of that. What I would say is we can be confident of our ability to navigate these changes together. It is disappointing that the coalition have no interest in working together. It's the same negativity from the sidelines about Australia's engagement with the Trump administration. (Time expired)

Senator Cash, first supplementary?

World leaders from across the globe have secured meetings with the President, including from the Netherlands and Poland and even the Scottish First Minister. Countries within our region such as Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines have all signed trade agreements with the United States. When will Australia secure a tariff agreement with the United States, or has the relationship deteriorated so badly that there is no agreement in sight?

I think that perhaps it would be useful for Senator Cash to look—

Senator Ayres, stop baiting me.

We can make choices about how we respond, I suppose. President, I think Senator Cash might do well to look at some of the agreements that she referenced because, actually, the position Australia is in is a relatively better position than some of the ones that she has referenced. I know those facts are uncomfortable, but this really goes back to the approach the shadow foreign minister and the coalition are taking. This is a very different American administration. We can make the choice to work together, or we can make the choice to aggressively yell from the sidelines, and that is what the opposition are choosing to do.

Senator Cash, second supplementary?

The White House has set a strict date of this Friday 1 August for when a deal must be done before tariffs are set to take place. Will Australia have reached a tariff agreement with the United States by this Friday, or has the Prime Minister's inability to get a face-to-face meeting with the president now damaged Australia's national interest?

There are a few things. First, no-one has a lower reciprocal tariff than Australia—

That's not the question.

Thank you for that, but no-one has a lower reciprocal tariff than Australia. You don't like that fact, because it doesn't suit your argument.

So that's the excuse?

Senator Cash, the constant interjection is disorderly. The minister is answering the question. Minister Wong, please continue.

I'll start again. No-one has a lower reciprocal tariff than Australia, and that obviously has relevance—less politically, more economically—because the relative position of Australia is a strong position. That's the first point. The second point that I would make to you, President, is that obviously we don't agree with the approach that the Trump administration has taken on this. We think tariffs are an act of economic self-harm. We have said so publicly. We made that clear on, as it was described, liberation day and in our response to that. The Prime Minister made that clear. That remains our position. The final point I would say to Senator Cash is that this is a challenging time and it is time for some responsible behaviour from the coalition on this. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. It's time for Australia to set our 2035 climate pollution reduction targets. These aren't just numbers on a page; they're life and death—the continued existence of our Pacific neighbours, the dead marine animals washing up on Adelaide's beaches, the bushfire survivors who need to know that their rebuilt home is safe. State and territory targets combined already get us to between 66 per cent and 71 per cent reduction, as Climateworks has calculated. That means that any federal target lower than 71 per cent would be taking us backwards. Is your 2035 climate pollution target going to take us backwards, or are you going to add to the efforts of states and territories?

We are a government that has been elected and then re-elected with a commitment to take action on climate change—and we are, we have and we will. We are taking action at home domestically. We're seeking to transform one of the most emissions-intensive economies in the world to an economy that will thrive and prosper in a net zero global economy. That's the task that we are engaging in. That is not just with Minister Bowen but also the work of the Treasurer, the finance minister, Minister Ayres and many others. They are geared to ensuring not only that we act because of the imperative now; there's an economic imperative, which is that we want to be able to ensure that we can sell goods and services into a global economy which is a net zero economy. We're serious about that.

We also recognise the nature of the transition. Like the Greens political party—and you and I have had this conversation previously—we know that you don't just flick a switch, and we know that we have ambitious targets. We know there have to be more ambitious targets for 2035. Clearly, if you're going to get to 2050, you need to continue that trajectory. We'll take the advice of the authority and an appropriate, responsible target will be set by the government, as Minister Bowen and the Prime Minister have outlined.

Senator Waters, first supplementary?

Pacific leaders are in the building today advocating for a strong, science based climate target. Last week, the International Court of Justice ruled that Australia may be legally liable for the climate impacts of our massive coal and gas exports. Minister, what do you say to those Pacific neighbours who are begging you not to open new coal and gas mines?

I'd made the point that I actually spent a bit of time with Prime Minister Feleti Teo and Foreign minister Paulson Panapa yesterday and today. That was the visit of the Tuvaluan leadership here to celebrate the opening of the mobility pathway. I have spent a lot of time in the Pacific with Pacific leaders and Pacific representatives and citizens, as have the Prime Minister and Minister Conroy. So we understand very clearly the experience of the Pacific. I often wish that Senator Cash and Senator Canavan would actually engage with representatives of the Pacific, because for them it's not a cultural issue; it's an issue of their everyday life. They see what is happening on the front line. For them it is not something that they dispute; they watch it happening, and they want assistance with it. (Time expired)

Senator Waters, second supplementary?

Along with targets for emissions reduction, Australia's nationally determined contribution can also contain other commitments. Will you heed the call of Pacific leaders that you're evidently meeting with and incorporate a commitment on fossil fuels, whether that be on subsidies, exports or no new coal and gas?

We meet regularly with Pacific leaders and talk with them about these issues. I think your colleague behind you was holding her hands in the air and asking why I was talking about Tuvalu. Just so you're aware, it's the first agreement anywhere in the world which allows for mobility with dignity as a consequence of climate change. It's also the first agreement anywhere in the world which retains sovereignty in the face of sea level rise. So we are serious about Pacific priorities and we are serious about acting on climate. It's not a political issue. I know you want to make it a political issue. But it is an issue about transitioning an economy in a way that ensures that Australian children today have prosperous jobs tomorrow because they can trade into and with a global net zero economy. That's the responsibility we take, and we will do our part. (Time expired)

I note that this is not my first speech. My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Senator Walsh. The Albanese Labor government is delivering on its commitment to cut student debt by 20 per cent. Can the minister please provide an update on the delivery of this election commitment? What will the proposed changes mean for students and young Australians right across the country, and why has the government taken this approach?

Thank you so much, Senator Walker, for the question. I know that you, Senator Walker, believe that higher education should open doors, not leave young people weighed down by unfair debt. In our last term, the Albanese Labor government made HECS indexation fairer. That change wiped $3 billion in debt for three million Australians. That was a huge change, but now we're going further. We have introduced legislation that will deliver the biggest student debt relief Australia has ever seen: a 20 per cent cut to student debt, $16 billion in total. It will provide relief for around three million Australians. If you've got an average HECS debt of $27,000 a year, you'll see $5½ thousand wiped away. This isn't just for uni students. It includes HELP, TAFE and VET loans too, because, no matter where or what you study, you deserve a fair start in life. We promised this in the lead-up to the election, last week we introduced the legislation and this week we have the chance to pass it into law.

While Labor is delivering, the coalition is at war with itself. This morning Senator Henderson was out there again, freelancing in the media about amendments to the HECS legislation. You would expect the Leader of the Opposition to be steering the coalition's position, but who is steering the coalition's position? Instead we have Senator Henderson, the self-appointed shadow shadow minister, casting a long shadow from up there and rewriting the coalition's policies from the backbench. While you undermine each other, we'll back students with real debt relief.

Senator Walker, first supplementary?

As well as cutting $16 billion from student debt, the Albanese Labor government is proposing changes to when people start repaying their HECS debt. The Australian people spoke pretty clearly at the election about the policies we took to the election. What impact will these changes have on Australian students now and into the future?

Thank you, Senator Walker. I agree with you that the Australian people spoke clearly at the last election. It isn't just me who agrees with you; Senator Duniam agrees, too. He said the Australian people 'spoke pretty clearly at the last election'. He also said:

We're not really in the business of standing in the way of cost-of-living relief.

Our legislation isn't just about reducing debt; it's about making the system fairer for the next generation. We are a united team delivering what we promised.

Then we have the opposition. The opposition leader told Australians they were on board with HECS reform, but this morning we had Senator Henderson out there again, freelancing—how deeply concerning, Senator Henderson! The opposition have more positions on HECS than they do on net zero, and zero focus on helping Australians get ahead.

Senator Walker, second supplementary?

As promised, the Albanese Labor government is delivering on its commitment to cut student debt by 20 per cent and make minimum thresholds fairer. We are working as a strong, united team to get this done and make a real difference for students and young people. How important is bipartisanship to achieve change for students?

We are indeed fortunate to be a strong and united team focused on what matters. We are cutting debt, lifting repayment thresholds and making the system fairer. But what do students see on the other side of the chamber? Nothing but disunity and division, with Senator Henderson and the opposition leader at war with each other—an embarrassing rabble on the other side. Senator Henderson is out there running her own policy process, wanting to add amendments from outside the shadow portfolio. Were her amendments approved by her 'shadow shadow cabinet'? Then we have the Leader of the Opposition, who said earlier today, 'We agree to not oppose the bill as it makes its way—

Minister Walsh, please resume your seat. Senator Henderson?

On direct relevance: can I ask the minister to let the chamber know what impact this is going to have on Australians who are starting university from now.

Senator Henderson, you don't have a question—

They're going to be denied—

Senator Henderson, resume your seat. Minister Walsh, please continue.

Thank you very much, Senator Henderson; we look forward to your 'shadow shadow amendments' later on. Then we have the Leader of the Opposition, who said earlier today, 'We agree to not oppose the bill as it makes its way through the parliament.' (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, Minister McAllister. The ACT health minister, Ms Rachel Stephen-Smith, has said that, even with the recent and very welcome one-off boost to hospital funding, the Commonwealth is chipping in just 35 per cent towards the cost of the ACT's hospitals. This is a full 10 per cent below the 45 per cent Commonwealth contribution promised by 2035, with Canberrans being charged a new levy to make up the difference. Minister, why is it that two levels of Labor government are delivering a smaller Commonwealth contribution than a federal coalition government?

Thank you, Senator Pocock, for the question. The Commonwealth has in fact increased its funding to the ACT hospital system by 16 per cent this financial year. It is one of the largest increases in Commonwealth funding to the ACT hospital system. More money for public hospitals will ensure that those hospitals are there to provide the world-leading care that Australians expect and deserve.

In this financial year, the ACT is expected to receive $629 million in Commonwealth funding. That increases the funding it was previously receiving by $85 million, and that includes two additional components: $35 million, which is a one-time funding contribution agreed by National Cabinet for all states and territories; and $50 million, which is the usual yearly growth in funding.

We do look forward to collaborating closely with colleagues in the ACT about delivering the very best health care for ACT residents that we can because we know how important health care is to Australians. Many of us heard Senator Wong speak this afternoon about the importance of health care and Medicare in particular to Australians. We had an extended discussion about this in the election campaign that has just been conducted. I think everyone in this chamber should have heard the very clear message that we received from our voters, our citizens, that they value health care.

So we are determined to work with our colleagues. We are determined to make sure that Australians can access the health care they require. We are very determined to make sure that we continue to build on Australia's incredible public health foundations which have laid a groundwork for a significantly more equal society that would have been the case if those opposite had their way on so many occasions when they sought to pull money out of that system.

Senator Pocock, first supplementary?

There were a bunch of numbers in there, so I will maybe just come back with ACT Treasurer Chris Steel's statement that the amount your government is providing ACT hospitals, even with the one-off boost, is 'going backwards'. Minister, can you provide a guarantee today that by 2030 the Commonwealth's contribution to the ACT hospital and health system will specifically sit at your stated 42.5 per cent, or will we continue to be short-changed in the ACT?

Senator Pocock, we wouldn't accept the proposition you have put in your question that any jurisdiction is being short-changed. We have worked constructively with colleagues in the states and the territories to make sure that we can get the very best outcomes that we can for Australians in the public hospital system. The National Health Reform Agreement was established in 2011 under a Labor government. It formalises that partnership between Commonwealth government and the states and territories, and it seeks to improve health outcomes for all Australians.

Unfortunately, the former Liberal government neglected the health system. They failed to deliver any reform. We have seen emergency departments under pressure across the country. We have seen elective surgery waiting lists soar. There is a lot of work to do, but we are determined to work collaboratively with our colleagues, as I said in my answer to your primary question, and make sure that all Australians in all states and territories get the health care that they require.

Senator Pocock, second supplementary?

Minister, I think blaming the coalition is starting to wear thin with Canberrans; you're in your second term now. ACT ratepayers are now having to cover an additional $80 million for a program to transition NDIS participants and people on the waiting lists for aged care at our hospitals. These are Commonwealth programs. Why is the ACT paying for delays occurring in two Commonwealth programs? We are a small jurisdiction, and Canberrans are having to fund this because the Commonwealth is delaying programs.

Thanks again, Senator Pocock. I don't accept your characterisation that the Commonwealth is delaying programs. We expect all Australians to receive the care that they require when they are in a public hospital system, and that is the responsibility of the state or territory government that manages that particular hospital. But we also know, of course, that those interfaces with the aged-care system and the NDIS are really important, and it's why we are investing in a range of programs to help smooth that transition.

We continue to work with states and territories to remove remaining barriers to discharge and ensure the best outcomes for NDIS participants. The average waiting time for an NDIS participant being medically ready for discharge and reported discharge has been reduced to 17 days in January 2025, down from 39 days in December 2022. That is essentially a consequence of the operational changes that we've introduced— (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Now that the Prime Minister has returned from his jetsetting to communist China, can you finally confirm what day, week, month, or even if it will be this decade that the port of Darwin will return to Australian control and out of China's hands?

Thank you for the question, Senator Stacey. I will just take issue first with the characterisation at the top of your question. It is a serious part—

It's a fair description.

I'm happy to take the interjection, given what has happened in the China market for people you say you represent, Senator McDonald, since we were elected. But what I would say to the senator is that China is a great power in the world and in the region. There are many areas where we will not agree, but it is the right thing for the—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator Wong, please resume your seat. Order! Before I go to Senator Stacey, this is his first question, and the level of interjection was disrespectful. Please allow the senator to ask the question and hear the response in silence.

A point of order on relevance. The question was very specific about the return of the port of Darwin to Australian ownership.

Senator Stacey, there was a preamble to your question which the minister is entitled to respond to. There were also interjections—I have asked people not to interject—which the minister is also entitled to respond to. I have asked for silence, I expect silence and I call the Minister to continue her remarks.

Actually, Senator Stacey, I was responding to the first part of your question, so I respectfully suggest that I was being relevant. You were dismissive of the Prime Minister's trip to China, and I was saying to you that whether or not we agree with many of the positions of the People's Republic of China—and we don't; we have areas of fundamental disagreement—they are a great power in the world and in our region, and the responsible thing for the leader of the country to do is to ensure that we engage. You would have heard the Prime Minister and I and other ministers speak about cooperating where we can, disagreeing where we must and engaging in the national interest, and that is what the visit was about.

In relation to the port of Darwin, the Prime Minister has made clear that we don't think the port should have been sold in the first place by the previous coalition government, and we want to see it return to Australian hands. I think that has been made very clear and public. That is clear diplomatically as well, but those are matters which will go through the appropriate commercial consideration.

Senator Stacey, first supplementary?

Minister, a journalist asked the Prime Minister whether he used the meeting with Xi Jinping to explain Australia's policy on Darwin Port. The Prime Minister answered, 'I don't need to.' Is it the Labor government's position that the port of Darwin doesn't need to be raised with China, and how can you say you have a plan to take it out of Chinese control if you won't even raise it with them?

Senator Stacey, I would hazard a guess that the leadership of the People's Republic of China is well aware of the public position taken by the Prime Minister, and this is not a matter for bilateral negotiation. Australia has made a decision. It's a decision we believe is in our national interest, our sovereign interest, and we will proceed to implement that decision. I think that is clear and was put on the public record multiple times by the Prime Minister and other ministers both during the election campaign and since.

Senator Stacey, second supplementary?

Minister, will you agree with One Nation's call to have the port of Darwin returned to Australian hands in this term of government?

I agree with the position as articulated by the Prime Minister, which is that it shouldn't have been sold in the first place, and we want to see it returned to Australian hands.

How about you keep your promise?

I'll take the interjection. You're the government that sold it, just to be clear. You were the government that sold it.

You promised to get it back, but you didn't.

That's a great interjection, Senator Colbeck. That was a killer. Senator, I appreciate that you want to set a political timeline and, obviously, appropriate commercial arrangements. We have the interests of the Australian taxpayer to consider and we will do so, but the Prime Minister has made the Australian government's position clear when it comes to ownership.

I note this is not my first speech. My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator Watt. At the last election, the Albanese Labor government renewed its commitment to deliver more cheap, clean and reliable energy to get our grid to 82 per cent renewable energy by 2030. The government also committed to unlock $8 billion of additional investment in renewable energy through a $2 billion expansion of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. Recently, in my home state of Tasmania, the government announced the approval of a solar farm in the Midlands, another step on the path to meet our renewable energy target. Can the minister outline the government's record on approving renewable projects? Are there more approvals in the pipeline?

Thank you, Senator Dowling, for your first in what will no doubt be many very well written questions. Last month, I was pleased to announce the approval of a solar farm in Bothwell, just north of Hobart—in the electorate of the new member for Lyons, the outstanding Rebecca White. The project will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than 44,000 tons of carbon dioxide per annum, which is equal to more than 450,000 trees being planted. It will also deliver economic benefits to the region, supporting more than 300 direct jobs in both the construction and the ongoing management phases. This was the 88th renewable energy project approved since the Albanese government came to office in 2022. In the four weeks since that announcement, we've approved a further four renewable projects.

Today I am pleased to announce the 93rd. The Summerville Solar Farm will be located in the Richmond Valley, 60 kilometres south-west of Lismore in northern New South Wales. It will generate enough energy to power 36,000 homes. It features 215,000 solar panels and a battery energy storage system with up to four hours of storage capacity. This project is a great example of good design and site selection, leading to fast approval times. In this case, this project was approved within 30 days. A key factor in this is the plan to maintain cattle grazing on the land, demonstrating once again—I know it's hard for the National Party to accept this—that there are ways for renewables and agriculture to work together.

I know senators might be thinking, 'The Richmond Valley near Lismore—which electorate is that in again?' I can inform the Senate it's in the seat of Page, home to the deputy leader of which party? The National Party. While the Nationals and Liberals continue campaigning against renewables and net zero, Labor is delivering the energy, the investment and the jobs that our regions are crying out for.

Senator Dowling, your first supplementary question?

The Albanese Labor government took its renewable energy commitment to the Australian people at the last election. What other support has the approval of renewable energy projects received?

Thanks, Senator Dowling. The Albanese government's approval of renewable energy projects and stable energy policy is supported by a wide range of people, like Innes Willox from the Ai Group, who said, 'This approach will help facilitate the deployment of renewable energy and storage technology.' Danielle Wood, from the Productivity Commission, said, 'Given we're relying on the private sector to make investments, having some sense of the rules of the game is really important for business.'

Of course, you don't need to go far in this building to find people who oppose net zero, like Senator Cash, who led the charge on the weekend at the WA Liberal convention to oppose net zero, putting her at odds with the opposition leader, Sussan Ley. Why would the coalition's Senate leader publicly take on her party leader? Yesterday, News Ltd columnist James Campbell offered some views, saying:

Now when a previously somnolent—

Meaning 'sleepy'—

Liberal senator suddenly starts going like Rocket Racer on the elephant juice there's almost invariably a one-word explanation: preselection.

Order! Senator Henderson.

President, I did rise a couple of seconds before the end of Senator Watt's contribution to ask if you could, on a direct relevance point of order, draw him back to the question, please.

Senator Henderson, he was being directly relevant. Senator Dowling, a second supplementary?

Can the minister explain why policy consistency, particularly around environmental approvals, is a key factor in enticing financial investment in our energy transition in the short, medium and long term? Why is a clear, unified and consistent approach important to ensure cheaper and cleaner energy generation will be rolled out, protecting our natural environment for future generations?

Investors across the board want the security of policy certainty, and Australians have said loudly that they support a renewable future. There's only one group, of course, who haven't heard the message, and there they are, looking sullen and sad, over there—and those are the happy ones! Last night in this chamber, we saw what can only be described as an absolute farce from the opposition. Rather than taking a position on one of the major issues our nation is dealing with, the opposition leader, Ms Ley, directed her senators to abstain from a vote on net zero. So, when the country wants leadership and certainty from all their politicians, what do the opposition do? They don't just hide away; they go and hide under the doona. The only person showing leadership on the coalition side is live-TV bull-impersonator Barnaby Joyce, and Senator Canavan has made the point that One Nation last night were just playing catch-up with Barnaby Joyce. It's not just One Nation; it's the entire Liberal Party playing catch-up to Barnaby Joyce— (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. The Prime Minister had to correct the Minister for Trade and Tourism on Sunday and deny that the US president had discussed the beef import ban with him. Was the beef ban discussed during the Prime Minister's meeting with US officials, including Scott Bessent and Jamieson Greer, that replaced the planned meeting with the President at the G7 in June? Sorry, Don.

I'd make a few points in response to Senator Scarr on that. The first is that I think that to characterise it as the Prime Minister 'correcting' doesn't reflect appropriately that Senator Farrell was very upfront about the mistake he made—and full credit to him. There are some in this place who try to not own up when they make a mistake, and I think he did. And it's an easy mistake to make. Obviously, there are a lot of conversations between—

You think it's funny, Senator Ruston?

Honourable senators interjecting—

There's a lot of graciousness on that side, isn't there! It's an easy mistake to make. There are always a lot of conversations. In relation to beef, the implication in all of the opposition's questions is that somehow this is related to a discussion with the United States. I want to make two points very clear. First, our biosecurity process is independent. It was commenced under, I think, Mr Joyce, when he was the minister, and went through a proper process not related to any negotiations.

Senator Scarr, a point of order?

On direct relevance—it was a very tightly worded question as to whether or not the beef ban was discussed.

Thank you, Senator Scarr. You made reference to Senator Farrell, you made reference to discussions with the US and you made reference to the Prime Minister, so I do think the minister is being relevant to your question. Minister Wong.

The second point I'd make—through you, President—to Senator Scarr is that, of course, the US have raised this publicly. The President raised this in the press conference on 'Liberation Day', so it's not a secret that the US had a view about it. But the process was independent. The decision has taken over a decade. The first US application was in 2015. The most recent application was made in 2019, and it's been under review since then. The review was undertaken by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries—

Would you like to stand up and say something, Senator McDonald?

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Senator McDonald, your constant interjections are disorderly and rude. I would ask you to desist, and, if you can't, please leave the chamber. Senator Scarr, first supplementary?

Journalist Andrew Clennell reported today that when asked about this meeting the Prime Minister's office told him, 'We do not comment on private discussions.' At a media conference in Canada after the meeting, the Prime Minister was asked if beef and the news bargaining code were discussed. The Prime Minister confirmed the news code was discussed, and talked at length about it, but did not mention beef. So is it the case, contrary to what the PM's office said, that the Prime Minister is happy to talk about some things that are discussed at such meetings but not others?

We engage appropriately with counterparts and officials from countries, including the United States. We provide appropriate diplomatic readouts of those conversations. They do not include everything and, Senator, they wouldn't have included everything under you.

But I again make this point. There is no secret that the President of the United States stated publicly his view on beef. We know that. But, as we said very clearly, the biosecurity process in Australia is independent, and it will not be compromised and it has not been. I would make this point in relation to beef producers. We have ensured, through access to other markets, that there are more opportunities available to beef producers. (Time expired)

Senator Scarr, second supplementary?

Why won't the Prime Minister level with the Australian people about the discussions and dealings with the United States that led to Australia changing its biosecurity protocols to allow US beef raised in Mexico and Canada into Australia?

That assertion is completely false. It is completely false and it is irresponsible. I know that those opposite are desperate to try and play politics with trade policy. Of course they are. But the reality is this decision was made on an independent basis, because Australia's biosecurity is not up for negotiation—end of story. That is the truth. That is the end of the story, Senator Scarr.

But there is a more important point here, which is the point I made earlier. I think Australians do understand the challenges that are presented by a US administration that has a very different view about America's place in the world, by a US administration that has a very different view about its position on trade—one that is very different even from the first iteration of President Trump's presidency. Now, what they would want is responsible leaders to navigate those challenges. It would be much better if we could do that on a bipartisan basis. (Time expired)

It's good to see everyone at the start of this lovely parliament—cheer up, Charlie; come on. My first question is to the Minister for Science, Senator Ayres. The independent CSIRO's GenCost2024-25 report shows that, for the seventh year in a row, wind and solar are the cheapest sources of electricity.

That's what the report says. That's what I've read, anyway. In its first term, the Albanese government prioritised a cleaner and more affordable electricity system by supporting renewable energy and storage projects. Minister, how does the government plan to build on this approach and deliver more clean and affordable electricity for Australians?

Well, thanks, Senator Ciccone. President, he is dead right. I don't want to trigger Senator Canavan and the four Nationals over there by talking about the CSIRO's GenCost report, which demonstrates once again that firmed renewables remain the lowest cost new-build technology for Australia. I know that it's deeply irritating over there to have a scientifically based, independent report from a nationally respected scientific institution that somehow gets in the way of the sort of hysterical Sky After Dark carry-on that we've seen from those opposite over the last few days. And the reason this kind of report matters is that, if you use an independent scientific report, that actually forms the basis of good policy. And good policy leads to policy certainty, and policy certainty leads to investment decisions made by firms in Australian industrial and energy capability. That's what happens.

Now, the record speaks for itself. The cost of renewables for Australians keeps getting cheaper. The cost of solar fell by eight per cent for the second year in a row, and the cost of batteries fell by 20 per cent in the last year alone. The report confirms what millions of Australians know is true—that the cost of firmed renewables remains the lowest-cost new-build technology for Australia.

Senator Ciccone, first supplementary?

Thank you, Minister, for that answer. The report also finds that the cost of firmed renewables will continue to fall, increasing their price advantage over non-renewable energy sources. Australia is also forecast to have some of the lowest-cost electricity in the world. How is the government planning to capitalise on this comparative energy advantage through its Future Made in Australia agenda?

Thanks, Senator. Future Made in Australia is about bringing new jobs and opportunities for future generations of Australians to communities in every part of our country. It's about making sure that we're delivering on Australia's potential and our future comparative advantage in our national interest. I know that, conceptually, the team over there struggle with all of those concepts. Comparative advantage, the national interest—these are all issues that they are entirely uninterested in. But we have the best renewable resources, here in Australia, in the world. We have all of the critical minerals that will power the future economy not just for us but for our trading partners. And we are determined to get on with it. We are determined to deliver a policy program that will deliver investment in all of Australia's regions and all of Australia's outer suburbs for industrial capability that delivers for the country.

Senator Ciccone, second supplementary?

I will be very quick. Given the policy certainty and comparative advantage you also mentioned in the previous answers, I want to ask you this: why is it necessary to provide clear signals about energy policy to large industrial users of electricity, like smelters, particularly the one in my home state, given that, currently, nuclear reactors can be some of the most expensive sources of electricity?

():  Clear signals matter. From the National Party over there, it's like a dinner bell with no dinner. That's the signal that's been sent from over there. The GenCost report shows clearly what all Australians know—that nuclear power is the most expensive form of energy for Australia.

What do you say about coal?

Let me come to coal. What it demonstrates is that, today, firmed renewables are competitive with black coal. In the future—let me explain these concepts to you. It's a pity you don't get a whiteboard in Senate question time! If we did, we might be able to take Senator Canavan through these concepts of comparative advantage, technological efficiency, how markets are set, policy certainty and how that delivers investment— (time expired)

I ask that questions be placed on notice.

I seek leave to table a list of names of children killed in Gaza.

Is leave granted?

No.

Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me tabling the document.

I don't know what the problem is with putting out two volumes of 17,000 names of children that Amnesty International have provided to me. They have collated the number of children. They're not anonymous casualties. They're not human shields. They are children. They were toddlers who were learning how to walk. These are children and teenagers, dreaming to work, to study, to make something, to contribute and to become doctors, artists and footballers. It was absolutely heartbreaking to read out the names of 17,000 children last week—which takes roughly 22 hours, if anyone wants to commit to it—and it's heartbreaking now to not be given the opportunity to table this document, which simply states the names, the ages and the genders of these 17,000 children.

We know that, so far, over 186,000 Palestinians have been killed, according to the Lancet journal. This is the least we can do to honour and remember the children who were mercilessly killed in this genocide. The only ask that we have of the government is to cut ties with genocide. It's very welcoming to see the Prime Minister call Israel's actions indefensible and, three hours ago, say that he called Netanyahu's denial of causing absolute starvation 'beyond comprehension'. That is the exact quote from the Prime Minister. It's very heartening for somebody who has been speaking out against this genocide from day dot to see that our government are finally strengthening their word. They're starting to move, albeit very slowly.

Nonetheless, we would love to see—it's desperate times—the government not only issue comments and condemnations about how Israel needs to stop this genocide; we also want a ceasefire. I acknowledge that the government committed $10 million in June. We need to see that translated on the ground. Children and people in Palestine are starving. They're on the brink of being eliminated, and what are we seeing? I can't even table these names.

I could literally just read some. You know what? I'll just read some, because we can't table this. I am hoping that the government is going to join me in suspending standing orders to allow me to table this document. Some of their names are: Adham Ahmed Mohammed Abd Rabbo, 12 years old; Nasr Ihab Nasr Al-Turk, 13 years old; Said Osama Sami Ismail, 10 years old; Dima Ibrahim Mohammed Muharib, 17 years old; Siwar Jihad Abdullah Abu Rikab, six years old; Abdullah Mohammed Mousa Asaliya, four years old; Mohammed Hassan Ziyad Abu Shamala, less than a year old; Ahmed Basel Ramadan Abed, three years old; Kamal Hammam Kamal Abu Asfa, two years old; Adam Mohammed Riyad Assaf, one year old; Dana Ahmed Rafiq Abu Zour, seven years old; Mohammed Mahmoud Yousef Al-Hassi, two years old; Amal Ali Zuhair Salem, three years old; Tuleen Alaa Adel Hajaila, 12 years old; and Yamen Osama Hassan Al-Qatshan, 16 years old.

These are children. I don't understand why I cannot table the names of these children mercilessly killed by Netanyahu. (Time expired)

The coalition will not support the suspension of standing orders to enable the tabling of this document. It's purportedly a list of more than 17,000 children killed in Gaza, compiled and published by an organisation that draws its data directly from the Gaza Ministry of Health, which is an arm of the listed terrorist organisation Hamas. The coalition does not deny leave lightly. Every civilian death, especially that of a child, is a tragedy, and every innocent life lost is a human catastrophe. But we cannot trust information from the Gaza Ministry of Health to be tabled in the Australian Senate. The Gaza Ministry of Health is under the control of the listed terrorist organisation Hamas. Where a senator of this parliament seeks to table such a document, especially one compiled by an activist collective sourcing from Hamas, it gives an implicit endorsement to the legitimacy of that information. This is something that the coalition cannot support. This parliament should grieve the loss of innocent life, but it should do so on the basis of verifiable, credible information. It should do so in a way that upholds our values and maintains a clear line between democratic institutions and terrorist information.

The Greens are extremely disappointed that the opposition has refused to allow Senator Payman to table this list of 17,000 children's names—the names of children who are now dead, innocent children who have died in this brutal war, this brutal attack on innocent civilians and families—and we are disappointed to hear that pathetic excuse from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. If you can't bring yourself to even acknowledge, let alone condemn, the killing of innocent children, nothing will ever melt your heart, ever. It is just abhorrent that, day after day, all we hear from the opposition on this topic is excuse after excuse after excuse and justifications for the murder of children, the starvation of children and using children as weapons in war.

Senator Hanson-Young, you are getting very close to, if not well overstepping, the mark of reflecting on others in the chamber.

Are you taking your own point of order?

No-one took a point of order, because there is no point of order.

Senator Shoebridge, the chair can rule. That is just ridiculous, quite frankly. Senator Allman-Payne?

Chair, there was no reflection on any individual member of parliament. It was on a party. That is not a point of order.

Actually, previous presidents' rulings say that reflecting on groups in this chamber is as bad as, if not worse than, reflecting on an individual. Senator Hanson-Young has the call.

Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I will not stand here and be lectured to by a political party that refused to acknowledge, let alone condemn, the murder and slaughter of innocent children and the starvation of children. If the opposition cannot bring themselves to acknowledge this suffering at this moment, they have absolutely misread not just public opinion but their role as legislators and as leaders in this community. I support, as do the rest of my party, the tabling of these names.

I'd just add one more thing: the reason why this is an important document to be tabled is that the independent organisation that has brought this list of names to this place is the apolitical, internationally recognised organisation Amnesty International, which is not associated with any political party. They gathered on the lawns of Parliament House last week, and they invited every single one of us down there to participate in the acknowledgement and reading out of the names of these innocent children. All of the Greens senators were there, and I know a number of other members of both houses were there. If we can't even bring ourselves to acknowledge that powerful statement and that call to action for leadership and compassion in this place, then we may as well pack up and go home.

I thank Senator Payman for going through the usual processes to reach out to parties to request support for leave to be granted for a non-conforming petition. The government indicated to Senator Payman we would give leave. Consistently with that, we will support the suspension of standing orders to enable the petition to be tabled.

The second point is in response to Senator Cash, who does not agree with the content of the petition. I would make the point to her that, as a matter of Senate convention, there are many non-conforming petitions which are tabled in this place. She could have agreed to allow this to be tabled, just as others have, even if she takes issue with its contents.

The third point I would make is this: we can't avert our eyes from what is happening in Gaza. We cannot avert our eyes from the fact that we see a humanitarian catastrophe. We cannot pretend, as some seem to wish to, that tens of thousands of innocent people have not been killed in this conflict. It is true: Hamas is a terrorist organisation dedicated to the destruction of the State of Israel. But that is not an answer to the fact that the government of Israel has made a decision to withhold food and supplies entering Gaza. We have made very clear statements as a government about that. For the reasons I have outlined, the government does intend to give leave. I move:

That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

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

I table the document.

I move:

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

Colleagues, you might remember that, before the 2022 election, the then opposition leader, now prime minister, Anthony Albanese, promised us all that under Labor's energy plan our power bills would be $275 cheaper. In fact, our power bills have gone up in the order of 30 to 50 per cent, depending on who you are, where you live and what your plan is. They've gone up so much that Labor has been forced to give two different sets of electricity rebates to consumers, at a cost to the budget of $6.8 billion. They are taking taxpayers' money in one hand and giving it back to them in another because their promise of cheaper electricity bills by $275 was manifestly not being met.

We also had the Prime Minister, before the 2022 election, promising that there would be no changes made to superannuation—none whatsoever; a categorical no. Of course, in the last term of parliament, and continuing in this term of parliament, Labor has introduced a new tax on superannuation: a higher tax on unrealised gains—yet to be legislated, but it's a commitment. Yet another promise that has been broken. We've had the Labor government promise that, under the housing commitment, 1.2 million new homes will be built by 2030. Well so far we're 476,000 homes short of that target—running behind, even in my own state of New South Wales, by about 70,000 a year. It is a commitment that is not going to be met.

It seems like in the last election campaign Anthony Albanese made another commitment that is equally rubbery. Many people will recall the number of times he sought to brandish his Medicare card and pull it out on all number of occasions: in debates, in campaign events and on the campaign trail. This is some of what he said:

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

'One card covers it all. Not your credit card; your Medicare card.' How many times did we hear Anthony Albanese say that, under Labor, all you'll need is your Medicare card, not your credit card? Well most Australians would take that to mean that, when they go to visit their GP, it will be free; they will only need to provide their Medicare card, not their credit card.

As my colleague says, they didn't read the fine print! Suddenly the Prime Minister's election commitment is being added to. There's fine print. There are details. There are footnotes. There are addendums. There is detail that was not disclosed at the time of the election. We've heard, firstly, that bulk-billing rates under this government are 11 per cent lower than they were when the coalition left government. We've now had disclosed by the Department of Health, released under FOI legislation, that they told the government, in the incoming government brief, that one-quarter of clinics will not bulk-bill, despite any incentives that the government will offer. We had Mark Butler, the Minister for Health and Ageing, interrogated about this commitment this morning. He was asked, 'Isn't it true that you said every Medicare consultation will be free?' No, Mark Butler confirmed the truth, contradicting his own Prime Minister, and said that Australians will need more than their Medicare card. The truth is that we cannot take this commitment to the bank.

We heard the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Wong, say that they were going to make sure this commitment is reached by 2030. When have we heard a 2030 commitment before? We were told that our electricity bills would be $275 lower. Instead, they're 30 to 40 per cent higher. We've been told that 1.2 million new homes would be built by 2030, but, instead, we're about half a million homes short of that target. Now we're getting inundated with caveats and footnotes to qualify the commitment that Anthony Albanese has made. It's clear that, if you go to the doctor, yes, you'll need your Medicare card, but you will certainly also need your credit card. In fact, the average out-of-pocket expense for someone who goes to a GP has reached a high of $48.

We cannot allow this government to crabwalk away from this promise. This was a core election promise by them—that all you would need when you go to your GP is your Medicare card. They cannot be allowed to now say that that's caveated or qualified, that it's only if you go to certain GPs or that it is to happen by 2030 or if the coalition cooperates with this legislation. This is a deception on a grand scale, and it's up there with the government's promise to reduce your power bills, which didn't happen, not to make changes to super—they're legislating new taxes on your super now—and to build 1.2 million homes—they're half a million homes behind that target.

On this issue of Medicare, last week the coalition wanted to go right and this week they're missing the forest for the trees. They're playing word games and politics with public health care in this country, and the outcome of the election reflects that the Australian people trust this government and the Labor Party in their commitment to Medicare and they don't trust those opposite. They don't trust those opposite because those opposite speak out of both sides of their mouths on this.

It is in the DNA of the great Australian Labor Party that public health in this country should be free and should be delivered for everyone through bulk-billing. The reason it is in our DNA is that we are committed to fairness, and that's what's flows from a public health system that is well funded and where people don't have to pay to go to the doctor. You only need to look at the United States to see the contrast when a health system is not free and, in fact, is prohibitively expensive, because in the United States medical bills are the highest cause of personal bankruptcy. Some studies say that up to two-thirds of personal bankruptcies occur because someone gets sick and they cannot afford the treatment and the drugs.

That's why this government has made the biggest commitment to Medicare in dollar terms in 40 years, because it's a government that recognises that this provides core help to working Australians not only in terms of relieving cost-of-living pressures but also in terms of their actual physical health. What we saw leading into the election and what we see, unfortunately, is that Australians either delay or do not get treatment that they need because it costs too much money, and that costs the country at a broader level too, because it means they don't go in for primary healthcare check-ups and preventive check-ups, and it then costs money when people get sick and the cost of treating them down the road is higher.

That fundamental commitment is reflected in the policies of the government: a commitment to more bulk billing, a commitment to cheaper medicines and keeping the price of medicines in this country down, and a commitment reflected in the creation of 87 Medicare urgent care clinics where you can go with your Medicare card. This is the biggest investment we've seen in a very long time. It's $8.5 billion. It saves the patients money out of their pockets and it helps our country more generally.

The modelling which was discussed during the federal election was that nine out of 10 GP visits will be bulk-billed by 2030, and what was the basis of that? On what basis could we say that? It was that we tripled the bulk billing-incentive in November 2023, and since then we've seen a massive turnaround in bulk billing rates. I probably shouldn't say 'massive'; we've seen a significant turnaround in bulk-billing rates. We've seen a national increase of 3.2 percentage points. Across the different states, we've seen that bulk-billing rates have increased by 2.5 percentage points in New South Wales, 2.8 percentage points in Victoria, 3.4 percentage points in Queensland, 5.2 percentage points in South Australia, 3.3 percentage points in Western Australia, 8.9 percentage points in Tasmania, seven percentage points in the Northern Territory and 4.1 percentage points in the ACT. Increasing the incentive increases the availability of bulk-billing, and this is a huge commitment the government has made.

Senator Sharma also repeated something that coalition senators often say in this place, which is that the rates of bulk-billing under the coalition were higher. What that ignores—and this is where the detail of this is quite important—is that, as a matter of substance, those bulk-billing rates were artificially inflated. That's why the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners described bulk-billing as in freefall when the coalition was in government. They inflate their figures by relying on the massive numbers of simple COVID related operations that were given under bulk-billing, like PCR swab tests and vaccines. That's not a true reflection of what bulk-billing was doing in the country.

The Vice-President of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners called them out at the time, saying that their 88 per cent was a misleading figure and significantly skewed. What we know is that we're investing in Medicare and increasing the bulk-billing incentive, and that will lead to more free GP visits in Australia. That's why Australians have trusted the Labor Party with Medicare, and that's why what's said opposite ought not be believed.

I understand why those opposite might be squirming in relation to this, but question time again today demonstrated that you cannot believe what the Prime Minister says. It's not that complicated. Here is a direct quote from the Prime Minister—no two ways about it:

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

There's no qualification. It's a simple statement designed to attract votes at the election. That's what the Prime Minister said before the election: 'Under Labor all you'll need is your Medicare card, not your credit card.' On another occasion, he said:

One card covers it all. Not your credit card—your Medicare card.

There's no equivocation in that at all—not until after the election. And this is what we saw last time around. Before the 2022 election, there was a promise that your power prices would go down by $275. Of course, you cannot get a Labor Party member to say '$275' in this place these days, because what happened to the power bills after the election? They went up by over $1,000, and they're still going up. When the relief runs out in December, what remains? The higher power bills. You cannot believe this Prime Minister when he says anything.

It's a bit like the operation of this chamber. We were promised an open and transparent government—more open and transparent than any government before. Yet fewer than one in three motions for the order for the production of documents passed by this chamber—where this chamber has said to the government, 'Please hand over these documents'—is being complied with. It's the worst record ever; the most opaque government ever. So the Australian people are, quite rightly, dubious when they hear the Prime Minister make a statement like, 'Under Labor all you'll need is your Medicare card, not your credit card.'

Today we hear some sort of qualification from those opposite about official statistics from the department of health that they don't like, which say that bulk-billing rates under the coalition were at 88 per cent and fell to 77 per cent under Labor. We didn't make that up. We didn't manipulate the numbers. They are official department of health statistics. They're there for everybody to see, and now those opposite want to put some sort of qualification on them. They went up every year under the coalition, but what do we get now from the ministers in the chamber? We get tricky language. We get qualification. We get deflection. 'Blame somebody else.' 'Those numbers weren't real.' And yet all we want is for the government and the Prime Minister to keep their promises.

And it's a pretty clear promise. When you go out, hold up your Medicare card and say to the Australian people, 'Under Labor all you'll need is your Medicare card, not your credit card,' there's nothing equivocal about that. There's no qualification. There's no room to slip out the side or blame somebody else. That was a specific statement made a number of times by the Prime Minister—like the $275 reduction in power prices promise that was made 97 times before the 2022 election. The list of broken promises from Labor continues to grow and grow and grow—$275 reduction in energy prices.

Under Labor, all you will need is your Medicare card and not your credit card, yet the health minister says, 'We never said there would be 100 per cent bulk-billing.' Well, if all you'll need is your Medicare card and not your credit card, that is 100 per cent bulk-billing. We know that a quarter of services won't be bulk-billed, because that's what the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing have told us. It's about time the Labor Party started being straight with the Australian people and, in particular, started keeping their promises. (Time expired)

I was in Launceston the day the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health and Ageing came down and made the announcement that nine in 10 visits to the GP would be bulk-billed. Before we were even off the stage, there was a press release from those opposite saying what a fantastic policy it was and that they had already done it. Before we even put the so-called fine print into how it was actually going to work and the modelling and the work behind it, they said they had already matched it. We are now hearing that, no, it's actually not a position that they stand by. I'm not actually clear where they stand on this. When it suits them, they are all over it. They were announcing urgent care clinics before us. They were racing around trying to get there and announce Medicare, saying it will be better under the coalition, but, on day one, we're back here and they say: 'Oh no, that's a disaster. It's another broken promise.'

The promise was—and we stand by it entirely, and the Prime Minister was right—that nine in 10 visits would be bulk-billed by 2030. July 2025 is the date at the moment, so I think it's a bit early to be making that criticism. We're just implementing the policy; it's already working. We have tripled the bulk-billing incentive. My colleague Senator Ghosh ran through how effectively that is already performing. We are already seeing a turnaround in bulk-billing rates; the incentive is working.

There are four pillars, really, to the policy. It's not just about the incentive; it's about more doctors and nurses. Our universities are now training, particularly in my home state of Tasmania—record numbers of doctors are coming through the system. They now see that they've got a future in health care because we are investing so heavily in primary health care and that they will be able to bulk-bill patients.

The incentive is about more bulk-billing. We've talked about getting to that target of nine out of 10 visits being bulk-billed by 2030. Those opposite seem very confused by this whole idea that 76 per cent of clinics bulk-billing is consistent with nine in 10 patients being bulk-billed. They are compatible. That is the case; you can achieve both. They seem to be very confused by those two figures somehow working against each other. That modelling is out there. It was in the press release. When it came out, they were so quick to rush out and back the policy and announce it beforehand, but they didn't actually bother to look at the modelling.

So there'll be more doctors and nurses and more bulk-billing. More urgent care clinics is another key facet. That was probably the most popular issue raised as I walked around the streets of Hobart and Launceston through the campaign—even in the north-west. They all said: 'When are we going to get more of those urgent care clinics? They're fantastic.' 'I didn't have to go to hospital.' 'I didn't have to queue at the emergency department.' And guess what? It was bulk-billed; it was free. All you needed was your Medicare card—no credit card. It's pretty consistent with what the statements told us we were going to get. So, the way I see it, this is working. It's being rolled out, and we are seeing an improvement.

The final pillar—after more doctors and nurses, more bulk-billing and more urgent care clinics—is cheaper medicines. We have seen the price of medicines continue to come down. Again, giving people access to that critical medication keeps them out of hospital, keeps them healthy, keeps them in the workforce and is a real cost-of-living relief measure. So I'm quite surprised that the opposition led off question time with that topic. I think we would be happy to talk about Medicare all day and all night for as long as they like.

I was also a bit disappointed that we continue to see this conflation of trade and biosecurity. As we know, the import restrictions on beef were under review for a decade. That was a process undertaken by biosecurity experts, and officials have looked very carefully at this issue. Then somehow conflating it with some discussion about trade policy out of the United States—they are two totally separate issues. Yes, the Minister for Trade and Tourism made a mistake, and he corrected it. But then for two days, as though no-one's ever made a mistake before, we've just carried on with this charade about it being linked to the policy issues.

Australia doesn't agree with the United States' tariff policy. We'll continue to advocate for lower tariffs and a free trade system. (Time expired)

Australia is a successful trading nation. Trade builds our prosperity, it grows our living standards, it drives economic growth, and it creates jobs. Trade promotes competition, lowers prices for consumers, enhances our productivity and attracts investment to this country. Just three months after this government's election, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is putting the benefits of Australia's open trading relationships at risk. This is a prime minister who is challenging and undermining that prosperity, those living standards, that economic growth and our job creation that all come from our trading relationship.

Just today, Labor's minister for trade and tourism has conceded that, at a minimum, Australia will be hit with 10 per cent tariffs by the United States. In fact, he has not yet been able to rule out that that 10 per cent baseline tariff will not grow to 15 or 20 per cent. This is a trade failure on the part of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.

There are six reasons why Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has, in just three months, already failed Australia in its foreign relations: no face-to-face meeting with the US president in more than 260 days; no exemptions from harmful US tariffs; no protection for key export sectors; no action on national security threats from China; an extensive trip to China that has been shallow in its outcomes in protecting and advancing Australia's national interests; and a weakening of the AUKUS relationship between us and the United States at what is a critical time.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong, is correct when she says that President Trump has a different vision for the United States in the world. Senator Wong's admission—recognition—matched with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's record, demonstrates that this government is unprepared for this new Trump administration, despite the fact that President Trump had already been a president, despite the fact there was a very public presidential election campaign and despite the fact that the President has been in the role for 260 days. The government is unprepared for what the Trump administration seeks to do in global affairs but, particularly and more urgently, what it seeks to do in regard to Australia. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

I move:

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

Our prime minister failed to raise the issue during his recent visit to China. The Prime Minister promised to return the port to Australian control. Is the Prime Minister serious about delivering on this promise? And, if so, when? The port of Darwin was leased to the Chinese company Landbridge Group for 99 years, in 2015, under a deal worth $506 million. Landbridge received planning approval to invest a further $200 million into the port for which it may seek compensation under a compulsory acquisition.

The port of Darwin sits in close proximity to critical defence infrastructure and is itself a vital asset in the defence of our nation. This raises questions of national security, Australian sovereignty and damage to our reputation as a reliable defence partner. If we can't get this simple thing right, if our allies can't trust us to get this simple thing right, how can our allies trust us to be serious about our own defence or help them in a conflict?

Landbridge has been reported as saying it has no interest in selling its lease. If this matter is not resolved, the next generation of Australians will be left to do it—and pay for it. The One Nation position has always been that Australian land should be owned by Australians and that critical Australian infrastructure should never be allowed to fall into foreign ownership. One Nation will always put the interests of Australians and our sovereignty first.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Prime Minister (Senator Wong) to a question without notice asked by Senator Waters today about climate change.

This year marks a critical moment under the Paris Agreement when nations are required to submit new 2035 targets to cut climate pollution. Collectively, these targets must slash global climate pollution fast enough to keep temperature rise within internationally agreed limits—limits designed to prevent catastrophic harm to people and to ecosystems. As Australia prepares to host the next COP in Adelaide, a region whose fishing, tourism, marine life and beaches have been catastrophically damaged by recent climate events, the stakes couldn't be higher.

In the coming weeks, the federal government will announce its nationally determined contribution: a new 2035 target for climate and emissions action. We already know the states and territories are on track to do much of the heavy lifting, getting us to a 66 per cent to 71 per cent reduction in Australia's emissions by 2035. Anything less than 71 per cent will therefore mean the federal government is vacating the field and leaving all of the climate heavy lifting to the states. I'll reiterate that because it's very important. Anything less than 71 per cent will mean the federal government is vacating the field and leaving the heavy lifting of the climate crisis to the states. That would be an abject failure of national leadership. A strong target isn't optional. It's not a nice-to-have. It is critical to protecting our safety, our communities and our way of life. A strong national 2035 target will protect Australia from climate disasters like floods, fires and droughts. A weaker target means more danger and more disasters.

We cannot talk about climate targets without also acknowledging our duty to the global community, especially our Pacific neighbours, whose homes, cultures and livelihoods are already being devastated by the climate crisis, by rising seas and extreme weather events. As mentioned, Pacific leaders are in the building today, along with other advocates representing those at the coalface of the climate crisis, urging Australia to adopt a stronger 2035 target and to stop fuelling the climate crisis with new coal and gas projects. They are demanding justice, not just more empty words. Last week the International Court of Justice made it clear that countries like Australia may be legally liable for the harms caused by our fossil fuel exports. That ruling should be a wake-up call to this government. You cannot stand here and claim climate leadership while continuing to green-light massive new coal and gas expansion, because the world is watching.

I want to acknowledge the extreme leadership of those young people from the Pacific islands who led this climate case to the world's highest court—leadership this place would do well to acknowledge and repeat. If we show up to COP with weak targets and no plan to phase out fossil fuels, we'll not just be failing our people here in Australia; we'll be failing our neighbours and breaching the trust of communities who have long looked to Australia for solidarity, not sacrifice.

I also want to draw attention to the work of my Greens colleagues in Western Australia, a state that, right now, is holding back the nation's climate progress. WA is the only state in the country with no 2030 emissions reduction target, no renewable energy target and rising emissions. That's why the Greens in WA have put forward a bold climate bill that would finally bring Western Australia into line with the rest of the country and with the science. This is the kind of leadership that we need in this critical decade for climate action. Together we can secure the climate action Western Australia needs to protect its communities and ecosystems and to ensure it doesn't remain a drag on national progress.

And, just as the WA Greens are fighting for binding, science based targets at the state level, the federal government must step up too. The nationally determined contribution can go beyond a headline number. Climate experts and NGOs are rightly calling for it to include measures like a fossil-fuel non-proliferation pledge, and we Greens agree. If this government is serious about action on climate and the environment, we must break our addiction to fossil fuels and end the subsidies that we provide to these dirty, polluting industries. Australia must heed the calls from Pacific island leaders and set a strong national 2035 climate target that is consistent with the science and compatible with a future for our children and for their children. It must do what it was elected to do: lead the charge on a strong target and deliver a plan to achieve it.

Question agreed to.

It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 24 June 2025 of Martin Bruce Cameron, a senator for the state of South Australia from 23 May to 24 October 1969.

by leave—I move:

That the Senate records its sadness at the death, on 24 June 2025, of Martin Bruce Cameron, former senator for South Australia, places on record its gratitude for his service to the Parliament and the nation, and tenders its sympathy to his family in their bereavement.

I rise on behalf of the Labor government to acknowledge the passing of former senator from South Australia Martin Bruce Cameron at the age of 89. At the outset, I convey my condolences and the government's condolences to his family and friends and to his parliamentary colleagues, who are mourning his passing.

Martin Bruce Cameron was born in Millicent, in my home state of South Australia, in 1935, the only son of a pioneering farming family with Scottish roots. He was educated in local country schools and then boarded at Scotch College in Adelaide, which was my school. Even to the time when I was there, farmers from the south-east often sent their sons and daughters to board there. After national service with the RAAF and agricultural studies in New Zealand, Martin returned home to farm alongside his family.

His appointment to the Senate in 1969 came somewhat suddenly, following the death of a close family friend, Senator Keith Laught. It was a short term; Martin Cameron served for just five months before his Senate term expired in 1969. Former senator Cameron reflected that he did not particularly enjoy his time in federal parliament. It perhaps started inauspiciously when the Clerk of the Senate dropped the Bible on which Martin Cameron was to be sworn in into the wastepaper basket. Now, this is what I was told—I'm assuming it is true, Mr Clerk!

Martin Cameron expressed frustration at the lack of interest in South Australian matters from his peers in Canberra, something which drove him to ask questions almost exclusively on South Australian matters, and he was critical of the lack of interest in federal matters from the Adelaide press. And so it was in South Australian state politics that Martin Cameron made his extensive contribution to public life. He entered the South Australian Legislative Council in July 1971, backed by one of the great leaders of both the Liberal Party and also the state, former premier Steele Hall. Martin Cameron would go on to join Steele Hall's breakaway Liberal movement and would remain an influential ally of Steele Hall's throughout the latter's long parliamentary career.

Martin Cameron was a politician unafraid to speak out on issues he considered to be matters of principle. The liberal movement of which he was a part was socially liberal and committed to electoral reform in South Australia, leveraging popular demands for change to force the Liberal and Country League leaders to enact aspects of Labor's proposed electoral reforms—reforms that would expand the franchise and reverse the so-called Playford gerrymander.

Martin Cameron defended democratic values and advocated for universal suffrage in the South Australian Legislative Council, often against more extreme voices on his own side of politics. He memorably described some of these voices as 'the extreme Right of the political spectrum in Australia and, as such, the lunatic fringe'. Over time, Martin Cameron became a respected elder of the South Australian parliament, known for firm views but always open to considered debate. He supported progressive legislation in the South Australian parliament. He stood against attempts to limit women's rights to abortion, held liberal views on homosexuality and advocated for Aboriginal health and community engagement.

If I might make a comment here, we in South Australia have long prided ourselves on being a state that is moderate. Those members of the liberal movement and members of the Liberal Party who made so many changes to the state over the years of their influence have had an historic and important role to play in the character of our state, and Martin Cameron was one of those.

Upon leaving the South Australian parliament, Martin remained active in public life. He was appointed by the Bannon Labor government to the board of the South Australian electricity trust. He led fisheries and marine sustainability efforts and was passionate about sailing and the seafood industry. He was also a lifelong republican, chairing the South Australian branch of the Australian Republican Movement and acting as a vocal supporter of the 'yes' case in the 1999 republic referendum.

Martin Cameron was of a generation of South Australian Liberals who strove to hold their commitment to the public good above party politics and did what was right even when it was difficult. I want to record my personal respect for his actions and the course he took. May that legacy endure. Once again, in closing, on behalf of the government, I express my condolences following the passing of Martin Bruce Cameron, and I extend my sympathies to all who loved him.

I rise on behalf of the opposition to pay tribute to the late Martin Bruce Cameron, a man of principle, conviction and tenacity, whose public life spanned three decades and whose passing on 24 June of this year marked the closing of a significant chapter in the history of South Australian and Australian politics. Martin Cameron was born on 24 August 1935 in Millicent, South Australia. He was the only son of Gordon and Asta Cameron. He had a country upbringing rooted in the values of hard work, independence and service to others, and these would become the hallmarks of his political life.

He was educated at Scotch College in Adelaide. As a young man, he actually travelled widely, attending the Scouts jamboree in Austria in 1951 before studying agriculture in New Zealand and then returning to Australia to help run the family farm. He completed national service in the Royal Australian Air Force in 1954. He would later work on the family property at Thornlea, near Millicent, and it was from the land and the challenges facing primary producers that he was drawn into public life.

He became politically active in 1965 when he opposed the Labor government's restrictive transport legislation that limited the movement of farm produce by road. Finding the ruling class unresponsive to the concerns of rural communities, he resolved to act, and so began a life of political engagement grounded in the principle that parliament should serve people, not parties. Martin was first appointed to the Senate in 1969 to fill a casual vacancy following the death of Senator Keith Laught. His time in the chamber, as we have heard, was brief—it was just five months—but there were no two ways about it; he left a lasting impression. In that time, he delivered a maiden speech rich in South Australian concerns and asked questions that held the government of the day to account. He spoke directly, with clarity and purpose—qualities that would define his decades in public life.

Defeated at the 1969 election, Martin returned to farming, but not for very long. In 1971, he was elected to the South Australian Legislative Council, where he then served for nearly two decades. There he became a key figure in some of the most transformative political struggles in South Australia's history. As a founding member of the Liberal movement, alongside Steele Hall and Robin Millhouse, Martin stood for integrity, reform and individual conscience within a political culture that often demanded conformity. He fundamentally believed in electoral fairness. He was opposed to the deeply entrenched 'playmander' system that distorted democratic representation in South Australia. Through his efforts and those of his allies, lasting electoral reform was achieved.

Martin Cameron, though, was never afraid to stand alone. Whether taking an unpopular stance in support of progressive legislation or challenging the influence of hard-right factions like the League of Rights, he acted with the courage of his convictions. He was also unafraid to cross the floor. He believed in the sanctity of individual conscience, even when it put him at odds with his own party. In a career of contradictions, Martin championed causes both liberal and conservative, supporting the decriminalisation of homosexuality while also resisting certain aspects of progressive reform that he believed threatened personal liberty or institutional balance. He was complex, but he was always principled. He was not a factional warrior. He was a thoughtful parliamentarian who judged every issue that came before him on its merits.

Even in retirement from elected office, Martin continued to serve the state that he loved. He held senior appointments in the electricity sector, fisheries management and marine conservation. He chaired the South Australian Seafood Council and the Sailing Ship Trust. He was also a republican who chaired the state branch of the Australian Republican Movement, always consistent in his belief that power should be accountable to the people. In the 1990s, when internal divisions again threatened the cohesion of the South Australian Liberal Party, Martin returned as state president. He sought to unify, not divide, and to remind the party that division is death and that a shared commitment to purpose and values must transcend personal and ideological differences.

Martin Cameron was a husband to Barbara and a father to five children, and he was a devoted family man. The values he championed in public life—personal responsibility, fairness and respect for others—were lived daily in his private life. His legacy is measured not only in legislation or electoral milestones but in the many lives he influenced by his example of public duty and personal integrity. In remembering Martin Cameron, we do more than mark the passing of a man. We honour a legacy of principled service and we reflect on what it means to act with integrity in public life. To his wife, Barbara, and to his children, and to all who loved him, we extend our condolences.

With indulgence, I would now like to read some words about Martin Cameron from the former opposition Senate leader Simon Birmingham:

It is hard to imagine anyone whose length of service in the Senate was so brief, yet whose contribution to the politics so significant.

Though only serving in the Senate for a matter of months, Martin's political impact stretched decades, most obviously through his long service in South Australia's Legislative Council but also for many years either side of that through significant service to the Liberal Party in South Australia.

At a personal level I could never have asked for more support, encouragement and wise counsel than I received from Martin.

Martin was something of a legend who flew somewhat under the radar. He was front and centre in the Liberal Movement split of the 1970's, maintaining principled positions on electoral reform and respect of one vote one value principles that were at the heart of those divisions.

Martin opposed restrictions on women's choice, championed indigenous health initiatives, and played a key role in luring the required extra vote—that of Labor Legislative Council defector Norm Foster—that was necessary to enable the Olympic Dam uranium mine to go ahead.

As a Young Liberal in the 1990's I have fond memories of Martin, after leaving parliament, being convinced to return to the political fray at what proved to be the most fractious of times to take on the presidency of the SA Liberal Party.

Martin led with his customary mix of conviction, humour and pragmatism, but also sought to inspire a new generation of YLs, including me, to overcome the divisions of the time and see positive ways to contribute.

Martin would give his time to YL events with equal measure of insight and anecdote, even allowing a good number of us to return to his city home in Kensington to help to empty a few bottles of red or scotch. It was there that we were able to cajole him into treating us to a late-night bagpipe performance, possibly not to the joy of the neighbours!

At Martin's memorial service in the Adelaide Hills the tales of his bagpipe performances featured in many memories of family and friends, including in a moving eulogy by Sir Lynton Crosby who equally reflected on the key role Martin played in the beginnings of Sir Lynton's own long and successful political career.

As I sought to contest positions on the party's state executive and ultimately preselection I knew that I could always rely on Martin to give helpful advice, provide valuable intelligence on the delegates and to personally travel the hundreds of kilometres from his much loved farm near Beachport in SA's southeast to cast his vote in my favour. His commitment to support me continued for many years, for which I remain eternally grateful.

I last saw Martin last year at Steele Hall's funeral. The years had taken their toll, but there was still the magical glint in his eye, cheeky twinkle in his smile, a fire in his belly and conviction in his soul. Vale Martin, from one who owes you much.

I too rise today with great pleasure to have the opportunity to pay tribute to Martin Bruce Cameron. He was a man of incredible courage and extraordinary independence, and he left a huge and lasting impact on my home state of South Australia.

Born in 1935, Martin's life was absolutely marked by his commitment to rural and regional Australia and, particularly, his community—from his commitment to national service to his study of agriculture, which he went to New Zealand for, and the work that he did on his family property near Millicent in the south-east for much of his life, even during his time in public life. But it was his sense of justice and his desire to give voice to his community that was, I think, probably the driving force that brought him into politics.

As Senator Cash mentioned, 1965 was the pivotal point when Martin decided that he could no longer just be a farmer. He had to get himself involved in politics, and he joined the Liberal and Country League on the back of a bill—the South Australian state government's Road Traffic Act—that sought to restrict the transport of live animals and produce by road. Martin thought that was egregious and damaging to his community, so he said that, instead of whinging from the sidelines, he would get into a political party and do something about it.

It didn't take him long before he decided that he was actually going to have a tilt at getting into the South Australian parliament, and, in 1968, he famously lost his election in Millicent by one vote. Needless to say, it was contested, and the Court of Disputed Returns determined that there needed to be a by-election. Unfortunately for Martin, that by-election saw quite an overwhelming victory for his opponent, who had previously only won by one vote. But, typical of Martin, he was always going to push the boundaries and make sure that he didn't die wondering what the result would be.

He had a brief stint in this chamber—a short five months—when he filled a casual vacancy created by one of his very close friends, but Martin's heart was always in South Australia, which was demonstrated by his behaviour for the whole time he was here. You would have thought that there was no other place in Australia apart from South Australia from his contributions—always asking questions about South Australia, talking about South Australia and completely ignoring every other state and territory. Although he recontested his Senate position unsuccessfully, I think he was happiest when he went back to South Australia and was able to represent his home community in the South Australian parliament. So, from 1971 until 1990, just shy of 20 years, Martin served in our state's upper house in South Australia.

He was a true Liberal politician. He was a reformer and he was a principled man who was quite happy to accept the criticism of others as long as he was standing up for what he absolutely believed in himself. He was central to the foundation of the Liberal Movement, alongside Steele Hall, both of whom served in both this parliament and our parliament in South Australia. He also helped to ensure that all South Australians, regardless of gender or status, had the right to vote in the upper house, and he regarded this reform as one of his proudest moments in the South Australian parliament.

But Martin wasn't just a man of politics. As Senator Cash mentioned, he was also a bagpiper—although, I must say, he wasn't a very good one! I can attest to that through personal experience. Martin and I were lucky enough, many, many years ago, to have had the opportunity to sail in the Sydney Hobart Yacht Race. Now, whilst the rest of us were packing a very small amount, because that was all the kit we were allowed to take, for some weird reason Martin decided that his entire kit was going to be made up of his bagpipes. Whenever it was calm enough, Martin would stand on the deck and would try and pipe out at tune, if you could even call it that, which resulted in many comments from the crew about who was killing the ship's cat! One morning, to our great surprise, we heard the bagpipes being played absolutely beautifully. So we all raced upstairs, wondering what had transformed Martin's clear lack of musical talent, only to find that somebody had commandeered Martin's bagpipes and was making a significantly better effort of punching out a tune than Martin was. You'll be pleased to know that we never heard Martin play the bagpipes again!

But he brought colour and he brought character to our public life. He was a smiling Scott, known for his sharp wit and his sharp questions. He was absolutely relentless in debate, especially on matters like health policy. But he was motivated by a genuine concern about the wellbeing of South Australians. It is something that I think all of us in this chamber absolutely care about—that is, the wellbeing of the people that we represent in this place—as do those that represent us in the other places in our states and territories. Even after Martin retired in 1990, he continued to serve his community. His involvement was very broad, including fisheries, heritage, sailing, Aboriginal health. There was a long list of things, but everything was tied back to his support for his community, and his commitment to public life never dimmed through his entire life.

Martin embodied the values, the true liberal values, that the Liberal Party holds dear: individual freedom and civic responsibility. Martin remained a member of the Liberal Party and a member of our state council till the day he died. I'm pretty sure that Martin voted for me for every one of my preselections, bar one. It was only the last one, when ill health prevented him from travelling to Adelaide to, I'm quite sure, vote for me. But no-one will ever know now, so I'm going to claim that victory!

On behalf of the Liberal Party and the people of South Australia, I offer my condolences to his family, to his wife, Barbara, who he was married to for 65 years, and to his five children, Mary, Jane, Kate, Sandy and Robert. May they take comfort from the incredible contribution that their father and husband made in South Australian and Australian life. Vale, Martin Cameron.

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

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to me for 22 to 24 July 2025, for personal reasons.

Question agree to.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to Senator McKenzie for 28 July to 31 July 2025, for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

If there's no objection, the business is postponed.

On behalf of Senator Gallagher, I move:

That the order of the Senate of 14 September 2023 relating to explanations concerning the National Disability Insurance Scheme Financial Sustainability Framework no longer apply.

by leave—I move:

That government business notice of motion no. 1 be amended, by inserting a new paragraph (2), as follows:

(1) That the order of the Senate of 14 September 2023 relating to explanations concerning the National Disability Insurance Scheme Financial Sustainability Framework no longer apply.

(2) Despite paragraph (1) of this resolution, the Senate does not consider that orders for the production of documents nos 229, 253 and 315 relating to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Financial Sustainability Framework have been satisfactorily complied with.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The Senate has on multiple occasions rejected the public interest immunity claim advanced by the government, and the order has still not been complied with. It is curious then as to why the Greens are willing to back down on such an important issue relating to the future of the NDIS. The coalition, unlike Labor and the Greens—with the notable exception perhaps of Senator Steele-John—won't be backing down on this issue and will continue to stand up for all Australians who rely on the NDIS.

I'm going to deal with the amendment as moved by Senator Ruston first. The question is that the amendment, as moved by Senator Ruston, to government business notice of motion No. 1 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The question now is that government business no. 1, standing in the name of Senator Gallagher, moved by Senator Chisholm and amended by Senator Ruston, be agreed to.

by leave—I table an open letter to the Northern Territory government regarding Kumanjayi Walker's coronial inquest.

At the request of Senator Gallagher, I move:

That—

(a) on Tuesday, 29 July 2025:

(i) the routine of business, from the conclusion of Senator Whitten's first speech, following the consideration of any proposals under standing order 75, or on receipt of a message from the House of Representatives relating to the Universities Accord (Cutting Student Debt by 20 Per Cent) Bill 2025, whichever is latest, be consideration of the bill (second reading speeches only), and

(ii) the Senate adjourn without debate after the second reading debate on the bill has concluded;

(b) on Wednesday, 30 July 2025:

(i) the Universities Accord (Cutting Student Debt by 20 Per Cent) Bill 2025 be called on as the first item of government business and the question on the second reading be put immediately, and

(ii) following the conclusion of first speeches, or following the consideration of any proposals under standing order 75, whichever is later, the Early Childhood Education and Care (Strengthening Regulation of Early Education) Bill 2025 be called on and have precedence over all other business for the remainder of the day;

(c) on Thursday, 31 July 2025:

(i) the Early Childhood Education and Care (Strengthening Regulation of Early Education) Bill 2025 be called on as the first item of government business and the question on the second reading be put immediately,

(ii) the questions on all remaining stages of the following bills be put at 1 pm:

(A) Universities Accord (Cutting Student Debt by 20 Per Cent) Bill 2025,

(B) Early Childhood Education and Care (Strengthening Regulation of Early Education) Bill 2025,

(C) Customs Amendment (Australia-United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2025, and

(D) Customs Tariff Amendment (Australia-United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2025, and

(iii) divisions may take place between 1.30 pm and 2 pm until consideration of the bills has concluded; and

(d) paragraphs (b)(i), (c)(i) and (c)(ii) operate as limitations of debate under standing order 142.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, by no later than 6 August 2025, any advice, submissions, emails, briefing notes, file notes, meeting notices, meeting agendas or minutes or other records of interaction since 7 December 2020 related to communication between the Department of Social Services and/or Services Australia and the Office of the Minister for Social Services regarding:

(a) social security debts;

(b) debt recovery; and

(c) Matthew Chaplin v Secretary, Department of Social Services (before the Tribunal as Secretary, Department of Social Services and FTXB).

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 45 standing in the name of Senator Allman-Payne be agreed to.

Madam President, I'm a little bit scratchy, so I might just—

That's alright. We're all scratchy—well, I am.

I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 49 for today.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the President, by no later than 5 pm on Wednesday, 30 July 2025, the report in relation to the former Secretary of the Department of Parliamentary Services, Mr Rob Stefanic, provided by the Parliamentary Service Commissioner to the presiding officers in 2024.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

An order for the production of documents can be directed to information held by the Department of Parliamentary Services in the same way as for information held by executive departments and agencies. Usually, orders are directed to ministers, and the DPS equivalent would be the President. The coalition's preference is that the President and Senator Roberts resolve this issue outside of the OPD process. However, we will be supporting this motion, as the department should be subject to the same standards of transparency and accountability as we expect of government departments.

Senator Scarr, could I just add that the OPD relates to a document the President, not DPS, holds. The question is that general business notice of motion No. 52, standing in the name of Senator Roberts, be agreed to.

I remind senators that yesterday after 6.30 pm a division was called on the motion of Senator Roberts proposing a disallowance of the Industry Research and Development (Dealership and Repairer Initiative for Vehicle Electrification Nationally (DRIVEN) Program) Instrument 2024. I understand it suits the convenience of the Senate for the deferred vote to be held now. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Roberts be agreed to.

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) that order for the production of documents no. 784, relating to Housing Australia and the use of availability payments, was agreed to by the Senate on 12 February 2025, and

(ii) the order has only been partially complied with, as the return includes significant redactions;

(b) considers that it is in the public interest for the 'Address' and 'Legal description' in 'Part B—General Particulars' and the 'Annual Affordable Housing Dwelling Availability Payment—As at the Award Date' in 'Part D—Availability Payments' of 'Project Schedule—P N2X6-T1P6-Z4L2 Ivanhoe Victoria' (pages 849 and 855 of the return) to be released; and

(c) requires the Minister representing the Treasurer to table unredacted versions of the items described in paragraph (b) in response to order no. 784 by no later than 1 pm on Wednesday, 30 July 2025.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors, by no later than 6 August 2025, any advice, submissions, emails, briefing notes, file notes, meeting notices, meeting agendas or minutes or other records of interaction since 3 May 2025 related to communication between the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing and the office of the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors regarding:

(a) Aged Care Assessment Team wait times both current and projected; and

(b) financial impacts on aged care recipients of changes expected or proposed under the Aged Care Act 2024 and/or the Aged Care Rules 2025.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Thorpe, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than midday on Thursday, 31 July 2025, the incoming government briefs prepared by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water for the incoming minister after the May 2025 federal election.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Thorpe, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, by no later than midday on Thursday, 31 July 2025, the incoming government briefs prepared by the Attorney-General's Department for the incoming minister after the May 2025 federal election.

Question agreed to.

I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 41 relating to an order for the production of documents before asking that it be taken as a formal motion.

Leave granted.

I amend the motion in the terms circulated in the chamber. I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by no later than midday on Thursday, 31 July 2025, all written or digital correspondence, briefing notes, file notes, meeting notes, meeting agendas or minutes, budgets or other records of interaction from 1 January 2025 to 30 April 2025, between:

(a) the Climate Change Authority and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy (the minister) or their office;

(b) the Climate Change Authority and the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (the department); or

(c) the department and the minister or their office;

in relation to the provision of advice on potential national greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets for 2035 requested by the minister in a letter to the former Chair of the Climate Change Authority, Mr Grant King (reference: MS23-900615).

Question agreed to.

Pursuant to order, I now call Senator Whitten to make his first speech. I ask that senators extend the usual courtesies to the senator.

Senators, distinguished guests and fellow Australians, I would like to start by thanking the people of Western Australia for giving me the opportunity to represent them here under the patriotic banner of One Nation. I'm honoured and humbled, and I will stand up for the interests of Western Australians each and every day. Today I rise as not just a newly sworn-in senator but a son, a father, a brother, a husband and a grandfather—and a proud Australian. I'm not ashamed to admit that, up until a matter of weeks ago, I was wearing high-vis workwear and a hard hat on a construction site in my home state of Western Australia.

I want to take you on a journey, my journey, because where I've come from shapes everything I stand for and how I will serve in this chamber. I was born and bred on the Central Coast of New South Wales, in Gosford. My childhood was spent outdoors, boating and kayaking on Narara Creek, riding bikes without helmets, climbing trees, catching cicadas and chasing the last of the daylight. No phones, no internet and no constant supervision—and somehow we survived. There were only two rules: tell mum when you're going to be home, and be home before dark. It was a good life, and I genuinely believe that young people today are poorer for not having lived it.

My parents and grandfather were my greatest influences. Mum and dad worked relentlessly and instilled that same work ethic in their children. Life wasn't easy for mum and dad, especially after Labor's 'recession we had to have', and mum is still working too hard. But, if we needed her, mum was always there with a hug and some advice—and a cuppa and a toasted sandwich to die for. And dad—the hardest-working man I've ever known, a hard man but a fair man, a real man. Let's just say you didn't want to be on the wrong side of his big, hard concrete-stained hands. Some people frown on discipline today. I say it's the reason society is where it is now.

My grandfather Jack Fredrick Harbrow grew up in even harder times. Sadly, his father was deaf and blind from an industrial accident, so at nine years old he delivered milk before school, 365 days a year—at one point, even with broken ribs from a disagreement with the horse that pulled the cart—running from house to house, horse and cart plodding along remotely, with a big ladle called a 'jenny' and a smile, helping to feed his family. My grandpa also served our great nation in the jungles of New Guinea in World War II. He never boasted about it; he said he only threw custard pies. But I knew the truth, and I thank him that he didn't burden my young mind with the details.

He lost his wife, my grandmother, when my mum was eight. A young man just back from the war—a single father with four children. The old saying is that it takes a village to raise a child. Well, the little village of Woy Woy did a great job with mum, my aunt and my two uncles. I carry my grandfather's legacy with pride. From grandpa, I learnt service and sacrifice. From dad, I learnt the value of hard work. From mum, I learnt that love wins out in the end. That's what shaped the lens I view the world through, a world where love, respect, honour and hard work matter; your handshake is your word; and there's nothing more important than your word. I love you, Mum and Dad, and I miss grandpa dearly.

After six years at Gosford High School I entered the workforce. As the eldest son of entrepreneurial parents, I caught the bug. But I didn't come from privilege. My working life has been forged in the construction and oyster-farming industries, industries that demand grit, resilience, real-world experience and a healthy respect for Mother Nature.

Most notably, in 2001, my younger brother and I started a business—originally Whitten Brothers, now the Whittens Group. We began with an old ute, a good work ethic, a can-do attitude and not much else. With the help of many great people along the way, not least our wives and children, who put up with long days and a FIFO life, we grew Whittens to a peak of a thousand employees. And, kids, take note: turnover is not profit. There are no shortcuts. There's blood, a lot of sweat and sometimes tears, and, if you're lucky, a little something left over at the end. We started the business in Port Stephens, just north of Newcastle, doing small domestic jobs. We then moved on to larger commercial projects, and over time we worked all around New South Wales.

In 2007, we were asked to price a small package of work in the north-west of Western Australia—the Pilbara. Once that red dust gets on you, you never get it off. Since that time, we have worked on many iconic iron ore, coal and gas projects all around Australia. This was the start of the mining boom, when opportunity and money flowed freely, so we packed up our families—kids, dogs and horses—and made the big move to the west. In the early days, the real sandgropers called us 'the wise men from the east'. It's funny, but I reckon that I'm more like a sandgroper myself now. I'm no longer a part of Whittens Group, and I wish my brother and his wife every success in the future.

What I took from those two decades was this: integrity matters. I've always seen myself as a capitalist with a conscience. It was never about getting rich at any cost. In fact, it wasn't even about getting rich. I wanted everyone around me to do well, not just me. I would like my legacy to be that I'm remembered as a good man, a fair man, like my dad. I always liked the quote by Marcus Aurelius: 'Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one.'

Now to my intent: I was elected by the people of Western Australia to represent them in the Senate, and I will view every decision through the lens of the people who voted for me. I will fight for our families, our values, our livelihoods and our Australian way of life. We all stand here today because generations before us were prepared to, and did, lay down their lives for this great nation. That sacrifice is the essence of Australia. It inspires me to fight for a country worthy of them. We owe them more than remembrance; we owe them courage and conviction.

There are a number of other things that I also care deeply about. One is free speech. I am a free-speech absolutist within the bounds of respect and decency, not censorship and fear. Otherwise, who decides what's acceptable? What law? Whose law? As a famous podcaster says, 'The cure for bad speech is more and better speech.' As the old saying goes, 'Sunlight is the best disinfectant.' We are adults—strong, resourceful men and women. We can think and reason for ourselves. I call on the silent majority: find your voice, but think critically before you speak, and don't confuse noise for wisdom.

And our farmers—they are more than food producers. They are the stewards of our land and sea and champions of our economy. But too often they are crushed by overregulation, unfair trade, political shenanigans and global agendas. Anyone declaring from a private jet that cows are the problem should take a look in the mirror. And sheep—well, the formation of the Labor Party was closely linked to the sheep industry, and now it's the same party turning its back on its foundation. Keep the sheep.

Now to small business. From Albany to Kununurra, from Freo to Kal, small business is the engine room of the economy and this country. They need less red and green tape, lower taxes and a fair go. I salute and support any Aussie that has a crack.

In regional Western Australia, from the Pilbara to the Great Southern, our regions have been neglected. They need services, infrastructure and opportunity—not just handouts and pork-barrelling at election time but a proper fair go.

I intend to be a senator with a long-term vision for our state of Western Australia, not one that views our future in three-year blocks that coincide with each election. To our young Australians: I often hear, 'There's no opportunity anymore; I'll never own a home.' To that I say, 'Try; don't give up.' We must return housing to what it was always meant to be—a right for all Australians, not a speculative prize for foreign buyers, corporations or temporary residents. But remember that your attitude determines your altitude. Michelangelo said:

The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it.

On crime, we must be tougher on violent offenders, especially those who harm our women and children. The law should be blind to everything except the offence. On science, let me be clear: the science is never settled. Once upon a time, we were told that smoking was good for us, asbestos was safe and DDT was harmless—remember 'safe and effective'? So, when someone says, 'The science is settled,' ask, 'Settled for whom and at what cost?' Real science invites interrogation. Real scientists welcome scrutiny. Only bureaucrats and ideologues fear debate. Speaking of ideology, what lunatic thought it was a good idea to put a wind farm in the middle of a whale-birthing and nursery area? Geographe Bay, in Western Australia, a pristine natural wonder, is now threatened in the name of saving the planet. If your plan to save the planet kills baby whales and requires the clubbing to death of koalas that are in the way, can I suggest that maybe it's not such a good plan? I remember a time when we cared for our wildlife. What happened?

I stand for more freedom and less government. I stand for equality for all Australians. The time of overreach is over. The era of common sense must return because Australia stands at a crossroads. This great ship, our island home, is drifting, and the rudder is not working. To turn this bloody big ship around, we need bold leadership and a return to the principles that built this great nation, not a bridge full of clowns and ideologues steering us towards the rocks. Again, to the good people of Western Australia: thank you from the bottom of my heart. I will never take your trust for granted.

Before I close, I want to thank a few special people who helped shape me. To Tony, Rod and Troy: knowledge is silver, but wisdom is gold. Thank you for the gold. To James Ashby, the dedicated staff and One Nation team, and all the candidates and volunteers: your hard work and dedication does not go unnoticed. I'll do my best to make you all proud. To Pauline Hanson: thank you for your courage, your vision and your trust. I stand proudly beside you. By the way, I'd love one of your famous hand-knitted jumpers. I brought a tape measure, if that helps! To my brothers and sister: eat less, live longer. To my four amazing children, their partners and my four beautiful grandchildren: this is for you. Finally, to my wife, Alison, my rock, my princess: I love you to the stars and back. Thank you for the love and unwavering support. This journey would have been impossible without you.

I'd like to leave you with the words of Sir Henry Parkes, the father of Federation:

The crimson thread of kinship runs through us all.

Senator Bragg has submitted a proposal under standing order 75, which is shown at item 14 on today's Order of Business:

The Albanese Labor Government's failure to contain the CFMEU's infiltration into residential housing construction is deepening Australia's housing affordability crisis and costing Australians the dream of homeownership

Is consideration of the proposal supported?

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

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

The reason this matter of public importance is before the chamber today is that, on the weekend, we discovered that the CFMEU in New South Wales is back in business and wanting to get back in the game in terms of involvement in apartment builds. We are living through the greatest housing crisis in Australia's modern history, and we now see the Labor Party allowing the CFMEU to come back to make it even worse. These are the people that brought you the housing crisis. If you're a younger person, you are exposed by the Labor-CFMEU alliance, which has added a 30 per cent premium, in some cases, to new apartment builds. For many younger Australians, their first house will not be a standalone brick or weatherboard; it will be a small apartment in Melbourne, Sydney or Brisbane. The CFMEU's 30 per cent tax is a punitive tax on younger people.

How do we find ourselves in this situation? I can tell you that this has always been a government for vested interests. One of the first acts of this government was to abolish the Building and Construction Commission, which was holding the CFMEU in check. In fact, the Prime Minister said at the time, back in 2022: 'The ABCC has been a disgraceful organisation. It targets unions, particularly the CFMEU.' That is a very good quote because we subsequently found out from the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age investigation 'Building bad' that the CFMEU is actually Australia's Mafia. They're into all sorts of dreadful business—bikies, loan sharking, bribery, violence and all kinds of threats and intimidation. This was exposed by the newspapers, but apparently this was a new story to Labor. They didn't know anything about this. They feigned shock and said that they would rush legislation into this parliament to put the CFMEU into administration.

The whistleblowers were very brave to come out and speak against the CFMEU, because they are, of course, running the risk that they may end up at the bottom of the harbour wearing concrete boots. One Mr Robbie Cecala said: 'It wasn't about workers anymore. It was about power and fear. You couldn't say no.' That's what he says about the CFMEU's intimidation. Massive cash bribes, death threats—you name it. The position of the Australian government is that they thought it was more important to protect a militant union that had broken the law to the point where it was adding a 30 per cent premium onto young people. Now we see Mr Crosby declare that the CFMEU wants to do in Sydney what it has already done in Victoria and parts of Brisbane.

The other thing I want to say before I hand over to someone else is that the Cbus Property organisation, which is part of the CFMEU, is very interesting. Mr Darren Greenfield, who's currently before various tribunals looking at his own alleged corruption, said of the subcontractor's selection process on Cbus property that they'd three names, they would ask him which one's good and he would just tick the box for them, and that's how it would go. So, at the end of the day, it is a disgrace that the first order of business for this government was to remove an organisation which was focused on getting better law enforcement in that sector. The newspapers have done their job and shown what a disgraceful judgement that was for this government, and they have exposed the systemic corruption that we see in this sector. Now, we have a government which has failed on housing, saying, 'Well, we don't care if these guys are back in business in New South Wales; in fact, we're not going to do anything.' After spending over three years and having spent billions of dollars to build fewer houses than the last government, the Labor Party now want to inflict the CFMEU on Australia's biggest city in relation to new apartment builds. This is a price that young people will pay, and the only question the Australian people should be asking themselves is: what have they done to deserve this? Kamahl used to say, 'Why are people so unkind?' And I say to the Labor Party: why are you so unkind to young Australians?

I rise to speak against this motion, put forward by Senator Bragg, because, seriously, this is nothing but an attempt by the opposition to distract from the real reason why we're in this housing crisis. Let's take a trip down memory lane. The coalition had nearly a decade in government—nearly a decade. What did they do? They cut housing investment and, since then, have opposed every single housing initiative that the Albanese Labor government have put forward since we came to office. They left housing supply to the market, and their only idea now is to cut the wages of the people who build the homes that we need. Frankly, I think it's un-Australian. Every Australian deserves a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. And, yes, every Australian deserves a place to call home. That is why the Albanese Labor government is doing everything we can to get more people, more young people, into homes. It's why we're taking real action to build more homes, to build them faster and to make them easier not just to buy but also to rent.

Our $43 billion Homes for Australia Plan is the most ambitious housing strategy in generations. It is well beyond anything those opposite even considered doing when they were in government. The system has been broken for too long. Labor knows that the answer is pretty simple—build more homes. Help young people get into their own home without having to access their superannuation, which they'll need in their retirement. It is only the Albanese Labor government that has a plan to tackle this challenge, the only government that has a plan to build more homes, investing $10 billion to build up to 100,000 homes right across the country, specifically for first home buyers, without any competition from property investors. That is funding that supports infrastructure, land purchases and construction. It is the only government committed to building homes faster, speeding up the pace of building, with investment in advanced manufacturing of prefab and modular homes that will cut build times by up to 50 per cent. And, of course, we're the only government that will continue building homes for the future, investing in the workforce to get it done, fast-tracking the qualification of 6,000 construction tradies and experienced workers, getting them on the tools and offering $10,000 in incentive payments to apprentices in construction. That incentive kicked off on 1 July, with payments made every six months and then again at completion of the training, recognising the value of hands-on hard work.

Of course, it's not just about supply. It's also about making it easier for average Australians to get into the housing market. Already this financial year, 50,000 new places are available under the Home Guarantee Scheme, including 35,000 under the First Home Guarantee, 10,000 under the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee and 5,000 under the Family Home Guarantee for single parents. This scheme helps eligible buyers purchase a home with a deposit of as little as two or five per cent without paying lenders mortgage insurance, saving people tens of thousands of dollars and getting them into their own home.

With Labor's Help to Buy shared-equity scheme launching later this year, the Commonwealth will contribute up to 40 per cent of the cost of a home, which means smaller deposits, smaller mortgages and a real shot at homeownership for young Australians. A home is not just where someone sleeps. It's where you build a life. It's where people feel secure. It's why we are committed, as a government, to getting more young people and more Australian families into a home. We are the only party who are committed to doing that.

This MPI is a predictable line of attack from the opposition. They will do anything but take responsibility for their role in this extreme housing crisis. How dare the Liberals talk about housing affordability when they didn't even have a housing minister for six whole years under Abbott and then Turnbull. Attacking unions isn't going to make housing more affordable, and ripping up regulations won't fix it either.

We know that the Liberals' recent housing election policies would have increased house prices, making housing affordability even worse. This is the same party who introduced the capital gains tax discount in 1999, sending house prices soaring far faster than wages were increasing. They do not have the best interests of first home buyers at heart. I will tell you what's really costing Australians the dream of homeownership: successive decades of Labor and Liberal policies that have turned housing into a speculative asset rather than a human right and just a roof over everyone's head. Now, Labor and the Liberals are not taking the scale of this issue seriously enough.

Treasury tells us that Labor is not going to meet its 1.2 million homes target. Homelessness is the worst in living memory under this government, with increases of 10 per cent since Labor came to power. We still don't have a national plan to end homelessness. This is the human crisis and the human cost of what has gone wrong in our housing system. Labor and the Liberals are only interested in protecting the profits of very big developers, rich investors and banks. The Greens are the party that are fighting to make renting and housing more affordable and to end our shameful homelessness crisis.

So we need three things. Firstly, we need tax reform. We know Treasurer Chalmers is looking at tax reform. Property investor tax breaks cost us billions every year, making housing more expensive and hindering productivity. If the government genuinely wants to fix the housing crisis, scrapping the capital gains discount and negative gearing should be the first step.

Secondly, we need rent caps. Research from Everybody's Home shows that rents have increased by an average of 57 per cent across capital cities over the past decade. This is a national crisis in rent. In my electorate of Adelaide, we have seen the biggest increase—a staggering 81 per cent increase in rents. Without rent caps, the government is letting unlimited rent increases drive renters to the brink of financial instability.

Thirdly, we need direct investment in public and community housing. Right now, there are 640,000 households that need social housing. The average wait time is over a decade. We can't sit on our hands; we need a real plan. I hope that, this term, Labor makes use of its majority and works with the Greens to fix the housing crisis. (Time expired)

I am very happy to make a contribution to today's MPI, as moved by Senator Bragg. This actually manifests yet another one of the Labor Party's broken promises from the 2022 election, when we were promised cheaper housing. And, of course, what have we seen since then? Anything but cheaper housing. Only the Labor Party could spend billions of taxpayers' dollars—and billions of borrowed dollars—and build fewer houses, which is the effect of what's going to occur over the next five years. Treasury belled the cat in relation to that in their incoming brief to the government, when they said they wouldn't get anywhere near 1.2 million homes.

And, in fact, despite all the rhetoric from the other side and from the bottom corner of the chamber down there, this government will build fewer houses in the next five years than our government built in its last five years. So they can throw all the rhetoric they like across the chamber, but the reality is that the actions of this government—particularly with their new industrial relations legislation in the last parliament—have actually facilitated and enabled the CFMEU. Their legislation enabled the CFMEU to do the things they are now doing in moving into the housing market. And we know, because the statistics tell us, that, once the CFMEU is involved in a construction project, it can cost up to 30 per cent more.

Let's go back to the beginning of the contribution that I'm making: the Labor Party promised the Australian people cheaper housing, yet involving and engaging the CFMEU in the housing market can increase the cost of a housing project by 30 per cent. How does that line up with the promise for cheaper housing? It doesn't. It's like the promise from the Labor Party to reduce energy prices by $275—disappearing into the wind.

So it's the actions of this government, who enabled the CFMEU and who did nothing while the CFMEU started infiltrating the housing market, that are actually now driving up costs. All of those billions of dollars that the Labor Party—this government—is injecting into housing are going to get us less bang for our buck because they're going into the union system. And, on top of that, we're going to build fewer houses. As I said, only the Labor Party could spend billions and billions of taxpayers' dollars and end up building fewer houses. You'd wonder how they might be so successful in doing that, but that's exactly what's going to happen.

The unions, particularly the CFMEU, are quite brazen about what they say. Michael Crosby, the New South Wales CFMEU boss, says, 'We are looking at large multiple complex residential construction' and that 'may push up costs'. They're not concerned about that. They're not concerned about the promise that this government made to the Australian people to provide them with cheaper housing. They're quite content that their activities will provide more expensive housing. That's not what any of us want. I don't know why the government members would even tolerate that sort of activity. But that's what's going to happen.

We know that the Greens voted against every move to bring the CFMEU to heel in the chamber when the government legislated to put them into administration, and you wonder what that was about. I suspect there's a strong flow of donations that have diverted from the Labor Party to the green movement off the back of that. But it just shows how murky all of this is. You just can't trust the Labor Party when they make a promise to you. They promised cheaper housing and, through their inactivity, are going to provide— (Time expired)

I rise to speak on Senator Bragg's matter of public importance—yet another failure of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's Labor government. The CFMEU is a union long associated with corruption, intimidation and thuggery. Now, if the CFMEU were genuinely focused on the safety and welfare of its members, I'd stand with it. If it were fighting for fair pay and decent conditions for workers, I'd back it every step of the way. But that's not what it is about, not from what I've seen reported. It uses fear and force to get its way. Just look at the footage from Melbourne—its own members turning on it after the union sold them out for cash at the start of COVID. That betrayal shattered lives, and for what? A payday.

This union doesn't stand for workers. It stands for power and profit. If it gets its claws into the domestic housing market, you can kiss the dream of affordable homeownership goodbye. Costs will skyrocket. On a normal building site, it's not unusual to see a tradesman or tradeswoman sitting on a sack of bricks, eating a pie, but once the CFMEU gets involved you'll need a fully decked out lunchroom, air-conditioning, amenities—the works—even on residential blocks. And who is going to pay for that? Well, you know the answer: the homeowner. We can debate comfort and convenience all day, but at the end of it someone foots the bill, and under Labor and the CFMEU it's everyday Australians aspiring to own their own home who will lose.

Well, this is quite the smoke and mirrors from the opposition to really just be going after working people and unions through the guise of talking about housing affordability. I'm absolutely happy to talk about all the work that we are doing to get people into their first home, to realise that dream, and to also make it more affordable for them to do that. But to go after unions, who have consistently improved the lives of working Australians, as a means of doing that is an absolute disgrace.

Getting more Australians into their first home is absolutely one of the highest priorities for our government. The coalition and Senator Bragg have no credibility on housing—none, precisely zero—having cut housing investment while in government and opposing every single housing investment made by Labor. Let's not forget that their only proposal on housing is for people to raid their super to pay for housing, something that they will need in retirement. It's a disgrace that the coalition's only answer to housing shortages is to cut building workers' wages. It's an absolute disgrace.

The only party looking to drive up housing prices in this country is the coalition. Economists have said the super for housing policy—that wonderful thing—could drive up housing prices by more than $90,000 in our capital cities. The facts are that wages have not been driving up the cost of housing prices. In fact, wages costs have grown more slowly than other costs in construction, a fact that those opposite don't want to know about. For 10 years, the LNP complained about the CFMEU but did nothing to clean it up—all words, no action. On this side, we've taken strong action to put the union's construction division into administration and to clean up the corruption, criminality and violence that had infiltrated the union.

As I said earlier, unions have improved the lives of working people. There are fewer injuries on worksites thanks to unions. Workers have better pay and conditions because they can do things called collective-bargaining, which locks in pay and entitlements for everybody. There are more supports for workers through unions. They protect workers against unfair dismissal or wage theft. It's incredible to me that the coalition have a campaign against unions who protect workers from these things. They really don't want workers to get fair pay or protect them from unfair discrimination or wage theft. That's what's really clear about this. Unions also educate workers about what their rights are, which is a really great thing.

There are a couple of things people in this chamber might be aware of where unions have helped in shaping what our national policy is. One is the eight-hour-work day; some people in this place might be familiar with that, maybe. Another is paid leave, just a little something that allows us to take some time off work, recharge our batteries and spend some time with family. You can thank unions for that. Another is superannuation, something that helps us to be comfortable in retirement. Thank you, unions, for that. Another is antidiscrimination laws to make sure that people like me and you are protected in our workplaces. That's just a small list of the things that unions have contributed to our nation, and the attack from those opposite on our unions is a disgrace.

Now I might turn to some of the things that we're doing in housing. The housing crisis has been a generation in the making. For too many Australians, homeownership feels too far away and being a renter feels too insecure. It's why we have put forward a $43 billion plan to make it easier to buy and better to rent and to build more homes. We're expanding the five per cent deposit scheme to all first home buyers so they can pay off their own mortgage and not someone else's. Labor is launching the Help to Buy shared-equity scheme later this year to help first home buyers get into their first home with a mortgage up to 40 percentage points smaller. That is a great thing. We are doing our very best to get people into their first homes and to make it more affordable for them to realise the dream of owning their first home.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to rise to speak on this matter of public importance being put forward by Senator Bragg. The prospect of the CFMEU inserting itself into construction of apartment buildings is horrifying—absolutely horrifying—because, as Senator Bragg has rightly said, there is a CFMEU tax, a tax of an additional 30 per cent on the cost of construction of any piece of infrastructure, including any piece of residential infrastructure.

We've seen that in my home state of Queensland. I have gotten up previously in this place and referred to how, on every single major infrastructure project that has been built in my time in the Senate where the CFMEU has been involved, there has been an absolute blowout in construction costs. I have referred to the Cowboys stadium up in Townsville—a blowout in construction costs. I have referred to the Centenary Bridge duplication—a blowout in construction costs. Even on Ronald McDonald House, which was constructed to assist families whose children were seeking medical treatment in Brisbane, there was a cost blowout as a result of the CFMEU's unlawful action. It was found by the courts of this country to be unlawful, but the CFMEU consistently paid the fines as simply a cost of doing business.

I want to respond to some of the comments which have been made by some of the senators who have contributed to this debate. I note Senator Whiteaker's comments. As a Labor senator, she made no mention of the CFMEU in her contribution to this discussion. Why? Because they're embarrassed about the CFMEU, and rightly so. There was no mention of the CFMEU. Senator Whittaker talked about prefabrication, modular homes et cetera. Can I say to you, Madam Acting Deputy President, that I visited a business in Brisbane in my home state of Queensland that made prefabricated components of bridges, and they were raided by the CFMEU. They weren't in the construction business but in the manufacturing business. They were raided by the CFMEU, and members of the CFMEU even went onto their worksite and took photographs of the licence plates of management's personal vehicles. That's the CFMEU for you—fear, intimidation, harassment and corruption. That's the CFMEU. They are the last people we want involved in the construction of apartment buildings, be it in Queensland or anywhere else in this country.

Then we had Senator Pocock's contribution—Senator Barbara Pocock's contribution, I should make clear. Of course, the Greens always defend the CFMEU. They defended the CFMEU after it entered into administration. The Greens even attended and spoke at CFMEU rallies, for goodness sake!

The only thing I liked about Senator Pocock's speech was that it gave me the opportunity once again to quote from Basic Economics by the great Thomas Sowell. Again, the Greens are talking about rent control as if rent control is going to fix all the world's problems. I want to quote from my book Basic Economics, and thank you, Senator Barbara Pocock, for giving me the opportunity. Let's see what's happened under rent control. It's been tried everywhere in the world, and I'll remind the chamber: 'Nine years after the end of World War II, not a single new building had been built in Melbourne, Australia, because of rent control laws'—that's Australia. Let's go to Egypt: 'The end result of rent controls in Egypt was that people stopped investment in apartment buildings, and a huge shortage of rentals and housing forced many Egyptians to live in horrible conditions'—that's Egypt. Let's go to California: 'After rent control was instituted in Santa Monica, California, in 1979, building permits declined to less than one-tenth of what they were just five years earlier.' Let's go to page 45, England and Wales: 'Privately built rental housing fell from being 61 per cent of all housing in 1947 to just 14 per cent by 1977 under rent control.' You can always trust the Greens to give me an opportunity to drag out my book on basic economics. Perhaps they should take some time to read it and actually understand some basic principles of supply and demand.

The time for this debate has finished.

I inform the Senate that the President has received the following letter from Senator Babet:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

"The need to recognise that the Internet Search Engine Services Online Safety Code which requires age assurance measures for account holders of search engines must be amended as it represents another layer of digital surveillance, dressed up as child protection and raises many privacy issues."

Is consideration of the proposal supported?

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

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

I move:

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

The need to recognise that the Internet Search Engine Services Online Safety Code which requires age assurance measures for account holders of search engines must be amended as it represents another layer of digital surveillance, dressed up as child protection and raises many privacy issues.

This urgency motion seeks to defend a fundamental right of the Australian people: the right to privacy. The privacy implications of the Internet Search Engine Services Online Safety Code are nothing short of staggering. It is alarming, but the government remains silent, leaving it to me to stand here against the steady advance of the surveillance state. First it was a social media ban for under-16s, followed by a YouTube ban, both of which require mandatory IDs for all users of all ages. Now the focus has shifted to search engines. What comes next? This government has consistently failed to defend Australians' civil liberties. Week after week, we see new efforts in this place to erode our right to privacy and our personal freedom online. Let me say from the outset that protecting children online is a moral imperative. No-one in this chamber is going to question that. Measures like safe-search filters for minors, better parental controls and the restriction of harmful content are of course welcome, but let's not kid ourselves—this is not about protecting children; it is about building a surveillance infrastructure under the cover of safety.

Under this new code, Australians who are logged into search engines like Google, Microsoft and others will be required to undergo age assurance. That's not a polite, 'How old are you?' at the cinema; that's government ID checks. That's biometric scanning. That's data mining. We're rapidly marching towards a society where privacy online is not just frowned upon but perhaps going to become illegal. That's what's going on. Imagine this: your face, your ID and your personal browsing history all linked, logged and stored in the name of keeping kids safe. But I ask you this: who is keeping citizens safe from this creeping authoritarianism disguised as policy?

Let's be clear, most Australians are already deeply embedded in these platforms, Gmail, YouTube, Outlook et cetera. This is not a niche issue. This affects the vast majority of Australians and their right to explore the internet freely without facial recognition or ID uploads. It hangs in the balance. Even more alarming is that this framework wasn't designed by us here in this place; it was co-developed by the tech giants themselves and registered by our eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant. For now this code only applies to logged-in users, but we all know it's just the beginning. The slippery slope of Canberra and its bureaucracy is very, very real.

I cannot stress enough that we are not, nor do we want to become, China or North Korea. We're Australians. That's what we are. Australians have a right to privacy, to autonomy and to live free from constant digital scrutiny. The solution to unsafe content online is simply empowering parents, not expanding government backed surveillance. If this code continues in its current form, it's going to set a dangerous precedent that everyone's search history, browsing behaviour and identity can be monitored so long as it's done under the label of safety. It is a slippery slope, like I said before. No good will come of this.

Yes, we've got to protect kids online, but not by sacrificing the freedoms of every Australian adult in the process. The code has to be amended. We have to remove the age assurance requirement and restore some common sense before the only thing that's going to be safe online is big tech's grip on all of our lives. To the Greens I say thank you for supporting my motion in defence of privacy and against creeping surveillance. I never thought I would say that, but thank you. Hell must have frozen over! To the Liberal Party, your 'we believe' statement says that you support the inalienable rights and freedoms of all peoples. Here is your chance to show it. Stand on the right side of history and join me in defending the Australian people. All senators, support my motion. Let's see what the Libs do.

I rise to speak against the MPI moved by Senator Babet. We all know that the digital age we are living in is complicated, fast paced and potentially dangerous, especially online and especially for the most vulnerable, our kids. I am proud to be part of a government that has not only stepped up to the challenge of better protecting Australians in these unprecedented times but that is acting quickly to put those protections in place.

The Albanese government is a world leader in online protections for its citizens, and we are taking our responsibility to reduce online harm and exposure for young people very seriously. That's why last year we passed historic legislation to delay access to social media until the age of 16, a campaign that was echoed by parents in the pages of our national newspapers, the Let Them Be Kids campaign. This decisive action by our government was celebrated by parents across the country, so much so that there is now growing international pressure on governments around the world to follow Australia's lead.

We make no apology for prioritising the safety of Australian kids online. In fact, it is incumbent on governments to accept some responsibility for helping Australians mitigate those dangers. It is our responsibility to do whatever we can to protect them. That's why we have quadrupled the eSafety Commissioner's base funding to ensure that they can enforce the law. We have equipped the commission to better help Australians who face serious abuse online and to also better educate Australians about those online risks. We must particularly do that for our children, and I am not sure why you wouldn't want to protect our kids online.

That's exactly what the Internet Search Engine Services Online Safety Code does. The code was developed under the Online Safety Act 2021 and plays a vital role in protecting citizens, especially our kids, from harmful online content. The code requires search engines to implement measures to detect and remove harmful content like child sexual abuse, pornography, domestic violence and terrorism material. I'm not sure why you would be against that. It specifically requires the industry to implement age-appropriate assurances for account holders by no later than six months after the code comes into effect. The code mandates that search engines take steps to reduce the risk of children being exposed to harmful content by applying a 'safe search' functionality as the default for underage account holders. Again, I don't know why you would be against that. The code emphasises user empowerment by requiring search engines to help users manage their online exposure to potentially harmful content. Again, I'm not sure why you would be against that. The code helps to prevent illegal content from spreading by restricting access to harmful content and by restricting the distribution of harmful content, so it's harder to access or share illegal material online. Again, I don't know why you would be against that.

Best of all, the code has real power. It's backed by the Online Safety Act, which provides for civil penalties and injunctions to ensure compliance, and the eSafety Commissioner can investigate potential breaches. To me, it all just makes common sense, so I'm not sure why it's so controversial on the other side of the chamber.

I will give the senator the benefit of the doubt in assuming he also wants to protect kids from sexual abuse and terrorism material online, but we need to be clear about what the senator is arguing for here. He's squibbing about an obscure technicality. That, frankly, seems a little bit paranoid. He is arguing that, for the benefit of adults, there should be no protections against children accessing online pornography that depicts specific fetish practices or fantasies. He is arguing that, for the benefit of adults, there should be no protections against children accessing pornography that depicts sexual activity between adults. He is arguing that, for the benefit of adults, we shouldn't be protecting children from high-impact material, which includes violence, drug use, suicide, death, alcohol dependency and racism, all of which I personally find repugnant beyond description as an Australian and especially as a new mum. It's not something I want my child to be accessing online—I'm not sure about those across the chamber. The most ludicrous thing is wasting our time in the Senate when we could be getting on with the real business of debating legislation.

I want to start by rejecting the binary argument that you have either the Internet Search Engine Services Online Safety Code or the wild west. That is not the way of framing this quite complex debate. I also want to reject, on behalf of the Greens, the wild conspiracy theories that often circle in this space: that any kind of move towards online regulation is driven by some mysterious international cabal that wants to take your freedom.

But, that being said, come December, millions of Australians will likely need face scans or ID checks just to use Google. That's the latest online safety code for search engines, and it's really been happening without any public discussion and without any real input from this place at all, because the code didn't go through parliament. Tech companies basically wrote it themselves, and the eSafety Commissioner approved it. We couldn't vote on it, and politicians never had a chance to vote on it in this place either. They even finished these rules before the actual age verification trial was complete, and when the results came in, well, the age verification technology looked a bit wobbly. It doesn't seem to work reliably, and companies seem to want to have access to troves of people's personal data.

Search engines aren't optional in 2025. They are basic infrastructure. They're like electricity, water or our phones, and making people have to scan their faces to access basic infrastructure and basic information verges on digital surveillance. These codes will not work. Who will get hurt most? It will be vulnerable people who can't or won't verify their identity. What about them—young people seeking sexual health information, people researching harm reduction, and communities already locked out of digital services? If we're not careful, we're building digital walls around essential information.

This law, this online safety code, will only apply to logged in users, which means anyone who understands the internet even a little bit will be asking themselves, 'Can't users just not log in?' Yes, that will still be possible, and what it means is that children can still use Google on a device that they're not logged in to or on an account that's owned by an adult. They'll be able to access pornography, adult content and other harmful content, and the government's own research proves this—people support protecting kids in theory but these online codes don't deliver that in practice. When the public learns that the abstract concept of providing child safety means face scans, handing over credit cards and handing over personal details, they're often horrified and there is no social licence for this.

We can and must do better. We must protect kids online. We must do what we can to prevent this harmful material from finding its way into young and vulnerable minds. But, instead of playing Whac-A-Mole with content, why don't we target the billionaire business models that profit from harm, including exploitative algorithms? Instead of surveilling everyone, why don't we work to regulate platforms properly? This code does entail significant digital surveillance dressed up as child protection, and it won't achieve the child protection goals. It bypassed parliament, it has ignored the evidence—some of it gathered by the government's own trial—and it will harm the people that it claims to protect. We support pausing this code and going back to the drawing board. Protecting children shouldn't mean surveilling everyone. We can have both safety and privacy but not through this broken process. So what would work? I'll tell you what would work: providing a statutory duty of care to the platforms, requiring that duty of care and then putting in place clear, enforceable obligations for that duty of care. We won't just stand by while Australia builds a surveillance state one safety measure at a time.

I want to just finish on this last point: this isn't about digital ID conspiracy theories either. Those narratives aren't helpful, and they distract people from the real concerns, about empowering tech companies to grab ever more of your personal data and information. What we need in this debate is evidence. We need a transparent process, and we need a broad commitment to child safety and privacy. (Time expired)

I commend Senator Babet for putting this urgency motion forward. When the government announces changes like the Internet Search Engine Services Online Safety Code or the social media ban for under-16s, they often call them 'world-first changes'. Why is it that we always seem to have dubious privilege of leading the world in these changes? Why is it that it's our government who does things without thinking it through? That's because no other country on earth thinks these are good ideas. The government's noble goal of protecting children from offensive harmful content is vital. No-one here is disputing that. But the challenge and responsibility lies in balancing safety with privacy, security and some common sense.

I've previously raised concerns about the inherent flaws in age assurance and verification technologies. Whether it's the danger of uploading your driver's licence to the internet for an unspecified amount of time or using your face to prove your age, these systems are, at best, clunky and unreliable and, at worst, a goldmine for hackers. Even the government's own age assurance trial found that these tools were not guaranteed to be effective. We think of search engines as giant, airtight vaults where our information is kept secure. I'd like you to think again. Google suffered data breaches in 2018, 2014 and 2009, Microsoft Bing in 2020 and Yahoo in 2013 and 2014. This proposed code also raises technical and legal questions. How does the government plan to address VPNs? Will the checks, which are currently applied to logged-in users, apply to logged-out users? How long will age assurance information be stored for? Where will Australians need to identify themselves online next? Under this code, we've got way too many questions and few answers. (Time expired)

The eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, registered the Internet Search Engine Services Online Safety Code in June this year. The changes are due to take effect from December 2025. The intent of the code, developed under the Online Safety Act 2021, is to protect children from harmful online content like pornography, child abuse material, high-impact violence and self-harm material—for example, those which promote eating disorders and suicide—from being returned in search results. It's intent is also to implement restrictions on AI functionality and associated algorithms integrated with search engines from being used to generate synthetic versions of this type of material.

The code will require search engine providers to implement age verification safety settings, parental controls and crisis prevention measures so that, if a user is not identified or over 18 years of age, any such images will be filtered out from being returned in any search results. Once these changes take effect in December, if a user is not logged into their online account search, their search results will be filtered. These filters are generally guided by AI, and we know that they can get it wrong. Just look at the current Meta debacle, with people's business accounts being blocked and deleted.

Protecting children from harm is of paramount importance. That is not up for debate here. But since the code was registered we have received feedback from Australians who feel that this code, which was registered by the eSafety Commissioner in isolation of any legislative scrutiny or parliamentary oversight, will impinge on their privacy and personal freedoms. Those voices cannot be ignored. And, whilst the intent is to protect young people from harm, it is essential that this be balanced with an individual's right to privacy and protection of personal freedoms.

The coalition has consistently pushed back, and will continue to push back, on legislation that restricts or risks suppressing a right to freedom of speech. However, it is important to note that it is incorrect to suggest that all measures designed to protect children online are merely a Trojan horse for government surveillance of ordinary people's use of the internet. Government can both protect children from the very real risks of online harm and uphold the rights and freedoms of all Australians. It is not a matter of either/or. It can and must do both.

We all remember Labor's disastrous attempts to impose its misinformation bill. We were forced to dump it after a massive public outcry. Not a single senator in this place, other than those from the other side, would support it. It was the coalition which forced the government to make changes to the online safety laws last year to prevent the risk of digital ID being imposed. We make no apologies for holding this government to account to ensure that they do not overreach or go too far.

The eSafety Commissioner's dual role in developing, and regulating and enforcing her own policies is unique, but the concentration of this authority is now raising concerns which may require greater scrutiny—for example, through this parliament. We must ensure—and this must always be the case with legislation and delegated legislation—that the operations of bodies do not stray away from the intent of the parliament when they were first established.

Let's be clear. The eSafety Commissioner is not an elected position. It's decisions do not come before the parliament for us to scrutinise. The remit of the eSafety Commissioner, without adequate safeguards, is getting out of hand, and we must pause to consider this. Ensuring every adult logs into an account to browse the internet is taking the eSafety Commissioner's power to a new level which must be debated and scrutinised further. But we can't lose sight of the fact that we must protect our children from online harm.

I thank Senator Babet for this motion, which One Nation supports. In the recent election, One Nation campaigned against government overreach. The Internet Search Engine Services Online Safety Code for class 1A and 1B material is a textbook case of government overreach. The eSafety commissar rejected the original code from the search industry, which was based on their knowledge of what was technically achievable. Instead, her office produced their own mandatory code with stronger provisions which are seriously flawed.

The code is designed to regulate the search industry to stop children accessing harmful material, including online pornography and material showing high-impact violence or self-harm. That's a worthy cause, yet with dangerous implications. To achieve this, every search engine must include robust age verification. In practice, this brings search engines and similar sites under the purview of the Identity Verification Services Act and the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill—legislation that was passed for social media and is now being extended to internet searches without further reference to parliament or with any justification for doing so.

Google or Bing search engines, as well as sites like TinEye, stock photo sites, YouTube, Vimeo, Rumble and, bizarrely, Google Maps and Apple Maps, will now require proof of age for every user. A trial of age verification software last year actually failed; it wasn't possible to tell age accurately. It can detect that someone is a child, yet not whether they are 15 or 16, making the technology pointless.

The only way to establish age is with biometric data—a face scan with photo ID. As I've already spoken about, age verification for holding an account does not work without continuous facial scanning to ensure that the person who's signed in to the browser is still the person using it. If the search engine detects a face it does not recognise—again, through continuous scanning—search engines must show only child-friendly material. This ensures that every person will need to provide biometric data to access one of these services or only see the child-friendly results. I'll say that again. This ensures that every person will need to provide biometric data to access one of these services.

These extreme measures have a point to them. Every user of any platform that disseminates accurate information that the government doesn't like can now be regulated, and material can be taken down in the name of keeping us safe. It's censorship—any link anywhere in the world; what a power to have. How long before any posts critical of the government get taken down as dangerous and the person gets a police visit? This is happening right now in the United Kingdom under very similar laws.

The code includes specific provisions which have no relevance to the core mission of the eSafety officer, like item 12, which states that a search engine provider must take reasonable steps to identify a reputable organisation to provide information on eating disorders, to become an eating disorders crisis intervention partner, including the provision of a hotline which the search engine must promote in search results. Remember, search results include maps and AI. If I said, 'Hey, Siri, show me a map of Brisbane,' Siri would reply, 'Sure, Malcolm. Here's the map, and I've put our eating disorder crisis prevention partner on there for you.' That's how this thing is written. If that's not the intention, well, that's what happens when the government walks away from industry consultation and writes the code itself.

The eSafety commissar is there to protect children from violent material and exploitation, not from eating disorders. The framing of that section begs the question: who will be the next crisis prevention partner? We do have a hint. Item 22 states a search provider must 'engage annually with safety and community organisations, such as civil society groups, public interest groups and representatives of marginalised communities, and academics to inform their measures'. A search engine provider knows what child exploitation and violent material look like. They don't need academics to tell them. This provision provides a clear power for the eSafety commissar to declare a social issue as harmful to children. If not, what's it doing here?

This code is designed to formalise the process of taking down links to any messaging which the eSafety commissar deems 'wrongthink' under the guise of that information being harmful, as they did during COVID, often for material that was later shown to be factual. When is the Liberal Party going to wake up to this agenda and stand up for everyday Australians instead of walking in lockstep with the Albanese government's communist agenda?

One Nation would repeal this code, sack the eSafety commissar, repeal the Digital ID Bill and return the office of eSafety to its core job of taking down material that's child abuse, exploitation and revenge porn and that is overly violent—a job that it has done well before this eSafety commissar— (Time expired)

The Internet Search Engine Services Online Safety Code, as we've heard today, is set to come into effect in December this year, and what it is going to effectively do is require internet search engine providers to confirm the age of their account holders, amongst a range of other things that we've heard about this evening. But the crux of this is that what this will mean is that every Australian will be locked out of their Google account, their Yahoo account or their Microsoft account until they verify their age, which I think is quite incredible. I think it's unbelievable, actually. How does a big tech company actually achieve this in a practical sense? How does a big tech company actually identify you and confirm your age? Well, it does that by simply confirming your identity, and it means this is not just targeted at children; it's going to be targeted at everyone. You can't identify who is 16 and over unless you identify everybody.

That's what this is about. Let's be very clear about it. That's what this has always been about. It was the same with the original legislation banning social media for under-16s, which was a trojan horse for this very position. This was rushed through in parliament last year. Now we're seeing an industry code which, as many of the contributors tonight have said, has been brought out without industry consultation and with a bureaucratic stroke of a pen. The selling point has always been about protecting kids online, which nobody in this room disagrees with; it's trite to suggest otherwise. Yet the measures that are used to achieve this always seem to come back to the issue of requiring more government intervention and more government surveillance of Australians.

Why is it happening? What is the real story here? Well, the corporate sector and the administrative state have lost control of the narrative. They've lost control of the media cycle, and they're driven by the fear that the internet and social media platforms are now empowering populist and alternative views which they regard simply as unhelpful. It just sounds like free speech to me. The consequences of this new code will be yet further erosion of our privacy and another step towards this digital dystopia that we've been talking about.

For us, as a country that purports to identify itself as free and as a country that believes, I think, at its core that unnecessary surveillance is unacceptable, this is extraordinary. We're not communist China. But, if you want to know what Australia's future looks like on its current trajectory, go and have a look at Shenzhen in China—cameras everywhere, facial recognition, a digital currency and a social credit system. That is not an Australia that I want. It's not an Australia that I think anyone really wants. But it's an Australia that the bureaucracy and the political class are slow-marching us towards. It's that serious. This is not just about protecting kids online. Once this system is in place—once the digital snare trap is in place—it is going to be impossible to wind back.

The question is that the matter of urgency moved by Senator Babet be agreed to.

I move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

It is a privilege to introduce the Universities Accord (Cutting Student Debt by 20%) Bill.

As promised, this is the very first bill to be introduced to the Parliament after the election.

And as promised, it cuts the student debt of three million Australians by 20 percent.

Mr Speaker

On the 3rd of May Australians made their voices heard.

They voted for the tax cuts we are delivering.

They voted for free TAFE that we are making permanent.

They voted for us to build more homes.

They voted for more Medicare Urgent Care Clinics.

They voted for cheaper medicine.

They voted for the biggest investment in Medicare ever, to make it easier to see a doctor for free than ever before.

And they voted for this.

Cutting the student debt of three million Australians by 20 percent.

Most of those are young Australians.

Just out of uni. Just out of TAFE.

Just out of home. Just getting started.

Trying to save to buy a home.

Thinking about starting a family.

Nurses. Teachers. Tradies.

Doctors and Paramedics.

Engineers and Architects.

IT workers. AI Experts.

These are the Australians who will build Australia's future.

Who are already building it.

And this will take a weight off their back.

The average HELP debt today is about $27,600.

When this legislation passes it will cut that debt by about $5,520.

If you have got a debt of $50,000 it will cut it by $10,000.

All up it will cut student debt by over $16 billion.

When this legislation passes your debt will be cut by 20 per cent, based on what it was on the 1st of June this year, before this year's indexation occurred.

That will make sure you get the maximum benefit possible and that we honour our promise.

And it will all happen automatically.

The ATO will process changes at their end.

You don't have to do a thing.

It will take a bit of time for the ATO to do this work.

But once this Bill is passed the cut is guaranteed.

This is a big deal for everyone with a student debt today.

Three million Australians.

But it's not the only thing this Bill does.

It also makes important structural changes to the way the repayment system works.

To make it fairer.

And to help with the cost of living.

This Bill raises the minimum amount you have to earn before you have to start making repayments—from $54,435 in 2024-25 to $67,000 in 2025-26.

And it reduces the minimum repayments you have to make.

For someone earning $70,000 it will reduce the minimum repayments they have to make by $1,300 a year.

That's real cost of living help.

More money in your pocket—not the government's.

When you really need it.

This is an important structural reform.

We are replacing the current repayment system with a new marginal repayment system.

At the moment the amount that you pay off every year is based on your entire wage.

That means once you earn above the current minimum repayment threshold of $54,435, you pay a percentage of your entire wage as a repayment.

Under the changes in this Bill, you will only pay a percentage of your wage above the minimum repayment threshold.

So, for example, if you earn $70,000 at the moment you currently have to pay $1,750 each year.

Under these changes you will only have to pay about $450.

In other words, if you earn $70,000 a year, you will have to repay $1,300 less a year than you currently have to.

If you earn $80,000 a year, you will have to repay $850 less a year than you currently have to.

And if you earn $110,000 a year, you will have to repay $700 less a year than you currently have to.

You can still pay off more if you want to.

But what this does is make the system fairer.

It means you start to pay off your uni degree when university starts to pay off for you.

It's a recommendation of the Universities Accord.

And it's a recommendation of the architect of HECS, Professor Bruce Chapman.

When we announced this reform to create a marginal repayment system, Professor Chapman said this is:

" … the most important thing that's happened to the system in 35 years. It's a marginal collection, it's much gentler and much fairer than previously we should have done it years ago."

Mr Speaker, these are important reforms, that will help millions of Australians, now and into the future.

It's why it is the first Bill that we have introduced to this new Parliament.

As the Prime Minister said when he announced that we would cut student debt by 20 per cent and make these structural changes:

"It helps everyone repaying a student debt right now and it delivers a better deal for every student in the years ahead.

Permanent, structural reform to boost take home pay for young Australians.

This is about putting money back into your pocket and putting intergenerational equity back into the system.

Good for cost of living.

Good for this generation and for generations to come.

Good for building Australia's future."

Not surprisingly, the Coalition's immediate reaction—like everything else—was to attack this.

I suspect they now rue that decision.

They called it "terrible" and "unfair".

In the electorates they represented, people saw something different.

In electorates right across the country, where 1 in 4 voters have a student debt, they saw an opportunity to get a load off their back.

To make their life a bit easier.

And they voted for it.

As one anonymous National Party MP told the Daily Telegraph after the election:

"My kids are paying off a university debt and I reckon they voted for Labor".

Mr Speaker, when even your own family won't vote for you, you know you've got it wrong.

Now the Opposition have a chance to get this right.

Not just by voting for it.

But by actually speaking in support of it.

This is a chance for the opposition to admit they got it wrong.

And that the Australian people got it right.

Education is the most powerful cause for good.

A good education changes lives.

A good education system changes countries.

It's changed ours.

We have got a good education system today.

But the truth is it can be better and fairer.

This Bill is part of that.

So is Paid Prac that started this month for teaching and nursing students.

For midwifery students and social work students.

So are the University Study Hubs that will open up in our outer suburbs and regions over the next few months.

And so is the new Needs-based Funding system for our universities that starts next year.

It is also what the agreements we have signed with every State and Territory to fix the funding of our public schools is about.

And tying that funding to real reform to help kids who start behind or fall behind to catch up and keep up, and help more kids finish school and go on to TAFE or Uni.

It also means making our child care centres safer.

And I will introduce legislation to help do that in a few moments time.

Mr Speaker, once again, it's my privilege to make good on a promise we made last year and that we repeated every day of the election campaign.

In every seat across the country.

To cut student debt by 20 per cent.

To cut the debt of 3 million Australians.

To take a weight off their back.

To help with the cost of living.

And to help build Australia's future.

I commend this Bill to the House.

They say that in politics you don't come up with a solution until you've created the problem, and I suppose this is a prime example of exactly that age-old saying being well deployed here by the government. Of course, the legislation we have before us, the Universities Accord (Cutting Student Debt by 20 Per Cent) Bill 2025, is a response to a situation that university students and those who have previously gone through higher education and accrued a debt will benefit from, but one has to look at the entire landscape of situations that Australians who have a HECS or HELP debt are facing and examine exactly what they're up against here. I think it is important to point out at the beginning of this debate that this response is only necessary because of Labor's cost-of-living crisis, something that they've failed to deal with.

Life is exactly the same as it was before the election now that we've gone through the election. People are still doing it tough. People are still struggling to make ends meet, be it whether they're able to pay their power bill, put fuel in the car, put food on the table or pay the mortgage. Those issues that beset Australian households and families ahead of the election remain exactly the same as they were, so I don't think it's any cause for celebration. I don't think we should allow people to be fooled into thinking that this will fix all of their woes because of the passage of this legislation. Let's not forget that the cost of health services in this country is up 13 per cent. The cost of food is up 14 per cent. Rent is up by 18 per cent, and insurance is up by 36 per cent. So, while it is great to have measures that assist some in our community and deal with some of the issues that individuals or households face, this does not deal with the causes, and it doesn't help a great majority of Australians. Solutions to a Labor induced problem—or one that's certainly been exacerbated by this Labor government—should not be celebrated. As I've already said, life before the election is sadly continuing on in the same pattern. As it was before, it is now. There's no reason to see some of the hubris we've seen on display from the government in relation to this and other matters.

As we know, the bill proposes a one-off upfront reduction of 20 per cent on existing HELP student debts. It will also see the threshold for repayments increase from $54,435 to $67,000 from the financial year 2025-26. There'll be a change to the repayment system based on marginal rates so that repayments are calculated only on the income an individual earns above the threshold, rather than the total income earnt by that individual.

Of course, this policy has been criticised by people other than the opposition. You only have to look at some of the economists who contributed to the debate after Labor announced their policy, including Ashley Craig, an economist who described this as 'exceptionally bad policy which favours the rich, doesn't help with current cost of living, and does nothing to encourage higher education'. Chris Richardson referred to is as a reverse Robin Hood, and Andrew Norton from Monash University said:

But it is a very expensive and poorly targeted program which delivers huge benefits to those with high debt, while delivering nothing to those starting next year and those who finished earlier.

That is an important point, of course. If you have a HECS debt or HELP debt at the point in time when this legislation passes, you will benefit, as I described before, but it doesn't do a great deal for those who start accruing a debt later on, although the repayment thresholds apply from this point in time onwards. I'll come to that a little later on.

Those experts I've referred to, those economists, are not voices we should dismiss. I think when it comes to the matter of indexation, we should also note that indexation on these loans will still be applied before repayments, meaning that debt balances will remain inflated despite what the government says this legislation will do. Because inflation has remained higher for longer under this government, the amount of indexation Australians have had to cop on their HECS-HELP debt has skyrocketed. Some analysis we had done by our own Parliamentary Library found that, in real terms, this 20 per cent wiping of debt that will occur under this legislation will amount to just a 7.9 per cent reduction for some HECS debt holders based on their debt from 2022, which I think does rather put this in perspective and again goes back to that original point I made earlier on. Don't come up with the solution until you've highlighted the problem or indeed made it worse, which is exactly what has happened under this government. I am sure others, my colleagues in particular, will talk about some of the impacts of indexation and what it actually means for debt holders.

In terms of the wiping of the debt, the 20 per cent that will be taken off people's debt, I think it is important to highlight that those with bigger debts will get more relief. Twenty per cent of $100,000 is $20,000, but 20 per cent of $10,000 is only $2,000. So those who have a bigger debt because of a longer period of education—generally speaking, those who will go on to higher paying careers like doctors, surgeons, medical specialists, barristers, engineers; those who have studied for longer and therefore accrued a bigger debt but who will earn more and have greater earning potential—will receive a bigger benefit than perhaps, for example, a social worker who might have a three-year degree in a much lower cost course that will benefit them far less. Unusually, they will benefit far less from this government's policy. That is something to take into account here. It isn't really something that a lot would describe as fair. Nonetheless, there is a benefit to many in our community.

The measure is not means tested, and it does not in any way favour those who have already gone to the lengths they have to repay their debts, including those who pay their HELP debts upfront. Andrew Norton from Monash says this policy treats the symptom rather than the cause of graduates' increasingly unaffordable debt obligations. It deals with the end amount that HELP debt holders have rather than the cause, which I think is a very important point here. As we know, all taxpayers will be paying for the debts of a few, rather than it being something that everyone benefits from.

In terms of the repayment mechanism and the lifting of the threshold, we do acknowledge that the change to the threshold and the fact that it applies to the amounts above those thresholds, the marginal rates, does smooth out repayments and brings the repayment method more in line with, say, personal income tax, but there are some negative implications. Lower debt holders will take longer to pay off their debts because they may find it harder to reach the new repayment threshold and get caught up in a loop of indexation increases over time. Parliamentary Budget Office modelling showed that a graduate with a low income—that is, 50 per cent of the average graduate income upon completion of a degree—will fall below the new minimum repayment threshold, and it will take them approximately eight years to pay off their debt. That will add approximately $21,467 to their repayments. This is one of those consequences that will perhaps need addressing and may not have been considered by the government in their pursuit of this policy—something that, I think, should not go without mention in this debate.

Frankly, though, we have to look at some of the broader issues facing our education sector. To provide relief to those who hold debts is an admirable thing. It's certainly something we've said we will not stand in the way of, as a coalition, and it's something that, I'm sure, some in our community will welcome—though, it's important to note, not everyone has welcomed it, as I've mentioned before. I think we owe it to students and to our nation to focus on more than just this component of the higher education policy, the cost and affordability of it. We can't be distracted by purely this. We have to look at what's going on with our results and standards. Australian universities suffered a 70 per cent fall in the QS global rankings recently. While we stand here talking about whether or not this bill is good policy and what it might mean for people, this issue remains unaddressed. I know that the government does have legislation coming in relation to the ATEC model they're looking to deploy. Hopefully that will contain some responses to that, but I will believe it when I see it. Short-term solutions should not be a distraction from the bigger problems here.

We've said we will deploy a constructive approach—given, as stated, this government did receive a mandate from the Australian people to do many things. It doesn't mean that we will be waving through legislation without scrutiny. We opposed this measure before the election. We remain concerned about elements of it. But, as stated, we will not be standing in the way of the passage of this bill. Labor promised that they would provide this relief to holders of debt. They've won the election, and we do not want to prevent Australians from benefiting from that.

It was interesting to have the commentary from the Minister representing the Minister for Education in this place over the last couple of days—the minister who has not yet engaged with the opposition on matters pretty central to her portfolio. She's more concerned about comments made by colleagues and where the opposition might stand. We've made our position pretty clear around not opposing this bill, allowing Australians to get the benefits of this legislation, while noting the concerns and hoping that the government will do more for all Australians who hold debt and more for those who want to get the benefits of a higher education system which achieves world-best standards, rather than declining standards. So I am concerned about the approach taken by the minister who represents the education minister in this place. It doesn't bode well.

When I compare it to the approach of Jason Clare, the Minister for Education and member for Blaxland in the other place, who has been incredibly forward leaning when it comes to working with the coalition on policy, on this bill and on other legislation. He's been only too willing to provide us with the information we've asked for. So I think and I hope—especially as we approach a far more sensitive debate on another matter—that we see from the Minister for Early Childhood Education a more measured approach than some of the things we've seen here during question time in relation to this matter. Because it is a serious issue—as I've said, we've heard nothing from that minister on the next debate we will be engaging in. That said, the coalition stands ready to allow Labor to have this bill passed. We will not oppose it, and, hopefully, Australians will benefit from it, but I'm sure a number of my colleagues will provide commentary on some of the issues that have been raised as concerns, some of which I've touched on already.

I'm sure they will. But it's a pleasure to stand up and talk about the Universities Accord (Cutting Student Debt by 20 Per Cent) Bill 2025. University isn't for everyone, and it should not have to be. But the choice to go to university or not should never be based on whether a young person thinks it's something they can afford. I am extremely proud to rise in support of this bill—the first to be introduced in the other place by our government in this parliament. We, as a government, are delivering real cost-of-living relief by tackling student debt—a measure only possible and only happening because we have a Labor government. The average student loan sits at around $27,000. We're cutting that debt by an average of $5,000 per person.

Time after time, during the election campaign, I heard from constituents in my home state of South Australia about the difference this would make for them in the cost of living. It's a total reduction of over $16 billion in student debt nationwide, and, when combined with reforms to indexation, we are reducing student loan debt by close to $20 billion for more than three million Australians. The bill makes important structural changes to how the repayment system works. These changes apply to university students, vocational education students and eligible apprentices. The 20 per cent reduction to HECS and HELP debt comes into effect before the indexation, supporting students and graduates to avoid unnecessary compounding increases.

In my home state of South Australia, there are just over 200,000 South Australians with a student debt. Under these game-changing reforms, those 200,000 South Australians will receive an average cut to their debt of $5,000. This will make a huge difference to people in South Australia and in my community struggling with the cost of living. Of course, university is not for everyone, but, for those in whom it unlocks a life-changing opportunity, they should be given every opportunity to succeed and contribute to our community. I commend this bill to the Senate.

I rise on behalf of the Greens to welcome this long-awaited and overdue relief for student debtors, the Universities Accord (Cutting Student Debt by 20 Per Cent) Bill 2025, and to say, clearly and unapologetically: it never would have happened without the tireless pressure from the Greens and from the student movement across this country. For years, Labor told us it couldn't be done. For years, student debt grew and student voices were ignored. It took year after year of high indexation for this government to finally act. So let's be clear. This is not the Labor Party leading the way. This is Labor scrambling to catch up. This is the direct result of persistent, principled pressure from the Greens, from this chamber, from the streets, from campuses and from every corner of the country where people are refusing to accept that education should come with a lifetime of debt.

This one-off 20 per cent student debt wipe is a hard-fought win, but it is not a gift and it is not generosity. It is only partial relief for the harm that successive governments have inflicted on a generation of young people forced to carry the financial burden of a broken higher education system. Student debt has ballooned to over $80 billion. That is a hefty $80 billion price tag on people's future and on their ability to buy a home, start a family, start a business or even take a mental health break. It's a debt that punishes people for daring to get an education and it disproportionately punishes women, First Nations people and those from working class and migrant backgrounds. It's not just debt. It's a symptom of a broken system where you can work full-time, pay off thousands and still see your debt go up, and a system that makes education a commodity and treats students as consumers and treats staff as service providers. That is what needs to change.

Let me remind this chamber of what happened in the last few years. The Albanese government allowed the largest ever student debt increase to go ahead in 2023—7.1 per cent indexation—without lifting a finger to stop it. The Greens introduced legislation to freeze indexation and lift the minimum repayment income to the median wage. We pushed for debt to be wiped entirely. We rallied students. We demanded answers. We made noise while Labor sat on its hands. The next year, student debts went up by 4.7 per cent and, again, Labor waved it through while students drowned in debt and stress. After years of delay, Labor then doubled back to tweak indexation and bring in a 20 per cent debt wipe and an increased minimum repayment threshold. We cannot keep loading debt onto the shoulders of the next generation and expect society to thrive.

So today I say to students that this fight is far from over, but this win is yours. You made this happen. Your activism, your strikes, your rallies, your pressure—that is what forced this government to act. And, with the Greens in your corner, we will keep going. We will keep fighting until every last dollar of student debt is wiped and university and TAFE are free for all.

Let me be crystal clear: wiping all student debt is not radical. It's not some utopian fantasy. It's common sense. Other countries do it. Australia used to have free university and TAFE; free education existed in this country. It was dismantled by the very parties who now expect applause for a partial repair job. It's time to bring free university and TAFE back. If we can afford stage 3 tax cuts for billionaires and we can afford $368 billion for nuclear submarines, then we can damn well afford to give people a debt-free education.

This bill is a small step forward, but we are not here to tinker around the edges; we are here to transform. We are here to rebuild a public education system that is free, fully funded and fair, and that starts with recognising that no-one should be punished with debt for wanting to learn. The Greens will support this bill, but let it be known that we support it as a step along the way, not a destination. The movement for free education is alive, it is growing, and we will not stop until it wins, because education is a right, not a debt sentence. I move the Greens second reading amendment to address some of the problems that I have highlighted:

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

(a) notes that:

(i) students are being shackled by a lifetime of debt which is making the cost of living crisis worse, locking people out of the housing market, causing people to delay having families and crushing dreams of going to university,

(ii) the Government's plan to wipe 20% of student debt amounts to only 7.9% when accounting for indexation,

(iii) a one-off student debt cut is meaningless for students starting today and graduating with $50,000 degrees due to the Government's failure to reverse the fee hikes of the punitive Job-ready Graduates Package,

(iv) the student debt system cannot be fixed because student debt should not exist and higher education, like education at every level, is an essential public good that should be free, universal and provided by the Government; and

(v) all students experiencing placement poverty need urgent relief and should be paid for every hour of work they are required to do as part of their degree, at least at minimum wage, not a lesser supplementary amount; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) wipe all student debt and return to free university and TAFE for all,

(ii) urgently reverse the fee hikes of the Job-ready Graduates Package; and

(iii) pay all students doing mandatory placements at no less than minimum wage rates".

While the coalition is supporting the Universities Accord (Cutting Student Debt by 20 Per Cent) Bill 2025, I think it's important to note that Australians expect their elected representatives to make decisions in the national interest and to spend taxpayer money responsibly. Last week, Labor MPs were dancing through the halls of parliament like TikTok influencers, patting themselves on the back and celebrating a one-off 20 per cent student-debt reduction for a select few. Meanwhile, hardworking Australians are struggling to pay their rent and their power and gas bills or struggling to find a place to live, and those wanting to see a doctor are reminded that they need both a Medicare card and their credit card. What's Labor's answer? It's a sugar-hit policy for the chosen few, dressed up in spin and staged for social media. It's hard to take this seriously when the deeper problems facing students, our education system and our economy remain completely unaddressed. On the surface, a 20 per cent reduction for a chosen few with student loans sounds appealing, but it raises serious questions about long-term sustainability and the government's commitment to real reform.

It should also be pointed out that this policy is a result of the Labor government failing to manage the Australian economy responsibly. It is a direct result of surging inflation and the skyrocketing of student loans when indexation was applied to those outstanding loans. So this Labor government created the problem and is now using taxpayer dollars to try and fix it. It is a very expensive distraction, not a long-term, forward-thinking solution.

The bill offers a one-off 20 per cent cut to student debts, but it fails the tests of fairness, economic responsibility and national interest. It was never scrutinised by a parliamentary committee. That's not oversight; that's neglect. And, as the coalition has pointed out, it unfairly benefits one group—university graduates and students—at the expense of others. What about the young Australians who didn't go to university and who are working, paying rent and doing it tough? Their tax dollars are now being funnelled to fund debts that they never incurred. It also disregards the millions of Australians who paid off their HECS debt in full without any discount, and it ignores future students entirely. What message does this send? Work hard and do the right thing and you will be penalised.

Raising the repayment threshold might offer short-term relief, but it also means higher indexation and longer repayment timelines. We're not solving the problem; we're kicking it down the road, trapping more Australians in long-term debt and dependency.

This policy comes at an eye-watering cost of $16 billion. That's not saving students money; it's shifting the burden onto families, tradies, small businesses and retirees. Australians who never took out a student loan are now footing the bill. That means higher taxes, more inflation and deeper economic pain. Yes, this may help some graduates today, but it punishes others. It punishes the teachers and the nurses who paid off their debts before the cut of 1 June 2025 came in. They receive no refund and no recognition—just a sense that playing by the rules doesn't pay. Labor's handout doesn't eliminate debt; it redistributes it. From the Barossa Valley farmer to the Port Lincoln fisher, it's robbing Peter to pay Paul. And let's not kid ourselves: under Labor, nothing comes for free. Someone always pays, and it will be the next generations—our children and our grandchildren—who will foot this bill.

We must remember a simple truth. There is no such thing as public money. There is only taxpayers' money. Every dollar Labor spends it takes from someone else. That's why we must see these handouts for what they are: short-term sugar hits, not serious policy. The problem that socialism has is that eventually it'll run out of other people's money to spend. This measure fosters a culture of entitlement and fuels expectations of more handouts before every election. It encourages political stunts, not principled government. Yes, we need to support education, but we must do it responsibly, sustainably and fairly. As a parent and a former education executive, I support improving access to education and learning and reducing barriers to opportunity—I spent nearly two decades doing just that—but not at the expense of those who never went to university or those who have already done the hard work of repaying their debts. This is not a plan for the future, and Australians deserve better.

As a parent, I rise to speak in support of this critical piece of legislation from the Albanese Labor government, the Universities Accord (Cutting Student Debt by 20 Per Cent) Bill 2025. It is legislation that delivers on a promise that we made to millions of Australians to cut debt by 20 per cent. It's about fairness. It's about opportunity. It's about restoring confidence in a system that should be opening doors, not closing them.

Labor believes education should be the great equaliser and that it shouldn't matter what suburb you grew up in, how much your parents earn or whether your family has ever been to university. If you work hard, you should get a fair go. But, for too long, too many Australians have been shackled by a student debt system that punishes ambition. Student debt in this country has become an anchor. It weighs people down, it delays homeownership, it limits choices and for some it's the reason why they walk away from study altogether.

This legislation changes that. It will cut 20 per cent off every outstanding student debt, benefiting more than three million Australians and wiping away around $16 billion in total debt. In my home state of Tasmania, nearly 53,000 people will benefit. That is not just a number. It's thousands of lives—in Clark more than 13½ thousand people, in Franklin nearly 12,000 people, in Bass over 10,000 people, in Lyons nearly 9,000 people and in Braddon close to 8,000 Tasmanians, saving $240 million for Tasmanians. Importantly, this reduction is backdated to before the most recent indexation, because we knew that, while the parliament was preparing this legislation, peoples' debts would continue to rise. So we acted. In our first term we wiped more than $3 billion in student debt by reforming indexation, changing it so that it's now based on the lower of the CPI or the wage price index.

We are going further. This legislation also lifts the income threshold for student loan repayments from around $54,000 to $67,000. This change means people can start their working life, get on their feet and gain financial stability before they are asked to repay a cent. This is practical, sensible reform. It's about improving cash flow for working Australians. It's about reducing financial stress. The result is that someone earning $67,000 will now pay around $1,300 less each year. That's a little bit more for the household budget, because education should come with opportunity, not a lifetime price tag.

This belief that education is a public good, a national investment, is a thread that runs through the proudest moments of Labor's history. We have fee-free TAFE, with over 300,000 places—and counting—already delivered, and the Commonwealth prac payment, a cost-of-living payment for over 68,000 teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work students. This is the difference between a government that invests in people and one that leaves them behind. The legislation before us today is a key part of that. It's a bill that will directly improve people's lives, remove barriers and deliver on a promise that we took to the Australian people.

I want to finish by sharing my story of Emily, a young woman from Glenorchy, who graduated from her teaching degree a few years ago. She is passionate about education. She has already given back to her community, but like so many others she has been burdened by student debt that keeps growing faster than she can pay it down. Emily told me that this legislation will take thousands of dollars of that debt away. That will give her a sense of progress and a belief that government can still make a difference to people's lives. And that's why we are here. I'm proud to support this bill, I'm proud to be a part of a government that puts people first and I'm proud to carry forward the Labor legacy of lifting people up through education.

University student debt is a weight on the backs of millions of people at a time when so many are already carrying so much. Young people often carry the highest HECS debts and are the hardest hit by the cost-of-living crisis. HECS repayments cut into their take-home pay right when they need it the most. So, while the 20 per cent reduction in HECS put forward by the government is welcome, we must acknowledge that this is shaving a bit off the edges and calling it a day. But here's the truth: for so many, the mountain of debt will still be there. The burden is still there. The injustice is still there.

Labor had, and still have, the opportunity in this parliament to finally lift that weight, to enable a generation to no longer have this ever-increasing student debt looming over them, and yet they are choosing not to. Wiping student debt and making university free is possible. At the very least, making the current system fairer is definitely possible. The only thing in the way is political will.

Back in 1974, the Australian government abolished university tuition fees, with a goal of opening up access to higher education regardless of a person's income or background. Then, in 1989, HECS was introduced, a deferred payment system where people repay through the tax system once they have started to earn enough. Now, I know that many in my generation deeply appreciate access to HECS. Without it, university wouldn't have been an option for them. But what we did not see coming was how that debt would spiral; how, even after making regular repayments, many would find that their debts had grown. At the end of the year, you would look at that balance and sit there in shock that it had grown larger. This is simply not fair.

If this government made gas corporations pay their fair share of tax, that one change would raise billions. It would raise enough to cancel all student debt, enough to make university free for all, enough to lift the weight of student debt from everyone. The cost of the entire HECS debt—all of it—is just a fraction of what this country gives away to fossil fuel corporations and tax avoiders. So don't tell us that it's impossible. Don't tell us that it's too hard. Let's talk in real terms about what this actually means. Going to university used to be an opportunity available to all Australians. It used to be about aspirations, interests and a path to building a better future. Now it is a conversation about debt. It is a calculation about how much debt you are willing to accumulate if you think the financial risk will pay off in the end. That's not a fair system. That's a broken promise. Free education isn't a radical idea; it's a fair one. It's a policy that opens doors, levels the playing field and recognises that education is a public good, not a personal debt.

In the meantime, there are many other steps that we could take towards fixing inequities, like wiping out indexation altogether or, at the very least, no longer waiting until the end of the financial year to deduct compulsory repayments from your HECS debt balance, ensuring people are charged the least indexation possible. It's time to give people back the freedom to choose the higher education pathway that works for them without the threat of a decades-long financial hangover.

On the topic of university, we know that disabled people are underrepresented in higher education. Governments have received report after report that action is needed to make our universities more inclusive. We need to change the system. We need to build a system that focuses on the whole of the student; where we support people in their learning and in finding affordable student housing; and that provides assistance with finding employment and adequate income support, as opposed to simply enrolling disabled students into a course and hoping they succeed. I have heard from disabled people across the country about the immense barriers they face in accessing university education. These aren't isolated incidents. They reflect systemic failures by both institutions and governments. These failures have real and often devastating consequences for our community.

Here are just some of the experiences that have been shared with me. A deaf student requires captioning to support their learning. The university's solution? Inaccurate AI generated captions riddled with errors or, in some cases, no captions at all. Others were told at the time of applying to university that AUSLAN interpretation would be provided, only to find that those supports never materialised. Some students who require note taking didn't receive that support until weeks into the semester, putting them at an immediate and unfair disadvantage. Wheelchair users have been unable to access classrooms because ramps have been blocked off for construction or lifts were out of order. In one case, a student was forced to take a 40-minute detour across campus just to get to class. Neurodivergent students are constantly having to advocate for themselves against staff who are poorly trained and unwilling to implement approved access plans. This is not just a failure of policy; it is discrimination.

There must be a change in this system. There must be inclusion. I know that many in our community are pleased to have some relief through the government's HECS changes, but we have a lot of work to do to make universities inclusive, accessible and affordable.

The Universities Accord (Cutting Student Debt by 20 Per Cent) Bill is an admission of abject failure by the Albanese government—failure to control inflation, failure to protect young Australians from Labor's shocking cost-of-living crisis, failure to deliver a student loan scheme which is fair for all and failure to show any regard for the 24 million Australians who don't have a student debt. This measure is only necessary because, under Labor, student debt has skyrocketed out of control since the Albanese government was elected. In 2022, HELP indexation was up 3.9 per cent. In 2023, student debts rose a staggering 7.1 per cent. In 2024, the increase was 4.7 per cent. In three years, it was up nearly 16 per cent. For the average loan holder, this was a hit of more than $4,000. Labor's failure to control inflation drove sky-high increases in student debt. So I say this: why should three million Australians with a student debt pay the price for Labor's gross economic mismanagement? The three million Australians with a student loan should not be paying this price.

It was only after the coalition pressured the government to act on, in particular, its crippling 7.1 per cent rise in 2023 that they finally changed the way indexation is calculated to the lower of CPI and the wage price index. That had the effect of lowering indexation from 7.1 per cent to 3.2 per cent in 2023 and from 4.7 per cent to four per cent in 2024. That relief was backdated, at a cost of $3 billion. But the fact remains that, under Labor, student debt has gone up in total by 14.3 per cent. This is in stark contrast to the former coalition government, under which annual indexation averaged just 1.7 per cent.

Of course, we know that this bill proposes a one-off upfront reduction of 20 per cent on all existing HELP student debts. It will also increase repayment thresholds from $54,435 to $67,000 from 2025-26, but this is deeply flawed policy and, as I say, deeply unfair.

Australians expect the coalition to fight every single day for better policies in the national interest. That is why I will be moving an amendment to this bill—which has been circulated—that would, if passed, provide greater certainty and fairness to every young Australian with a student debt. So many young people have been hit so hard by Labor's cost-of-living crisis. For three million Australians with a HELP loan and for future students enrolling in tertiary education who are currently denied Labor's 20 per cent discount, my amendment would provide much-needed certainty and would be an important safeguard both now and into the future. What it would do is to change HELP indexation, which would be calculated as the lower of the consumer price index and three per cent. Capping indexation at three per cent would mean that tertiary students would no longer be forced to pay the price of Labor's failure to control inflation. This is a commonsense proposal for a HELP loan inflation guarantee, which makes it clear the coalition takes its responsibility to manage inflation very seriously.

While I will join with my coalition colleagues in not opposing Labor's student debt discount bill, I do commend my amendment to the Senate and I do hope that it receives support. While this will involve crossing the floor and being on the so-called wrong side of the chamber, I believe I will be on the right side of history. With inflation forecast to be three per cent or under over the forward estimates and into the medium term, this HELP loan inflation guarantee is a very low-cost measure. It is with regret, as I have said, that we did not take this policy to the last election. This is a policy that would have been in stark contrast to Labor's 20 per cent student discount.

If the amendment is passed, it would have the effect of decreasing HELP indexation from the current rate of 3.2 per cent to three per cent, which, of course, represents a fairly modest saving for most borrowers. But, very importantly, what this does is to deliver certainty now and into the future. Never again would tertiary students be strangled with Labor's debt noose. As I say, frankly, this has been a shocking noose around the necks of so many young Australians because, as we know, the higher the debt, the more impact this has on the ability of debtors to borrow money. That includes the ability of young Australians to buy their first home. We are seeing debts running out of control, and they will continue to run out of control. The risk is that they will continue to run out of control unless there is an inflation guarantee so that young Australians, when they are deciding what to do with their lives—whether they go for vocational education or to university—and they are looking to take out a HELP loan, will have the certainty that they are never again going to face the risk of these sky-high indexation rates.

I want to reference the media release which was put out by former shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor and me, when I was the shadow minister for education, after Labor announced its student HELP debt discount. As Mr Taylor made very clear:

There are no free lunches in economics. Under this policy, every Australian will continue to pay the price for Labor's high interest rate, high inflation environment—but only a few will see the benefits.

At $16 billion—the cost of this to each Australian household is around $1600.

And, as I said, it is really unfair that 24 million Australians see no benefit. Even students commencing in semester 2 of this year see no benefit from the discount. Students who've exercised responsibility by paying off their debts as quickly as possible, who've made voluntary payments—they too have been left behind, because those who have paid off their debts receive nothing.

One of the most egregious parts of the student discount is that it really is the high-flyers who benefit the most, because some debtors, including those who may have done multiple degrees or their PhD, will benefit from very, very high reductions in their debt, reductions of an average of perhaps $25,000 or $30,000. There are other young Australians—tradies and those who decided not to go to university—who are literally struggling every week to pay the rent. As I said at the time—and this may have altered slightly, but I'm speaking in general terms—more than 55,000 people, as at last year, had a HELP debt of between $100,000 and $200,000, meaning that, under this policy, Labor will be delivering them an average pay cheque of $25,000. How is this fair, when so many young Australians who aren't or haven't been students are struggling to pay the rent or put food on the table because of Labor's cost-of-living crisis?

The economic experts have been scathing. Leading economist Chris Richardson said:

… handing $16bn to graduates is a reverse Robin Hood: it's a tax cut targeted to the big end of town, with money going from the less well off to the better off.

It's a fairness fail.

Worse still, that $16bn does nothing for the nation's future.

Ashley Craig said:

This is an abominable idea that gives precious tax dollars to rich Australians while doing nothing to help with the currently elevated cost of living.

If it is popular, it is because people don't understand this, and are being misled.

…   …   …

This is exceptionally bad policy which favours the rich, doesn't help with current cost of living, and does nothing to encourage higher ed.

Peter van Onselen, the political editor of Daily Mail Australia, said:

… this is just transferring their debt to all taxpayers. What's next, cutting home mortgage debts. It's so profoundly economically irresponsible …

The coalition agrees with those experts. It is a poorly targeted sugar hit, which won't touch the sides when it comes to young people dealing with the cost-of-living crisis, and, of course, indexation on HECS-HELP loans will still be applied before repayments, meaning that debt balances will remain unnecessarily inflated. I will also reference the recent Parliamentary Library analysis which found that, in real terms, Labor's 20 per cent HECS cut would amount to a reduction of just 7.9 per cent for some borrowers, based on their debt from 2022. So there's a lot of spin in this 20 per cent discount.

I mentioned before that, as a result of those huge increases in student debt, the hit on the average loan was more than $4,000. Labor is saying this measure will save the average debtor $5½ thousand. There's not a lot of difference. It's actually not 20 per cent, because, in order to get the 20 per cent discount, Australians with a student debt have had to pay a very, very heavy price. And I do note that this is in stark contrast to the performance of the former coalition government—and I mentioned this before—when, under the coalition, on average, the indexation was nearly two per cent lower than what debt holders have had under the Albanese government.It was 1.76 per cent under the coalition during those nine years, compared with 3.58 per cent under this government between 2022 and 2025. It is regrettable that it's got to this, because if Labor had managed the economy responsibly and taken the control of inflation seriously—because, of course, HECS-HELP indexation is directly linked to CPI—then we would not have seen this skyrocketing debt which caused a lot of grief for so many young Australians.

I look forward to discussing my amendment, which I think will improve this bill. Capping indexation to give certainty to future students and those three million Australians with a student debt is a good thing. I regret that this has not been endorsed by shadow cabinet, though I've had some very good responses by many of my colleagues, but I do commend this amendment because it is common sense, it provides certainty, it's responsible and it builds confidence in the HELP loan scheme. At a time when the HELP loan scheme has been under a very black cloud, we need this confidence, and my amendment will help to deliver that.

I am thrilled to speak to the Universities Accord (Cutting Student Debt by 20 Per Cent) Bill 2025, which is a bill that will deliver real cost-of-living relief to over three million Australians. At the election, Labor made a promise to cut student debt by 20 per cent. Now, with this bill, we are delivering on that promise. The Prime Minister said that it would be the first bill introduced to the House of Representatives upon returning to parliament. We said that it would be our top priority, and that's what we're doing. While the Liberals and Nationals are yet again standing in the way of real cost-of-living relief for Australians who need it, the Albanese Labor government is turning promises into progress.

For anyone with a student debt, this means you will be thousands of dollars better off. It's a one-off reduction, automatically applied—no forms, no applications, no paperwork, just a lighter debt load for millions of Australians. For Western Australians, some 264,000 of them will save a total of over $1.3 billion—an average saving of $5,500. It's reducing pressure on people when they can least afford it. This bill also, as others have said, raises the repayment threshold, which goes towards reducing that pressure. It means repayments won't kick in until people start earning more. This comes on top of Labor's earlier moves to cap indexation on student loans so they can no longer rise above wages.

We are doing what we said we would do, taking pressure off the cost of living and making the student loan system fairer, because we know that people are doing it tough. Seventy per cent of people repaying a HELP debt are 35 years of age or younger. They're just starting their careers and getting into the housing market. Perhaps they're thinking about starting a family. For many of them, a growing student debt has been a source of stress and anxiety. Labor is fixing the mess that we were left by those opposite. We believe education should be a ladder of opportunity, not a burden that you carry with you for decades. That is why this bill matters.

():  I rise to express my support for the Universities Accord (Cutting Student Debt by 20 Per Cent) Bill 2025. We support any relief that eases the crushing weight of student debt on young Australians. Any form of relief is welcome. However, I must point out that this measure comes across as quite tokenistic, where it's designed to win votes rather than to provide value for money and support to those who need it most. While cutting student debt by 20 per cent across the board sounds good—in fact, even generous—we must ask ourselves who benefits most. It is those with the highest debt and with the greatest capacity to take on a debt in the first place. Research from e61 Institute found that a more equitable method of distributing this relief would be a flat $5,500 cut helping 15 per cent more people clear their debt sooner. That's value for money. This doesn't appear so. I have heard countless horror stories from countless students in WA, and the eye-watering amount of debt they have accrued is completely unjustifiable. If the government were serious about tackling student debt, they would start with the timing of indexation. Students are being charged interest on debts they've already paid. Senator David Pocock has rightly called this out and argued that fixing it could save students $704 million over four years. That's $704 million over four years. That's the kind of urgent and fair relief we're demanding.

Debts are not the only problem affecting university students. For many students who complete a placement, the issue of placement poverty has made completing a degree while working an unpaid part-time job a very difficult balancing act. The recent implementation of the Commonwealth prac payment is a welcome reform, but students in degrees that are excluded from the payment, such as medicine, psychology and radiography, have been left out in the cold by this government. President of the Australian Medical Association, Dr Danielle McMullen, said:

Medical students are required to undertake about 2000 hours of unpaid clinical placements … The costs associated with this unpaid placement are a significant barrier to participation among current and potential students from low socio-economic and rural backgrounds.

So, in a time when medical services, particularly in rural areas, are under serious pressure, we need to be doing as much as we can to support the students and increase the resilience of our healthcare workforce.

Then, again, there's the elephant in the lecture theatre, university fees. Under the government's so-called Job-ready Graduates scheme, student debt has exploded by more than $10 million. Government senators on the other side don't seem to believe me. Well, the PBO confirmed it, the Universities Accord confirmed it, and still the government seems to be stalling. Students are paying more, but the quality of tertiary education they're receiving is decreasing. Overworked tutors, pre-recorded lectures, declining ranks—these are the serious issues that I keep hearing from those learning and from those teaching. Research from the Australia Institute has found that the average HECS debt for a student in their 20s has more than doubled since 2006 from $12,600 to $31,500. Despite our international reputation as an education superpower, a poll found 83 per cent of Australians are concerned about universities focusing on profit over providing quality education, and it's easy to see why when we have universities across Australia cutting jobs for tutors and lecturers while vice-chancellors rake in around $1 million a year. Australia's international university rankings have been slipping in recent years, with 70 per cent of Australian universities suffering a fall in ranking this year. The Director of Strategic Insights at RMIT, Angel Calderon, has said:

Over the past five years, we have seen the reputation of Australian universities gradually decreasing.

Organisational restructuring, staff movements, operational deficits and any kind of disruption are likely to influence institutional perceptions everywhere.

Upon graduation, you would think students would have something to look forward to, but many students face a brutal job market and are struggling to secure employment. Many large-scale recruiters like the big four accounting firms, for example, are cutting back on graduate recruitment. In IT alone, despite the Australian Computer Society predicting a need for 52,000 new workers a year until 2030 to meet demand, most graduates can't land an entry-level job. Why? Everyone is asking, 'Why is that?' Because only one per cent of employers rated Australian graduates as job ready, and 65 per cent reported having to reskill their new hires. The rat race for certificates and other qualifications leads many graduates to question, 'What was the whole point of the degree?' This bill, in addition to cutting debts, increases the repayment threshold, allowing more students and graduates to hold onto more of what they earn at the beginning of their career, and that is definitely a welcome reform.

As with so many government bills that come before this chamber, it is a good start. The government has got good intentions, but we could be doing much, much more. Australians are calling for structural reform, not tokenistic gestures or one-off policies. That means fixing the timing of HECS indexation so students aren't charged interest on money they have already paid. It means scrapping the failed Job-ready Graduates Package that has only driven up debt without delivering outcomes. It means properly funding and expanding paid placements across all critical professions, not just a select few. Above all, it means ending the treatment of students as cash cows and restoring education as the public good it's meant to be. We've had the reviews, we've had the reports. It's time for action, so let's get on with it.

I rise tonight to speak on Labor's Universities Accord (Cutting Student Debt by 20 Per Cent) Bill 2025. This is really important legislation because it gives another avenue for this government to emphasise our belief in how important education is for Australians. Education should be a pathway to opportunity, not a financial burden that limits a person's future. Tonight I highlight one of the most significant student debt reforms in Australia's history, the Albanese Labor government's decision to cut 20 per cent of all student loans, wiping $16 billion in debt from more than three million Australians. Wiping $16 billion of debt from three million Australians—that's good economic policy, it's very good education policy and it actually has health benefits as well.

This is more than just an education policy, as I said. It's more than an economic policy. It's about addressing the cost of living challenges that these students are facing. We know the Australian workforce, and we know the stress that is placed on all of us when we are under financial strain. Therefore, the impact on people's health and mental health is also being addressed by this piece of legislation. It is also helping to give financial security. For too long, student debts have weighed heavily on Australians striving to build a future. It has forced young people to delay major life milestones such as buying a house, starting a business and having children because of that financial obligation inherited from a broken education system under the former Liberal government. The Liberals had plenty of time to address this issue around student debt, but they decided to ignore it and to do nothing. They have been dragged, kicking and screaming initially, to support—I hope they will end up supporting it—this piece of legislation.

Now, we know that over their period in government our economy was dragged down, wages stagnated and debt rose. Excessive indexation forced millions to repay more—without earning more—of their debt, trapping graduates in deepening debt as living costs surged. The former government had every opportunity to fix this system, but they chose to do nothing, just as they did in so many other policy areas. We are here to fix their mess and address their failure.

By June next year, every Australian with a HELP or VET student loan, or an Australian apprenticeship support loan or other income contingent loan will see 20 per cent wiped from their balance. As I said, that's $16 billion in relief, giving millions of Australians real financial breathing room. That's what it is. For those with an average HELP debt of $ 28,000, this policy erases around $5,500. For larger debts, reductions could exceed $12,000. Australians will have greater financial freedom to invest in their future rather than being held back by repayments. This initiative will strengthen the economy, reduce student debt and free up household spending, allowing Australians to spend their income on goods and services and investments. With more money available, graduates and workers will contribute more actively to economic growth, stimulating industries and supporting businesses.

I want to acknowledge the work of Minister Jason Clare and his leadership in this area. I think he has been an outstanding Minister for Education. I've seen the passion. It doesn't matter whether you are visiting a primary school or you're going to an early childhood centre; his passion is as profound as it is when he is sitting down with university chancellors. He knows the true value of having an education, of having that opportunity, one that has not always been available. Can I just say that, in my home state of Tasmania, I meet so many young Tasmanians that are the first in many, many generations of Tasmanians to have the opportunity to go to university. So this will have a profound impact on those individuals. It will strengthen our economy. It will make us a brighter, smarter country, which is what we should be striving for every single day in this chamber.

I want to see my grandchildren have the opportunity to go on to university. I might add that my eldest granddaughter is applying to universities now, and I am very delighted that her strengths in numbers, in mathematics, come from me and my side of the family, but I also have to admit that my son-in-law's family are doctors. He is an industrial chemist. So she has a scientific background, so she's going into science. I wish her every success. To see a young woman aspire to and have those opportunities enriches all our lives, in my view, and I am immensely proud of her—whatever direction she wants to go in—as I am of the other six grandchildren that I'm very grateful to have.

We've heard a lot from those opposite, bleating about how the cost-of-living challenges are all due to this Labor government—after three years in government, one term in government—while neglecting to take any responsibility for the time they were there, for 11 very long years. With this legislation, like so much that we did in our first term, we're looking out for people who just need a helping hand. We've invested in education. We've brought all the states and territories to the table, to ensure that those starting school have the best opportunities, that they get help when the need is identified in the first three or four years of being at school. We've invested in that. Now we're investing in those who have qualifications or are aspiring to go to university to give them hope for the future.

We talk in this place about our motivations or what brings us to this place as senators. Education has to be the cornerstone of that. With a piece of legislation like this, you can see not only the educational benefits but the economic benefits. It's about lifting Australians up. It's about lifting up young people to know that they can aspire—not because they have rich parents who can pay for them to go to university. I wasn't able to do that for my daughter when she went to university. She's probably still paying that debt off, but she had the support at home to know that she could actually do that. She worked full time and studied part time. We want to give everyone that opportunity so that it's not about your credit card or your postcode and so that every young Australian can aspire to go to university and get that opportunity because it will set them up for a lifetime.

I talked earlier about the benefits from a health point of view. There are also benefits around mental health because of the burden of debt. I'm sure most people in this chamber at this very moment understand the anxiety and depression that is caused when people are under financial stress. That then implicates and has an effect on your physical health and your relationships. The community is so much poorer when you're going through those circumstances. I've lived there; I've done that and been there. So I am immensely proud to be able to stand in the chamber here tonight and support this legislation, because I think it's really important.

It's also critically important not only to Australia as a nation but to our urban centres and, very importantly to me as a Tasmanian, to regional areas like my home state of Tasmania. Tens of thousands of Tasmanians will see almost $250 million wiped from their collective debt. This is what education reform is about. This is a Labor government delivering on their election promises. It's a Labor government delivering on the things that we value as being important because they give the opportunity for equality in this country. With a good education, you can have a good job, you can earn money, you can invest, and you can start your business. You can go on and study the subjects that you really want to do, not choose a degree that you can afford. You can have a degree for which you are going to have passion, so you are going to make a greater contribution.

We know that, when those on that side were in government, they ran down our TAFE right across this country. They didn't invest in skills. They didn't value TAFE. We're addressing that as well—we've already done that, as I said. There is so much more I could say about this, but the important thing is that Labor have delivered on their election promise. We're investing in our young people. We're investing in those who want to go to university and those who want to study and get a decent education. I commend the bill.

With the Universities Accord (Cutting Student Debt by 20 Per Cent) Bill 2025, the Albanese Labor government is delivering on our commitment to cut student debt by 20 per cent. This will benefit more than three million Australians. In fact, in my home state, over 600,000 Queenslanders have a HECS debt and will benefit from this bill. We have a combined HECS debt in this country of $16.3 billion, with the average national debt being $27,000. This legislation will cut each person's student debt by about $5,520, helping their borrowing capacity and delivering cost-of-living relief. It will put more money in the back pockets of those with a student debt when they need it the most.

We didn't just listen when university students, vocational students, apprentices and graduates told us that their debt was growing too high, was too difficult to repay and was locking them out of housing and other initiatives. We acted, because that's what Labor governments do. That is why I think it is really important to reiterate that this legislation makes it clear that the 20 per cent student debt cut will be backdated to 1 June 2025—before this year's indexation.

Recently, I had the pleasure of going down to and speaking to students at Griffith University's campus in Nathan. I spoke to Shay, who was studying a bachelor of forensics and criminology. Shay told me that her group chat had been blowing up with a mixture of excitement and relief as her friends discussed how many thousands of dollars they would be saving under Labor's student debt bill. I know Shay has been waiting for this legislation to pass so she can see the benefits of that 20 per cent cut to student debt. In fact, every student I spoke to on campus, including Archie, Emma and Olivia, all shared Shay's excitement.

But I also need to apologise to Shay and all the students I met at Griffith University, because, while we are working to get this legislation through ASAP for you, we are, sadly, having to work around the usual politicking of those opposite. Before the most recent election, the coalition attacked this policy. In doing so, they attacked three million Australians with HECS debt. Those opposite called this measure 'elitist' and 'unfair'. They said Australians would see no benefit from this policy. Well, the Australian people and, in particular, Australian students disagreed with the narrow view of the world of those opposite. Australians instead elected Labor, with its positive agenda for a more educated, fair and innovative future.

This initiative builds on the significant reforms the Albanese government has already implemented to help more Australians obtain higher levels of qualifications and education—no matter their field of study or work. Last year we wiped $3 billion of HECS debt and fixed the system so that the indexation on HECS debts can never increase faster than wages. From 1 July 2025, the Labor government established a Commonwealth prac payment. This will support 68,000 eligible teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work students while they are completing their compulsory prac training at university. The Albanese government has also locked fee-free TAFE into law. This landmark policy has seen more than 650,000 enrolments across the country, with 170,000 of those courses already completed. Free TAFE is a pivotal part of the Albanese government's plans to address the skills shortages in Australia—skills shortages in fields such as agriculture, aged care and health care, construction, early childhood education, manufacturing and so much more. Labor believes that a rising tide lifts all boats.

From 1 January 2025, the Labor government massively expanded fee-free university-ready courses, which are life-changing courses that help more students from disadvantaged backgrounds to get a chance to access university. Every dollar of this initiative will multiply in benefits to our nation, creating more skilled workers, innovative thinkers and problem solvers who will lift the industry into the future.

I say to the nurses, teachers, engineers and scientists—in fact, to any Australian who has backed themselves by pursuing higher education: the Albanese government is here to back you as Labor has always done and always will do.

The Albanese Labor government is selling students a con job. This isn't a HECS refund; it's taking students back to where they started, before the government caused the inflation crisis. I will say that again: this isn't a HECS refund; it's just taking students backwards to where they started before the government caused the inflation crisis.

On the original HECS indexation rates, HECS debts would have been indexed 23 per cent since COVID, or 2020. Accounting for recent cuts, this figure is still 18 per cent. While Labor keeps posting TikToks saying, 'You're getting a 20 per cent cut,' the reality is you're only getting a two per cent discount on the 2020 balance, at best. The Albanese government's student debt reduction is fiscally irresponsible, lazy and vote-buying and does nothing to address underlying issues in university education.

These changes are reported to cost $16 billion in forgiven debt, which adds to roughly $3 billion in forgiveness from changes to indexation rates in relation to high COVID inflation that came into effect in December 2024. This $19 billion goes onto the national debt, on which all taxpayers pay a far higher amount of interest than HECS debt indexation. Those who've got university degrees and those who haven't all pay. Taxpayers, who are more likely than not going to be people with degrees, are going to have to pay back that national debt and then some. It's just shifting the debt from your HECS account to the tax you'll have to pay in the future.

When it comes to HECS debt, many young people have signed up to take on a huge amount of debt, often for degrees that failed to deliver on the university's promise of a high-paying job in the future. That is what universities promise. Standards of tertiary education have continued to deteriorate. Indoctrination has become more important than education, and promised job prospects have failed to materialise for many students.

Meanwhile, the universities and their extravagantly paid vice-chancellors are laughing all the way to the bank. In 2020, the heads of 16 of Australia's 41 universities each earned more than $1 million a year, more than the head of the world's best university, Oxford. A number of Australia's universities generate more than $2 billion a year in revenue. The universities face no accountability for the quality of teaching they pump out. Under the HECS system, the government pays the university upfront, while the student pays the debt back to government for rest of their life.

Tertiary education has turned into an extremely lucrative government guaranteed cash cow, with students holding the debt for degrees that fail to deliver quality teaching or the promise of a good, stable job. Many courses are being delivered with prerecorded lectures that are many years old. Delivering degrees is getting cheaper, so course fees should be getting cheaper too, but they're not. One Nation would cut the fees for subjects that use repeated prerecorded lectures and large numbers of group assignments.

The increasing use of group assignments so that universities can pay for fewer assessors per course is another real issue. In these group assignments, students are frequently grouped with foreign international students, on whom universities rely for even more income. English standards are not being strictly enforced, so Australian students find themselves having to do the entire group's work or watch their grades suffer as a group result. One Nation will strictly enforce English standards for international students so that universities aren't sacrificing Australian educations to increase profit from international students, to the detriment of Australian students. Our universities should be focused on delivering a good education for Australian students first. That's the first priority.

There are still big problems with the way HECS debts are indexed, though. Employers withhold extra tax from HECS debtors on every pay under the pay as you go withholding scheme. While extra tax has been withheld every pay cycle, the extra tax paid is only deducted from the study debts once the person's tax return has been lodged. The earliest someone can do this is 1 July. HECS debts, however, are indexed earlier, on the larger balance, before the payment on 1 June. This means that, despite the student paying extra tax for their HECS all through the year and the government holding that money for HECS at the time, the indexation rate is applied to the larger balance, without that withheld tax being applied, which would reduce the interest added on top of at indexation. This is grossly and inherently unfair and deceptive. If the government is holding someone's money for HECS repayments, that money should be applied to the balance before indexation is applied. To do otherwise, which is what the government's doing, is theft. Nothing in this bill fixes this unfair situation. We've raised this issue of theft before, and still the government continues to steal from students.

Finally, One Nation believes universities should be made accountable for the degrees they deliver. One Nation believes universities should publish the average salaries of graduates from their degrees one year, five years and 10 years after graduation so that future students know what they're signing up for. Is doing the degree going to be worth the debt? This could be done per university and per individual course, anonymously and in aggregate, giving everyone clear data on what future job prospects they can expect, without divulging identities. This is possible already. Simply link the unique student identifier and their course with the student's tax file number and their salary reported to the Taxation Office.

In summary, the government's HECS bill is a con job. It only returns balances back to where they were right before COVID arrived. That's all. The debt is just transferred to the national debt, which taxpayers, like uni graduates, will have to eventually pay down with higher taxes. This bill does nothing to make sure Australian university students get an education that's actually worthwhile. It does nothing. One Nation will vote against this bill because we do not want a con job reduction. We want a better life for university students, and this bill does not do that. We want a life that doesn't mean a forever debt for a degree that never lives up to its promises. One Nation wants students to get education and value.

I thank all senators for their contributions to this debate. As promised, this is the very first bill to be introduced to the parliament after the election. The Universities Accord (Cutting Student Debt by 20 Per Cent) Bill 2025 cuts the student debt of three million Australians by 20 per cent. It cuts the average HELP debt by about $5,520. All up, it will cut student debt by over $16 billion.

This bill also makes important structural changes to the way the repayment system works. It raises the minimum amount you have to earn before you have to start making repayments, from $54,435 in 2024-25 to $67,000 in 2025-26. It replaces the current repayment system with a new marginal repayment system. At the moment, the amount that you pay off every year is based on your entire wage. That means that, once you earn above the minimum repayment threshold, you pay a percentage of your entire wage as a repayment. Under the changes in this bill, you will only pay a percentage of your wage above the minimum repayment threshold—for example, if you earn $70,000 a year, you will have to repay $1,300 less a year than you currently have to, but can you still pay off more if you want to.

This is a bill that helps with the cost of living. It delivers structural reform for generations to come. It builds on higher education reforms that the Albanese Labor government has already delivered. This includes a fairer HELP system, cost-of-living relief for students, support for people from the outer suburbs and regions to go to university, and structural reforms to our tertiary education system. I commend the bill to the chamber.

Debate adjourned.

Senate adjourned at 20:02