If there is no objection, the meetings are authorised.

I move:

That general business order of the day no. 5 (Housing Investment Probity Bill 2024) be considered today at the time for private senators' bills.

Question agreed to.

I start by thinking about what was happening this morning when Senator Bragg woke up. He probably woke up in a warm, quiet environment, under a multiple-thread-count sheet, reached out his hand and grabbed—

Where's this going?

Hold your horses and you'll find out!

I'm starting to blush!

I think that says more about you than it does about me! He reaches out his hand to his fully charged, state-of-the-art iPhone. He thinks about what he's going to have for his breakfast. Maybe the fresh eggs in his fridge? Maybe that nice bacon he got from the deli?

He's a vegan.

If he's a vegan, he won't be eating that bacon, will he? Then he goes to the laundry and gets his crisply ironed, white shirt and starts to prepare for his day in a calm and ordered fashion, knowing that everything's in order and the only thing he has to worry about is why he put this bill, the Housing Investment Probity Bill 2024, forward in this house.

Down road, in a car park, Josie wakes up in her car. It's cold. It's damp. She's pretty stressed. She wriggles out of her sleeping bag and looks at the only thing that's left on the seat of the car for her to eat: some dry crackers. She shakes out her wrinkled clothes, looks across at her flat phone and wonders what on earth she is going to do today. She is stressed. Josie doesn't care who is going to build the housing of the future. Josie just wants it built so that she can find somewhere to live. She doesn't hate unions, she doesn't hate the CFMEU and she doesn't hate Cbus, but she does hate not being able to find a home.

What we're seeing here is just another attempt, in another year, to do nothing to address the housing crisis that we have in this country. While we on this side, the Labor government, are focused on building more homes and tackling the housing crisis, the opposition are coming into this, the second week of the 48th Parliament, with more and more of this ideological rubbish. Senator Bragg and his party are the same people who stood in this chamber, blocking every single housing solution that we brought in here. They blocked Labor's Help to Buy program, stopping 40,000 Australians from owning their own homes; they blocked our build-to-rent laws, stopping 80,000 renters; and they blocked the Housing Australia Future Fund, a $10 billion program that is directly supporting the delivery of tens of thousands of social and affordable homes, the kinds of homes that Josie needs so that she doesn't have to sleep in her car. So you've got to ask the question: is this bill really about housing, or is it about the opposition's ideological stand against unions, or is it about the opposition's pathological hatred of the CFMEU, or is it about the opposition's distaste for working people having a say in their own future—

It's all of the above.

or—as rightly pointed out by my colleague Senator Sheldon—is it all of the above?

Let's just be clear about part of the situation here. Superannuation funds, including Cbus, are actually strongly regulated. They are required to comply with strict governance standards, and they are required to act in the best financial interest of their members. APRA engages with superannuation funds on their governance arrangements and ensures that their boards meet the necessary standards. A longstanding feature of the superannuation system is equal representation, so you have equal numbers of employers and employees—not one or the other but both, so both interests can be served. All superannuation fund trustee boards have to assure themselves that their directors meet the necessary standards. This is regulated; this is monitored. What's being put forward by those opposite is just an attack. It's not real. It's not helpful. What we are seeing when we look at the Housing Australia Future Fund is a fund that is administered by Housing Australia. It's an independent body, so the notion of capture between the superannuation funds and the unions is, as I say, just the ideological hatred that we see from the opposition. It clouds their vision, it clouds their view, it clouds their understanding of the situation, and it clouds their ability to actually do anything about it, so they continue to sit there and block any progress on housing in this country, and that's a disgrace—an absolute disgrace.

We know that there are solutions. We know that there is a long-term fix. We've been working on it frantically for the last three years, looking at the situation in front of us and actually taking the time. Where do we not have enough housing? Why is that? What are the changes in the demographics? What are the changes in our population? What's the demand? Where's this going? How are we looking at this to find ourselves the right answer and the right balance between what housing we have now and what housing we need into the future? The pipeline of houses to build, the pipeline of houses to rent and the pipeline for people who are doing it tough and who require more support in our social housing—we have been looking at these, and this is how we came up with Labor's plan for housing for the future, by knowing that we were in a crisis.

I have to ask the question: what exactly is it that the opposition did for 10 years when they were in government and when this crisis was brewing? All the indicators and signs were there that housing was turning into a crisis situation. Our rates of people who were homeless were increasing and our rates of people struggling to find rental accommodation were increasing. Now, we often hear the excuse that it was all COVID. No, it wasn't. It really wasn't. Ask any of the housing peak bodies or interest groups and look at their modelling, their structures and what they have looked at, and that's not true. Yes, it had an impact alongside a bunch of other things. But now we need action on the ground to actually look at where our housing situation is going, how much housing we need into the future and how swiftly we can get it on the ground. There are some fantastic solutions being put forward. Some of our states, particularly my own home state of South Australia, are doing an absolutely spectacular job of moving hurdles out of the way, finding innovative solutions and moving as quickly as possible to put in place the housing that we need into the future.

To touch on the pathological hatred of the CFMEU from across the chamber here, I fully support our construction workers. They deserve a strong union that can represent them and stand up for them, and that's exactly the path that we are on. Yes, an intervention was made because there was some untoward activity going on that could not be accepted. But the pathway is there for the future and for that union to stand up strong and support the workers with no bad behaviour and no untoward activities, but a union doing what unions do—representing their members. That is what we wish to see into the future and that is what we will see into the future. Because, while we are on these government benches, we will be pushing to deal with this housing crisis and with anything associated with it that comes up. We need to have those opposite get out of the way and stop with this ideological rubbish. You might think it looks like a good headline, but, seriously, there are people like Josie who are living in their cars, and all you want to do is sit there and block action, block development and block a solution to the situation which is a crisis situation in this country and needs to be dealt with.

Housing can't be fixed overnight. We know that. You can't just snap your fingers and pop up some housing. But you had 10 years and you allowed the situation to crumble and to get worse and worse, and you did nothing. And now you have the cheek to sit there and block everything that we try and do. It is a disgrace, and you should be deeply ashamed of yourselves. The plan we have for the future is to get people into housing and to make renting more secure. A lot of the rental rules are dealt with by the states. We have seen state after state come to the party and improve the situation on the ground to make renting a property more secure, so you can live there knowing that is your home. I would, again, like to shout-out our South Australian state government for the changes they have made to rental laws which are making a real difference for people on the ground.

But we need to build more housing. We need to be able to take the money that we have and invest it in the Australians who need the support, who need more options. We cannot continue to have people like Josie sleeping in cars. We cannot continue to have people looking to purchase a house and feeling that they're never going to get there. We need these structures in place to enable people to have the security of a home, whether it's their own home or a rental. That's what we're all about. That is what we are doing here.

To increase supply is critical. If we build more housing, there are more options for people. People who can purchase, if they're given a hand, can get into those homes. I know from talking to people that many of them could actually service a mortgage, but they cannot afford to build up the size of a deposit they need for that home. Having that opportunity for a lower investment at the very beginning, with some support from the government, enables them to get into their home, where they can service that mortgage. They can get on their feet and own their own home into the future. And that's what we want. We want people to be able to own their own home. But, for those who rent, we want them to have a secure rental, to know that they are supported, to know that they are not going to be thrown out on the street with very little notice, to know that they can make that rental their own home.

Labor has a plan to address the housing crisis. We have started and we are working so hard to get that delivered. The constant attacks and the constant blocks by those opposite are deeply unhelpful. They should just wake up to the fact that people need assistance and need it now, and they should just get out of the way.

Senator Bragg has advanced the Housing Investment Probity Bill 2024, which modifies the charter of the Housing Australia Future Fund to prevent financing of projects that Cbus owns. Cbus is a superannuation fund with legal affiliation to the CFMEU. The CFMEU are currently under a federally appointed administrator, a move that was a long time coming. Queensland premier Crisafulli has called an inquiry into the CFMEU's systemic violence, intimidation, misogyny and bullying. This bill from Senator Bragg is common sense—to prevent cash leaking through Cbus to the CFMEU until the CFMEU clean up their act and get back to representing Australian workers and to working constructively with industry to create secure, well-paid jobs at scale for all Australians.

Australia needs housing, and we need breadwinner jobs. We have a responsibility to ensure that infrastructure is built on time and on budget. One Nation does, though, propose a better alternative to Senator Bragg's bill. We would shut down the housing future fund and the federal department of housing. Housing is a state responsibility, a state power. Government has no role in building houses. Its presence in the market drives up prices and slows down production, displacing private builders and monopolising building products. We will wind the building code back to remove the woke nonsense and the net-zero nonsense which were recently introduced into the code, and suspend the GST on building materials. Together these will cut $50,000 off a new home's construction cost. Independently assessed, around $49,000 of that comes out of the modifications to the building code, which are rubbish. We will take the $11 billion in funds under management at the housing future fund and roll that into a people's bank, accessed through Australia Post, offering mortgages for first home buyers who are Australian citizens. It's been proven here in the past in Australia. It's been proven in North America. It's been proven in Japan and New Zealand.

Mortgages will be on five per cent interest with a five per cent deposit, fixed for up to 30 years. The five per cent deposit can come from the first home owner grant and then be topped up by using the applicant's own superannuation account, protected with a lien. Notice I said 'account', not 'fund'. This will not be a drawdown from super. Super is useful for retirement. Our policy simply replaces super funds investing in housing with the person's own super account investing in their own house. As the house grows in value, so too does the value of the lien held in the person's own superannuation account, protecting their retirement. Someone who has been working in the workforce for five years on average, and who is entitled to a first home owner's grant, may be able to move into their own home straightaway.

We must do more for the young Australians who this government, and other recent governments, have sold out. Young people who did everything society asked—they studied hard, stayed out of trouble, got their degrees, got their high school qualifications—now have a HECS debt, rent and a grocery bill they can't afford. And they are in despair, right across Australia.

The government's housing measures are complete rubbish. They are an insult to Australians. The government's own incoming government report stated clearly that their construction targets would not be met—bloody hopeless. Canberra, as I've said many times, is the source of every major problem in this country, and one of the biggest problems we have in this country right now is a homelessness crisis—an inhuman homelessness catastrophe.

In my state of Queensland, going from the north in Cairns, every major provincial city has a homelessness crisis, a housing crisis. In Cairns, Townsville, Mackay, Rockhampton, Gladstone, Bundaberg, Maryborough, the Sunshine Coast, the Gold Coast, Brisbane—the capital city of what should be the wealthiest state in the world has got homeless people sleeping on the riverbanks, under bridges, in tents and in caravans—Ipswich, Boonah, Toowoomba, in every major provincial city, there are homeless.

If you drive into Gympie, in a concrete car park, there are homeless people in tents. Parents come home at night—working mothers and fathers—wondering if their kids are still in the car and then sleeping in the car. Where do they go to the toilet? Where do they have showers? These are good people. And then the councils just put the bulldozer through the tents, put the bulldozer through the cars and that's it: gone.

Why is that happening in Queensland? It's because we've got so many people leaving Victoria to come up to Queensland. In particular, we have got catastrophic, inhuman immigration levels that this government and the previous government have perpetuated. Catastrophic immigration started with John Howard's government when he doubled immigration. Every prime minister since has been on the trend of increasing immigration.

We've got so many foreigners owning houses. Some of them are locked up as an investment, not being used. We've got 75,000 people here on residence visas illegally. One Nation says, 'Deport them immediately.' We've got students here in contravention of a student visa—up to 100,000 of them. Get rid of them. Free up some houses. We've got accommodation capacity for 100,000 students; we've got about 600,000 overseas students in the country. That can't continue. One Nation says: start with the demand and deport people who are here illegally or in contravention of their visa—deport them. Stop foreign ownership of housing, which will increase the supply. And, regarding the construction costs that I've mentioned, our policy goes beyond what I've mentioned briefly. We've also mentioned the finances. Our One Nation policy fixes demand, supply, construction and finance. Senator Grogan said that housing cannot be fixed overnight. It can be fixed close to overnight, just by doing the things One Nation has said: address demand, supply, construction and finance. We must do better. It takes several months to build a house; it takes several months to build an apartment complex. It doesn't take long, though, to deport people who are here illegally. It doesn't take long at all. That frees up supply and reduces the demand.

Canberra, as I said, is the cause of every major problem in this country, and it comes from both Liberal and Labor governments—every major problem. The government's housing measures—I repeat—are rubbish. Their own incoming government report stated clearly that their construction targets would not be met, yet they perpetuate the nonsense. We must do better. One Nation are in support, and I thank Senator Bragg for this legislation.

I'm going to start my speech a little bit differently than I had anticipated, because I was struck by something that Senator Grogan said. While Senator Bragg is a good friend of mine, I have to say, when I woke up this morning, I did not think at all about Senator Bragg or what he was doing—no offence intended. I do note that he often does have a very crisp white shirt, though. I also note your comments, Senator Grogan, about Josie and when she woke up. Whilst I have never woken up in my car, I did, for many years, face housing insecurity with my children, and I do understand how difficult and how challenging that is and the need to have security of housing and that roof over your head.

I agree with your comment that Josie doesn't care who builds it, but I think we should care about who owns it. We have a problem with the fact that we have global institutional investors who will own these properties that Australians will live in. That's something we should have a think about, because, if we are building homes for Australians, it's our view that Australians should own those homes. Our priority should be that we have the option to own a home and that we should have the opportunity to own a home, not outsourcing that to some globalist entity who we then pay our incomes to in rent.

I also have a problem with the fact—I've spoken about this before—that women are allowed to access our super for emergency expenses of paying rent to someone that could be one of these global entities, but we can't access it to invest in our own housing for housing security for ourselves and our children. I would like someone to explain to me why one of those things is 'raiding the piggy bank of my own money' and the other isn't. I would think that raiding my piggy bank of super to have a roof over the heads of me and my children is a better thing when I own that property than me paying it in rent to a globalist entity like BlackRock or somebody else like that. I think that's something we need to think about. We're losing our perspective here. We need to get back to the basics and the fundamentals of the fact that we actually have a right to own our own housing, and somebody else shouldn't dictate to us what that should look like or suggest to us that we hate unions et cetera because we are opposed to the way they act.

Labor should be banning Cbus and the CFMEU from any involvement in the HAFF. That is a reality. I don't think there should be any question about that. That's not because people hate the unions or the CFMEU. They hate the misconduct, they hate the corruption and they hate the impact that it has on everyday people. Given the close connection and control between Cbus and the CFMEU, allowing Cbus to participate in the HAFF risks its integrity. Anybody who suggests otherwise is not looking at this plainly or clearly. Cbus has an obligation to spend its members' funds in the best interests of their members' retirement. However, super funds like Cbus make payments to unions masked as contracts or sponsorship agreements, and these types of payments are made by Cbus to the CFMEU.

What is also alarming is the destruction the CFMEU has caused in the construction sector, at a time when building more homes has never been more urgent. So when we're looking at barriers to getting things done—I was actually listening to Senator Roberts. Many years ago, it did take months to build a house. Guess what? Now it takes closer to years to build a house. That is because of the red tape involved. That's because of the different hurdles at local and state levels that make it so hard for people to build homes. But there are also hurdles in construction that are brought in and are impacted by measures introduced by unions.

Numerous sources, including the Real Estate Institute of Queensland, have highlighted that the conditions of the CFMEU enterprise bargaining agreements are leading to an increase in cost of up to 30 per cent. When I spoke about this the other day, I just made it very simple in terms of what that means for what is now an entry-level dwelling in many cities across our country—$800,000, of which 30 per cent is another $240,000. Good luck trying to save another $240,000 when you're already struggling to save your initial deposit. That's completely heartbreaking for young people who want to buy their own home. How do they even fathom that? Where do they begin? That is unacceptable.

We have heard allegations from state and federal detectives that the CFMEU New South Wales state secretary, Darren Greenfield, boasted to corrupt building firms that he could secure them lucrative contracts on major construction projects financed by Cbus because of his influence in the fund. That in itself should be disturbing. That in itself should be dealt with, but it hasn't been. The Australian Financial Review also reported that Greenfield previously told a building company owner that he would exert his influence over Cbus to ensure the fund instructed the lead contractor to use subcontractors favoured by the CFMEU—not the best Australian small business or the best local business or the business that provides the best value but those favoured by the CFMEU. Have a think about that.

Despite purporting to take a hard line against the criminality in the CFMEU, Labor has refused to consider deregistering the union. Again, this isn't about hating the union, as the other side has said; this is about hating the conduct and hating the fact that this conduct continues unchecked. 'Let's put our head in the sand and pretend it's not happening.' Well, on this side of the chamber, we are not going to do that. Labor and Cbus have refused to recognise any issue with CFMEU representatives sitting on the board of a $94 billion fund, and Cbus has refused to cut its ties with the CFMEU despite the allegations and evidence of corrupt and intimidating behaviour. That's extraordinary. I don't think any other organisation in our country would be granted the same tacit consent to behave in that same way. Until Cbus has cut its ties with the CFMEU, it is an inappropriate party through which to undertake government business, and there can be no question about it—none whatsoever.

So what is Senator Bragg wanting to do here? The Housing Investment Probity Bill 2024 would prohibit the HAFF from investing in housing assets or entities financed by Cbus Super to ensure taxpayer funds are left out of the criminal hands of the CFMEU. We shouldn't have any issue with that. We should all be in complete agreeance that that is the right way forward. By inserting an additional limitation in the HAFF's governing legislation, this bill will prohibit investments into housing related projects that Cbus has invested in or will invest in.

We've seen the impacts it's had on commercial construction and the construction of infrastructure in this country, the cost blowouts. So now, despite the fact that we have evidence of that criminal conduct, we're going to say: 'Yes, now, come into the residential construction sector. Come and help us build houses so that they cost more and take longer whilst we are in the midst of a housing crisis.' It's nothing short of madness. I can't think of anything but the fact that, as I said the other day, Labor has no interest in probity, no interest in transparency and no interest in stopping the criminal conduct of the CFMEU, because it is opening more doors for it to infiltrate more broadly across our construction sector.

As it stands, the HAFF can invest taxpayer funds into projects and entities financed by Cbus. Cbus Super and CFMEU, as Senator Bragg has often said, are conjoined twins. They are, it's clear. In the 2022-23 financial year, Cbus paid the CFMEU $1.25 million, including $233,000 paid to the CFMEU's Victorian branch for a sponsorship agreement. Let's repeat that: Cbus paid the CFMEU $1.25 million in 2022-23, and the Victorian branch was given $233,000 for a sponsorship agreement. Does that mean 'Cbus' gets written on the CFMEU T-shirts? I don't know what it's for. I would be keen to understand what that looked like. I hope they're really nice T-shirts.

And made in Australia, because I don't think they are!

Indeed, I would hope they are Australian made. It is no surprise, therefore, that APRA imposed additional licence conditions on Cbus to engage an independent expert to review whether their CFMEU board members are meeting their legal duties. Is this because APRA hates the unions? Is this because APRA hates the CFMEU? I don't think so. I don't think it's because they hate them. I think it's because APRA is very, very worried about the actions of the CFMEU, as they rightly should be and as everybody in this chamber should be. Just because you call someone out, just because you call out misconduct, doesn't mean you have a hatred for that organisation or for what their mission is. But we are right in this. If we can't call people out in this place for egregious misconduct and criminal activity, then when will we do it? How can we face the people who have elected us to represent them here if we remain silent on these things?

The Labor government and APRA should be pushing Cbus to cut ties with the CFMEU. This means kicking the three CFMEU directors off the board and stopping the endless flow of workers' money to the CFMEU. Let's not forget that the money that Cbus has is the money from its workers, the money that it is meant to be investing for the benefit of its workers. On the one hand, we are in agreement that the CFMEU should be in administration; we actually think it should be deregistered, but administration is fine. But I fail to see how an entity that has been put into administration could be receiving money from a super fund that belongs to members of that fund. I would like somebody to explain that to me and why it is okay, because I don't think it is.

Just a quick update, before I finish, on where the HAFF is at the moment. This is Labor's flagship housing policy, the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, and so far it has built 17 homes here in the ACT. I was listening to Senator Bragg in estimates when he was questioning Labor on how many dwellings they had built. I was just trying to remember who was in the room at the time, but it escapes me right now. The comment was that they had acquired and converted 340 houses from existing builds. It was an interaction between Senator Bragg and Senator Gallagher in the economics committee. I remember Senator Bragg's shock at the comment, 'acquired and converted'. It means they bought 340 houses that had already been built, and they effectively renovated them so that they were suitable for whatever type of housing they were seeking to put into the market. That means the government had actually entered the market and purchased 340 houses during a housing crisis, which meant young Australians or entry-level buyers could then not buy them. Was that lost on anybody? They've just created an additional barrier to entry for young Australians. It's quite extraordinary. Instead of building homes, Labor are building bureaucracies and barriers to entry. The Housing Australia Future Fund has been one of the greatest public policy failures in recent history. They promised to build 1.2 million homes by 2030, and—this is not me saying it—advice from Treasury has revealed that this promise will be broken.

I rise to speak in favour of Senator Bragg's Housing Investment Probity Bill 2024. This bill is a timely and necessary bill, but, more than that, this is a bill that is in the Australian people's national interest. It is a direct response to a failure of policy, a failure of governance and, more than that, as speaker after speaker has said, a failure of ethics by Mr Albanese and the Labor government. But, above all, why has Senator Bragg brought this bill forward? Because he is concerned, just like we all are in the Liberal Party and the National Party, with what is now a growing crisis in our housing system in Australia. This crisis is one that this Labor government has not only failed to fix—and this is the bad news for Australians, and the statistics that we will all go through in our speeches do not lie—but actually made worse.

All Senator Bragg's bill seeks to do is this: amend the governing legislation of the Housing Australia Future Fund to ensure that funds raised for public housing—that is, housing for the Australian people—do not flow into projects tied to entities controlled or influenced by the criminal, quite frankly, CFMEU. Specifically, what this bill will do is this: prohibit taxpayer money being funnelled into housing developments financed by—the name sounds so lovely—Cbus Super. The issue with Cbus Super, and what the Labor Party forgets to tell the Australian people, is that this superannuation fund is an entity inextricably linked to the most lawless union in this country. Even the government can't admit that it's not, because, with the help of the coalition, they put it into administration.

Let's be clear about Senator Bragg's bill. This is not a bill about a question of ideology. This is now about a question of integrity. Labor talked a big game in relation to the Housing Australia Future Fund. They continue to support a big game in relation to the Housing Australia Future Fund. But, instead, they've implemented it. The money is there. Let's actually look at what the real situation is for Australians who are battling to get into a home. 'Housing Australia Future Fund' is a great headline from the Labor government—I'm not going to deny that. That is what they are so good at. I wouldn't give them 10 out of 10; I would give them 11 out of 10 for great headlines. But it's time, quite frankly, that we exposed the great headline and looked at the devastating reality of what this government is actually doing to Australians who are currently sleeping in cars and have no opportunity at all to get into the housing market—and, worse than that, are being sold a pup by the Albanese government.

The Housing Australia Future Fund's central promise has failed, so let's look at what Labor said to the Australian people. This is what they said and continue to say whenever they stand up. The Australian people were told by Mr Albanese that his signature Housing Australia Future Fund would deliver, and I quote, 30,000 new homes. Mr Albanese also said: 'My government will be bold. My government will be ambitious. My government will be urgent.' Let's look at the actual statistics. This is not the coalition speaking; these other numbers that you get from departments at estimates. In other words, we ask the questions of those in charge of the Housing Australia Future Fund and we get the answers. The question we ask is—30,000 new homes; bold, ambitious and urgent—how many has the fund actually built? Australians deserve to know this, and we will be telling this to Australians every single day between now, quite frankly, and the next election: as of July 2025, two years after the fund was announced—this is a fact—approximately 17 homes have been built.

Tell him he missed by 29,000.

He missed by only 29,900-and-something. That is an abject policy failure on the part of this government. They are failing the Australian people, whom we agree desperately need to get into homes. And yet all Mr Albanese did—it's a great headline: urgency, integrity, ambitious and bold. But the reality confronting the Australian people, which, as I said, we're going to remind them of every single day between now and the next election, is that Mr Albanese is failing them.

Worse than that, though, is that Labor like to fudge the figures. What an insult to the Australian people! A few hundred homes have been acquired and converted. Hold on, the whole point was to build new homes. You actually add to additional housing stock in Australia. That's what a new home is. You build it and you add a home to the housing stock in Australia. Remember, the promise was 30,000. We're at around 17 after two years, but the problem with Labor is this: they still treat the Australian people as if they're mugs. This is how Labor fudge the figures: they increase them by saying or pretending that, when you acquire or convert an existing home, that's a success. Well, let me tell you what happens when you use Australian taxpayer money—because that's what this is; it's Australian taxpayer money that was meant to be invested in new builds to add to housing stock—to acquire or convert. Say I'm an Australian person and I'm out there hoping to get into that home right there. Do you know what the government does? It sweeps straight in, it purchases the home and it says, 'There's another Australian successfully in a home.' Well, quite frankly, enough is now enough, and we are going to expose the government for its continuous misleading of the Australian people.

So let us be clear: the Australian Labor Party under Mr Albanese, despite their promise to the Australian people and the billions they've invested in this—and, shortly, we'll get to how much has actually been spent—are not creating housing stock. You create housing stock; you create new homes—that is how you get people who currently can't get into a home into a home. The Australian Labor Party and Mr Albanese are bidding against first home buyers. So I'm speaking to any young Australians out there who voted for the Australian Labor Party because they thought: 'I like their announcement. I like their plan. I love the title, Housing Australia Future Fund. I love their target'—in fact, it wasn't even a target—'I love what they said, that they would deliver 30,000 new homes.' When you are at the next auction or the next open home, just remember that Mr Albanese is with you. The Australian Labor government are with you every step of the way, and the bad news for you is this: you thought you had enough to actually purchase this home. You thought you'd done the right thing, you'd saved up the deposit and you would be getting into that house. Well, guess what? Mr Albanese and the Australian Labor Party are swooping in and they are actually bidding directly against you. That is not policy; that is an absolute disgrace. That is performance art and nothing more. It is a reality. Australians cannot live in a press release or an aspiration, and they certainly can't live in housing stock that's not newly built when they're trying to actually get into the market, and all Mr Albanese is doing under this scheme is swoop in and outbid them.

Let's also have a look at the statistics, though. Mr Albanese stood up in front of the Australian people and said that the Housing Australia Future Fund would invest $10 billion for the future of housing in Australia. That was—what?—two years ago now. Again, this is not the coalition speaking. These are the figures that you get via the estimates process. The estimates process is when the opposition parties are able to question the department about what Labor said to the Australian people. Let's now talk about what they've actually done. There's $10 billion in investment for the future of Australian housing, but, after years of spin, at 31 March this year, $233 million had been spent. What's worse is that under the legislation there is a mandated annual commitment. For those who don't know what a mandated annual commitment is, it's this. People don't necessarily like being told they have to do something, but it's even worse when government has a mandated commitment to deliver on behalf of the Australian people, because government should be delivering on it. The legislation provides that half a billion dollars each year must actually be spent. But no, only $223 million has been spent from this fund. Let's be very clear. The rules are crystal clear. Half a billion dollars must be spent each financial year. We know they haven't met that, they can't meet it and, in fact, some might say they never had any intention of meeting it. They got the headline, they conned Australians and they're back in government.

We asked them where the additional $277 million had gone. It was meant to be spent before the 30 June deadline. I would have thought that, on behalf of the Australian people, who were promised something by Mr Albanese, they would want (a) the half a billion invested on their behalf or (b) forget the 17 homes; they'd want progress towards the 30,000. I think it's a fair question in behalf of the Australian people. The government were meant, by law, to invest half a billion dollars of our money to create additional homes, new builds, that young Australians and, in particular, women fleeing domestic violence could get into. They haven't, so what have they done with the rest of the money? The bad news for the Australian people is that Labor won't tell us. They actually won't tell us where your $277 million has gone. I mean, seriously! Anyone listening in the car should start dreaming up where you think the Albanese government could have spent the $277 million—your money—that they haven't spent on the housing that they told you that they would build, and they have not.

Unfortunately, the reality for the Australian people is that, yes, they voted the Albanese government back in, but they voted on the basis of promises that have now turned out to not be true. They voted on the basis of headlines which they believed. It is a fact that, under this government, they are not meeting their targets, they are not making the investments and Australians are still struggling to get into homes. The Housing Australia Future Fund is not a fund for delivering homes. It has been proven now by the evidence, two years after it was legislated, to be nothing more and nothing less. This is really sad. It's a familiar headline. I would have liked to have stood here and said that there is substance to it, but there's no substance to this at all.

I want to ask the Albanese government questions that they should be answering. How many young families have actually received a set of keys to a new build, not one of your conversions and not one of the ones where you've outbid an Australian trying to get into the market? How many single mums waiting in a motel have been told, under this fund, 'Your home is ready'? How many First Nations families on the 10-year waiting list have been told that, under this fund, 'Help is on the way, and you will be moving in'? What we have instead is the slow suffocation of the great Australian dream by a Labor government—a government long on promises but short on delivery. As I said, this bill responds to a failure of policy, a failure of government and, quite frankly, a failure of ethics. Shame on those in the chamber who want to stand by the headline and not listen to the substance.

It really is a delight to follow my colleague Senator Cash, who spoke extraordinarily eloquently in relation to the Housing Investment Probity Bill 2024—which was put forward by my good friend Senator Andrew Bragg, from New South Wales—and who made a number of points which she has repeatedly made in this place over a number of years.

I want to make some preliminary comments about the Housing Australia Future Fund. I have a deep belief that there is something concerning about the establishment of off-balance-sheet funds of this nature. It troubles me that, when these sorts of funds are set up, what happens is a government goes out and borrows $10 billion—you've got to borrow that money upfront—and then the idea is that, from the returns generated from those borrowed funds, it'll use the investment returns to invest into whatever the social purpose is. Certainly, housing is a valid social purpose; however, you are subject to some real risks.

One of the risks is that the investment returns on the fund don't cover the cost of the borrowing. The second risk is that you are forced by mandates, which are introduced as part of the establishment of the fund, to spend funds even if you don't necessarily have a concrete purpose or the best purpose to spend those funds within the mandated timeframe. That limits flexibility. The third risk is that it distorts the budget position with respect to government finances, because it's an off-balance-sheet fund. Those three issues with these sorts of off-balance-sheet funds concern me as a matter of principle, and I'll certainly keep raising my concerns with respect to these types of funds. I think we're finding, with the Housing Australia Future Fund, some of the weaknesses inherent in these sorts of off-balance-sheet funds.

I don't understand why the government can't simply appropriate funds during the course of a financial year and spend the funds through NGOs providing social housing or through state governments—whatever the mechanism and however they want to spend it—but do it year to year and give estimates through the forward estimates as to what the future funding commitments would be. From my perspective, cut out the middleman, cut out the off-balance-sheet fund, and just appropriate the funds and contribute them to whatever the purpose is. So I have that philosophical concern.

In terms of how the Housing Australia Future Fund has worked in practice, there are obviously some real concerns about whether or not the taxpayer is getting bang for their buck and also whether or not people who are facing the reality of a chronic shortage of affordable housing in this country at this point in time are being given the opportunity to address those circumstances. As Senator Cash said, it is deeply disturbing that two years after the announcement of the Housing Australia Future Fund, a $10 billion fund, the latest information we got out of estimates was that only 17 houses had been built—absolutely extraordinary.

Another thing to observe in relation to the Housing Australia Future Fund is something we learnt through the Senate estimates process. I'm not sure why we have to find these things out through the Senate estimates process. Why can't the HAFF just tell us on a month-to-month basis? How many houses are you building and how many properties are you acquiring? Tell us. Be transparent. Give us a dashboard of what you're actually achieving. We shouldn't have to draw this out, like pulling teeth, through the Senate estimates process. Actually tell us how you're performing.

Anyway, my colleagues have used the Senate estimates process to great effect and found, in February of this year, that—this is very curious—the fund had acquired and converted 340 houses from existing builds. If my math is right, that is 20 times the number of houses that have actually been built. The Housing Australia Future Fund actually went onto the market and acquired houses in the market. Twenty times as many houses were acquired as were built. That wasn't my expectation when this legislation was debated in this place; I thought this was about facilitating the construction of new housing supply. Yet those are the figures. Two years after the announcement of the Housing Australia Future Fund, it's only built 17 houses, but it's gone out into the market and it's acquired and converted 340 houses. It's acquired 20 times more houses on the market than it has actually built. Presumably, when it acquired those houses on the market, it was doing so in competition with other Australians who were potentially looking at putting in an offer in relation to acquiring those houses. What chances did they have going up against the Housing Australia Future Fund? It's quite extraordinary.

Then there's this phrase that's used, 'acquired and converted'. I'm not sure what 'converted' means. I'd be much obliged if the minister or someone could contact my office and tell me what 'converted' means. I understand what 'renovated' means. Maybe the 340 houses that were acquired required renovations. I know a colleague sitting in this chamber has a construction background and gave a very good maiden speech last night—I'm paying you a compliment, Senator Whitten! I'm not sure what this 'converted' means. Does it simply mean converted from private ownership to public ownership? Is that what 'converted' means? I don't know what 'converted' means.

But what really causes me concern is that the Housing Australia Future Fund acquired on market 20 times more houses that it actually built. When it acquired those houses, it did so in competition with everyday Australians out there trying to purchase a house. Some of them were probably trying to purchase their first house. They were potentially also in competition with social enterprises trying to purchase houses. It's quite troubling. What's happening is really quite troubling.

This should be seen in the context of the incoming government brief provided by Treasury that says, notwithstanding Labor's promise to build 1.2 million homes by 2030—that's what Labor promised the Australian people during the course of the last election campaign. It promised that it would build 1.2 million new homes by 2030. Then, immediately after the election—which they won no doubt in part because of that promise and other matters—Treasury sent an incoming brief to the newly re-elected Albanese Labor government and said: 'You've no chance. You're not going to be able to build 1.2 million homes by 2030. It's pie in the sky.'

So we've got 17 newly constructed houses two years after this $10 billion fund was established. We've got 340 houses acquired and converted, whatever that means—20 times as many houses acquired as were actually built. Then we've got Treasury advising the government that there's no chance that 1.2 million new homes will be built by 2030. So we've got the trifecta. We've got the trifecta there in terms of really disturbing information that was not apparent to this chamber—it was not apparent to the Senate—at the time this legislation was introduced into the Australian parliament. It is really concerning. Just think about that. I'm sorry to belabour this point; I really am. But it just shocks me. Two years—a $10 billion fund in two years has constructed 17 houses. It's just extraordinary. And they've gone onto the market and acquired 340 houses—that's 20 times as many—in competition with everyday Australians. What chance does the everyday Australian have when they're up against this $10 billion government fund? No chance.

Then we have the issue which has been raised—and I really congratulate Senator Bragg for the work he's doing in relation to this really important portfolio matter. I really do congratulate him. I think he's doing a wonderful job. As of 31 March, the government had only spent $223 million on the Housing Australia Future Fund. But the problem with this fund is that you mandate it. The legislation says you've got to spend at least $500 million by 30 June. So what happens if there isn't any sensible way in those last three months to pay or use or apply the balance of $277 million? What happened? Where'd the money go? What did you do? Did the fund have to go out into the market and try and gobble up as many homes as it could in terms of meeting that shortfall of $277 million? How many everyday Australians were then prejudiced against because they were trying to purchase maybe their first property in competition with this government behemoth, the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund? We've got no transparency in relation to that—absolutely no transparency. The Australian people deserve transparency in relation to this $10 billion fund. It's their money, which was borrowed by the Australian government. That's $10 billion, and we've got no transparency with respect to what has happened to that remaining $277 million.

I note that the Auditor-General is now considering an official investigation into the Housing Australia Future Fund. It was only announced two years ago, and the independent Auditor-General is now considering an investigation into how this fund's operating. It's not a great start, is it? It's not a great start. You set up a $10 billion fund with borrowed money. You effectively indebted the Australian people for $10 billion. You've built 17 homes in the two years since it was announced. You've gone onto the market and actually acquired 20 times as many homes, 340, in competition with the Australian people. Basic economics says that that had to drive up the price of at least those homes. And then you've got this $277 million figure, which you were required to spend under the legislation—no flexibility; you've got to spend that money—and we don't know what it was spent on. Now, we've got the Auditor-General considering whether or not they should undertake an investigation in relation to the management of this fund. It's not a great start, is it? It's not a great start. I wonder where we'll be when we're reflecting on this fund this time next year. What will we have, 32 houses? And maybe they will have purchased 680? I wonder.

There is another issue with respect to housing—and these are really important issues; there were a number of important policies which the coalition took to the election, which I hope that the government considers because there are some systemic issues in relation to the provision of housing. In the location of my office, in the region where my office is located in the south-west corridor of Queensland, which is a lovely place called Springfield, there is immense population growth. There are thousands of potential residential housing lots that have been caught up in bureaucratic red tape in Canberra for up to five years. For up to five years, they've been caught up in that bureaucratic red tape in Canberra. It's just madness. Those housing lots could start to be developed tomorrow if that red tape were navigated through.

One of the other policies which the coalition took to the last election was in relation to providing infrastructure funding to councils so that councils would get that additional support to enable them to actually invest in the infrastructure, the sewerage, the roadworks et cetera to open up new areas for housing development. I thought that was a terrific idea, and, talking to some of the councils, I know they thought it was a good idea as well. (Time expired)

I rise to speak on the Housing Investment Probity Bill 2024. I want to commend Senator Scarr on his enlightening contribution there. It was quite something to follow, because what Senator Scarr does is highlight the issues relating to housing in this country, which many will gloss over in this debate. We've had an election, and, yes, we have a returned government, but some in this place seem to think that that's a reset and that all of the issues that were there before the election have gone away and that we don't need to worry about the things we had to worry about before the election. But, if you go out there, as many of us do, and speak to our communities, you'd be reminded that the problems that were being experienced and faced by Australians before the election remain very much problems being faced and experienced by them now, despite there being a government returned to govern Australia.

That set of problems, those issues confronting Australians, of course include the matter of housing. I just think that we cannot lose sight of the fact that this problem being experienced by Australian households, young people and even older people seeking to enter into the housing market—it has not in any way lessened the impediments to that. It certainly remains a problem. Senator Scarr talked through some of the suggestions we had by way of policy, including the removal of regulation and red tape, making it easier for investment to occur, assisting with the headworks costs that go into—

Senator Duniam, the time for this debate has expired. You will be in continuation.

The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Faruqi on sheet 3381 be agreed to.

I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 3368:

(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (line 1) to page 22 (line 30), omit the Schedule, substitute:

Schedule 1 — Discharging student debt

Part 1 — Amendments of the Australian Apprenticeship Support Loans Act 2014

Australian Apprenticeship Support Loans Act 2014

1 Subsection 27(1)

Omit "on the day the instalment is paid", substitute "on the relevant day".

2 After subsection 27(1)

Insert:

(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1), the relevant day is:

(a) unless paragraph (b) applies—the day the instalment is paid; or

(b) if the instalment should have been paid on or before 1 June 2025 but was paid after 1 June 2025 as a result of an administrative error—1 June 2025.

3 After section 27

Insert:

27A Discharge of AASL debts incurred between 1 January and 1 June 2025

An AASL debt a person incurs in the period beginning on 1 January 2025 and ending on 1 June 2025 is taken to be discharged.

4 After section 37

Insert:

37A Discharge of accumulated AASL debt

An accumulated AASL debt a person incurs on 1 June 2025 is taken to be discharged immediately after it is incurred.

Part 2 — Amendments of the Higher Education Support Act 2003

Higher Education Support Act 2003

5 After section 137-19

Insert:

137-19A Discharge of HELP debts incurred between 1 January and 1 June 2025

A *HELP debt a person incurs in the period beginning on 1 January 2025 and ending on 1 June 2025 is taken to be discharged.

6 After section 140-35

Insert:

140-36 Discharge of accumulated HELP debt

An *accumulated HELP debt a person incurs on 1 June 2025 is taken to be discharged immediately after it is incurred.

Part 3 — Amendments of the Social Security Act 1991

Social Security Act 1991

7 After section 1061ZVDA

Insert:

1061ZVDAA Discharge of SSL debts incurred between 1 January and 1 June 2025

An SSL debt a person incurs in the period beginning on 1 January 2025 and ending on 1 June 2025 is taken to be discharged.

8 After section 1061ZVEE

Insert:

1061ZVEEA Discharge of accumulated SSL debt

An accumulated SSL debt a person incurs on 1 June 2025 is taken to be discharged immediately after it is incurred.

9 At the end of Division 2 of Part 2B.3

Add:

1061ZZEUA Discharge of accumulated FS debt

An accumulated FS debt a person incurs on 1 June 2025 is taken to be discharged immediately after it is incurred.

Part 4 — Amendments of the Student Assistance Act 1973

Student Assistance Act 1973

10 After section 8B

Insert:

8BA Discharge of ABSTUDY SSL debts incurred between 1 January and 1 June 2025

An ABSTUDY SSL debt a person incurs in the period beginning on 1 January 2025 and ending on 1 June 2025 is taken to be discharged.

11 After section 9E

Insert:

9EA Discharge of accumulated ABSTUDY SSL debt

An accumulated ABSTUDY SSL debt a person incurs on 1 June 2025 is taken to be discharged immediately after it is incurred.

12 After section 12ZG

Insert:

12ZGA Discharge of accumulated FS debt

An accumulated FS debt a person incurs on 1 June 2025 is taken to be discharged immediately after it is incurred.

Part 5 — Amendments of the VET Student Loans Act 2016

VET Student Loans Act 2016

13 Subsection 23BA(3)

Omit "on the day that the Secretary pays the loan amount", substitute "on the relevant day".

14 After subsection 23BA(3)

Insert:

(3A) For the purposes of subsection (3), the relevant day is:

(a) unless paragraph (b) applies—the day the Secretary pays the loan amount; or

(b) if subsection (3B) applies to the loan amount—1 June 2025.

(3B) This subsection applies to a loan amount if:

(a) the loan amount should have been paid on or before 1 June 2025 but was paid after 1 June 2025 as a result of an administrative error; or

(b) the loan amount:

(i) was paid during the period of 6 months beginning immediately after 1 June 2025; and

(ii) was used to pay tuition fees for a course, or a part of a course, for which the census day was on or before 1 June 2025.

15 After section 23BA

Insert:

23BAA Discharge of VETSL debts incurred between 1 January and 1 June 2025

A VETSL debt a person incurs in the period beginning on 1 January 2025 and ending on 1 June 2025 is taken to be discharged.

16 After section 23CE

Insert:

23CEA Discharge of accumulated VETSL debt

An accumulated VETSL debt a person incurs on 1 June 2025 is taken to be discharged immediately after it is incurred.

As someone who has long pushed for free and universal public education, I am proud to move this Greens amendment to wipe all student debt, because education should never be a debt sentence. A one-off 20 per cent—but, really, effectively 7.9 per cent—debt cut is unambitious and insufficient. It won't touch the sides of the crisis. All student debt should be wiped, and TAFE and uni should be free, as it was for the Prime Minister. It's clear that Labor felt the pressure from the Greens and have realised that wiping student debt is not only possible but very popular. So I call on you to do a better job of copying our policy and go the full 100 per cent.

Student debt is a crushing burden that punishes people simply for trying to learn and to build a better life. It entrenches inequality, disproportionately affects women and people from disadvantaged backgrounds, and really serves no social good. Wiping all student debt is not radical; it is necessary. It is a step towards justice and towards recognising that education is a public good and not a commodity to be bought and sold.

We're still in the cost-of-living crisis, yet millions continue to have thousands of dollars in student debt hanging over their head. Wiping student debt would free people to start families, buy homes and pursue further study without being shackled by decades of repayments. It would make a profound difference to so many. So I urge the Senate to back this amendment and deliver real relief for millions of people across this country.

I thank Senator Faruqi for her amendment. This bill provides significant relief to Australian students and workers with student debt. The bill cuts 20 per cent off all student debts. It wipes $16 billion from student debt for three million Australians, which will be backdated to 1 June 2025, before indexation was applied. It also delivers important structural reforms to repayments which will benefit generations to come. As the Minister for Education has said:

… HECS blew the doors of universities open. When HECS was introduced, only about 5 per cent of the workforce had a uni degree. Now it's more than 26 per cent. Today almost one in two young people in their 20s and 30s have a university degree.

But it can be made better and fairer. Without HECS, fewer would get that choice. The number would be cut in half. This would effectively close the door behind those who already benefit from having a tertiary education. What the universities accord said was that we need more people going on to tertiary education, not fewer, and that's why the government will not support this amendment.

The question before the chair is that amendment (1) on sheet 3368 moved by Senator Faruqi be agreed to.

I move my amendment on sheet 3376:

(1) Page 33 (after line 22), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 3 — Capping student debt indexation at 3%

Part 1 — Amendments of the Australian Apprenticeship Support Loans Act 2014

Australian Apprenticeship Support Loans Act 2014

1 Section 5 (definition of WPI indexation factor )

Repeal the definition.

2 Subsection 32(1)

Omit "the WPI indexation factor for 1 June in the financial year (see subsection (1B))", substitute "1.030".

3 At the end of subsection 32(1)

Add:

Note: The AASL debt indexation factor is capped at 1.030. This means indexation cannot increase debt by more than 3%.

4 Subsection 32(1B)

Repeal the subsection.

Part 2 — Amendments of the Higher Education Support Act 2003

Higher Education Support Act 2003

5 Paragraph 140-10(1)(b)

Omit "the *WPI indexation factor for 1 June in the financial year (see subsection (1C))", substitute "1.030".

6 At the end of subsection 140-10(1)

Add:

Note: The HELP debt indexation factor is capped at 1.030. This means indexation cannot increase debt by more than 3%.

7 Subsection 140-10(1C)

Repeal the subsection.

8 Subclause 1(1) of Schedule 1 (definition of WPI indexation factor )

Repeal the definition.

Part 3 — Amendments of the Social Security Act 1991

9 Subsection 1061ZZET(1)

Omit "the WPI indexation factor for the relevant year (see subsection (1B))", substitute "1.030".

10 At the end of subsection 1061ZZET(1)

Add:

Note: The indexation factor is capped at 1.030. This means indexation cannot increase debt by more than 3%.

11 Subsection 1061ZZET(1B)

Repeal the subsection.

12 Subsection 1061ZZET(2)

Omit "or a WPI indexation factor".

13 Subsection 1061ZZET(2)

Omit "or (1B)".

Part 4 — Amendments of the Student Assistance Act 1973

Student Assistance Act 1973

14 Subsection 12ZF(6)

Omit "the WPI indexation factor (see subsection (6A))", substitute "1.030".

15 At the end of subsection 12ZF(6)

Add:

Note: The indexation factor is capped at 1.030. This means indexation cannot increase debt by more than 3%.

16 Subsection 12ZF(6A)

Repeal the subsection.

17 Subsection 12ZF(7)

Omit "or a WPI indexation factor".

18 Subsection 12ZF(7)

Omit "or (6A)".

Part 5 — Application provisions

19 Application of amendments

The amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to working out an amount of debt as at 1 June 2025 and as at a later time.

This is a very important amendment to this bill. It has the effect of capping HELP indexation at three per cent. This would mean that HELP indexation would change to the lower CPI or three per cent, ensuring that everyone with a student debt, including future students signing up for a HELP loan, would not be lumbered with the risk of escalating high indexation such as we have seen under this Labor government. Since Labor was elected, even after changes to the way HELP indexation is calculated, student debt has increased by an alarming 14.3 per cent. This is in stark contrast to the average indexation rate under the former coalition government of just 1.7 per cent.

This is a proposal backed by Australia's pre-eminent higher education expert Professor Andrew Norton of Monash University. In our Senate inquiry last year into the bill which changed HECS indexation to the lower of CPI or the wage price index, he made it very clear that a much more certain way to proceed is to set a flat maximum indexation rate. He said that this has the benefits of simplicity and reassurance. I say to this chamber: why should anyone with a student debt face the risk of a 7.1 per cent increase in their student debt, as happened in 2023? That was simply outrageous. Why did that happen? That happened because the Albanese government failed to control inflation. Inflation was higher for longer because inflation was home grown, and because HELP indexation was directly linked just to CPI, when inflation was high, HELP indexation was high. Australian students, young Australians and anyone with a HELP debt paid a very high price.

Then the government had to scramble because, with very high indexation rates—3.9 per cent in 2022, 7.1 per cent in 2023 and 4.7 per cent in 2024—anyone with a student debt was facing an increase over those three years of nearly 16 per cent. So the government scrambled, and it changed the indexation methodology to be the lower of wages or CPI. Of course that meant that there was an adjustment in the indexation, and indexation rates did come down. That was at a cost of $3 billion. So there was some saving. But of course that only happened because wages were running at less than inflation—real wages were going backwards—and that has happened pretty rarely over the last 30 years. So it was a short-term fix, but it did not address the core problem.

We need to build confidence in the HELP scheme. We need to make sure that, if anyone is going to take out a HELP debt, they have the confidence to do so and have their potential risk capped within the upper band of the RBA's inflation band, which is, of course, between two and three per cent.

I'm bringing this amendment forward. It hasn't received the support of the coalition as a whole, but many of my colleagues have spoken to me about the positive merits of this amendment. It was something that I took forward before the last election and I think it's a very important policy that we need to embrace as a whole. But I'm bringing this forward now because there is no time to waste. The coalition needs to present a credible policy alternative when bills come before the parliament. There's no point doing this in 12 months time. This is basically saying to the Senate 'here is a credible policy alternative.' Frankly, I've even had a couple of conversations—and I won't disclose those conversations—with people associated with the Labor Party, and I think they see that this has some real merit as well. So I am asking for the support of the Senate for this amendment.

I do note with disappointment Senator Faruqi's comments about not supporting this amendment, and I say: what hypocrisy from the Greens! Senator Faruqi—through the chair: to be fair, we have been on the same page on the huge escalation in student debt, and, in some respects, particularly on higher education, we've worked quite closely together where we've got mutual interests. Now, I get the politics, Senator Faruqi, but what I don't understand is why you would oppose this amendment, because this delivers greater certainty and greater assurance for anyone signing up to a HELP loan. So I'm disappointed. I think there's been a dirty deal done between you and Labor, because that's what happens in this chamber. We constantly see deals behind closed doors—

Where's the dirty dealing on the opposition's side?

Senator Hanson-Young, at least I've got the courage to stand up for my convictions. So why doesn't the cult of the Greens—

I stand up for my convictions every day. Where were you the other day on net zero?

Order! Senator Henderson, please resume your seat. Senator Hanson-Young, please cease interjecting. Senator Henderson, please direct your comments through the chair.

So I just say to the Greens I'm very disappointed that the Greens would not support this amendment, because this does provide more certainty. It does provide greater assurance. It does build confidence in the HELP scheme when young Australians know that they can sign up and that they do not face the risk of escalating student debt year in and year out.

I am really concerned. I spoke last night on the second reading about my concerns about the student debt discount bill, because there are big winners and losers here. I won't repeat what I said last night in my speech on the second reading, other than to say I am going to support the bill, but I would like to see the bill improved. I think this does improve the bill. I think perhaps members of the government would privately consider that as well. I am asking the crossbench to support this amendment. This respects the fact that young Australians have had it really tough over the last three years. The cost-of-living crisis has hit young Australians really hard. Australians are struggling to put food on the table. Australians are struggling to pay the rent. And then they are faced with these massive increases in student debt, which, of course, the government has now alleviated through the student debt discount. But that is not the way to run a loan scheme. What's going to happen? Is the government going to go to the next election with another student discount costing Australians and the 24 million people who do not benefit from this another $16 billion dollars? That is not the way to run a loan scheme.

A much more responsible way to run it is to cap indexation and then for the government of the day to take its responsibility to manage inflation seriously. It imposes greater discipline on any government to say, 'We take our responsibility to manage inflation very seriously, because, if we don't, we will pay the price.' At the moment, what's happening under the HELP scheme with indexation uncapped is that Australian students and debtors are paying the price and wearing the loan scheme.

To the Greens: please reconsider your position. To the crossbench: please support this amendment. This is commonsense policy. This is sensible policy. This is acting in the best interests of young Australians seeking to enter tertiary education. This is acting in the best interests of all Australians. That's why I'm asking that this amendment be supported.

The government will not be supporting Senator Henderson's amendment—and, by Senator Henderson's own admission, the opposition is clearly not supporting her amendment either. We have already acted to fix indexation. In case Senator Henderson wasn't paying attention, last year we capped indexation at the lower of CPI or the wage price index. That change applied retrospectively from 1 June 2023 and ensures that HELP debts don't grow faster than wages in the future. This was a recommendation of the universities accord, and the government acted on it. That should be no news to Senator Henderson. She was the shadow minister for education when that bill was introduced. At the time, she didn't seek to amend it to limit indexation.

Senator Henderson claims that she cares about rising student debt, but perhaps Senator Henderson has forgotten the changes that she as the then shadow minister put forward at the last election to shift the cost of Commonwealth prac payments back into student debts. They released their costings on the Thursday before the election, with the hope that no-one would notice, relentlessly seeking to shift costs to students before prac payments even started. Instead of the government providing $331 per week to teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work students to offer a bit of support while they're undertaking their prac placements, the coalition wanted to make those students add that cost to their own HECS debt. According to the coalition's costing, that would look like adding $556 million to student debts over four years, driving up their HECS debt, increasing repayment times and reinforcing a fact that young people already knew: the coalition has no interest in supporting students and young Australians whatsoever.

Minister, I'm very aware of the change in indexation, because I just spoke about it. Of course, late last year, in a mad scramble, the government did change indexation. It was pegged to CPI, and it's now the lower of the wage price index and the consumer price index. I don't appreciate being belittled, when it's clear that I understood the change in indexation. Of course, the only reason there was a benefit of some $3 billion delivered to Australian students was that wages were going backwards. That's the only circumstance where wages are lower than CPI. That says a lot about the Albanese government's mismanagement of the economy over the last term of this parliament.

So, Minister, I first want to ask you the question: would you confirm—and, so as not to mislead the Senate, make it very clear—that, currently, HECS indexation is uncapped, isn't it? That's the case, Minister. HECS indexation is uncapped; there is no fixed maximum ceiling. So, under your government's scheme, we could see a situation where there are high wages, a high wage price index and a high consumer price index, and Australian students and debtors will pay the price.

And let's not forget the changes to the repayment schedule. It's estimated that, for someone earning $70,000 and paying the minimum amount, that repayment will take in excess of 50 years. You're saddling so many young Australians—primarily women, because women are more likely to work part time than men—with the risk of having this debt around their neck for 50 years, the best part of a lifetime.

This is why—and, of course, this is something that the shadow minister has also very ably argued—the student debt discount is a short-term sugar hit. So I ask you, Minister, to be transparent in the Senate and please confirm that the HECS indexation methodology that currently applies is uncapped, as that's why this amendment that I'm bringing forward is so important.

Secondly, you've raised the prac payments. The university sector, on the whole, has rejected the prac payments, because the government was asking the university sector to basically operate as Services Australia and delve into the private information of students in circumstances where universities don't have that capacity. Universities are not Centrelink.

But to your point about prac payments: you say you care about young Australians, because the intention of the change in the policy that was announced at the last election—and, yes, I agree, it was announced very late in the piece, and I've raised concerns about that—was to ensure that students right across the board could benefit from prac payments, not just those doing nursing, midwifery, social work and teaching. So I would ask you why, Minister, if you're going to celebrate this prac payment scheme, the government has failed to include other students in the prac payment scheme. That was our proposal. We wanted to broaden the prac payment scheme so that every student would benefit, because—believe it or not—there are veterinary students out there doing the most incredible job in remote and regional Australia, where there are acute shortages, and they get nothing from this government. They are trying to make ends meet too. This is just an indication that the government doesn't care about students who do veterinary science. And what about those who study allied health? Why don't they matter, Minister?

I would say to you that every young Australian going to university or to TAFE—every young Australian embarking on tertiary studies—matters, so what the government has done with its prac payment scheme is to pick winners and losers. Medical students have also raised concerns. So I would ask you why those students were excluded from the prac payment scheme as well.

Well, Senator Henderson appears to be debating last year's bill, not the bill that is in front of the chamber today. Last year, before the election, we fixed how HECS indexation was done. We made it the lower of the CPI and the wage price index. I know Senator Henderson has a different proposal now, which is not supported by her own party. This is a proposal that Senator Henderson might have taken to her party and to the chamber last year when we passed our legislation to fix HECS indexation. She is debating a bill from the previous parliament, not the bill that we have in front of us today. We have fixed HECS indexation, in terms of making sure that it's the lower of the CPI and the WPI.

In addition, Senator Henderson makes claims about inflation and how inflation is running. If her three per cent measure were applied today, of course, it would be higher than inflation. When we took office, inflation had a six in front of it. Because of the measures that we've put in place over a sustained period of time, inflation now has a two in front of it. As I understand, Senator Henderson is trying to prosecute both legislation and economic debates from the previous parliament. She's doing that in an apparently friendless way, in terms of not having the support of her own party for the measures that she is putting forward.

We are really proud that we have a bill in front of us today that does exactly what we said we would do before the election. Before the election, we said we would wipe $16 billion off the debt of three million Australians, and that is exactly what this bill does today. For a person with an average HECS debt of around $27,000 this bill will save them $5½ thousand. It will wipe 20 per cent off their HECS debt. We said that we were going to do that, we took that to the election, the Australian people voted for it, and that is the legislation that we have in front of us today. This is legislation that reduces people's student loan debt by 20 per cent, an average saving of $5½ thousand.

In addition to that, we are making the way in which HECS debt is repaid better and fairer. We are raising the minimum repayment threshold from around $54,000 to around $67,000. The purpose of that is to allow students to earn a reasonable wage before they have to start repaying their student debt. We want people's higher education to start paying off for them before they have to start paying off their HECS debt. At the same time, we are also reforming the marginal repayment system, meaning that people will repay their HECS debt calculated on only the proportion of income that is above that threshold—the $67,000 threshold—rather than their total annual income. These are the measures that are actually in the bill that is before us today.

This is a bill that does what it says on the label. It cuts student debt by 20 per cent. It provides an average saving of $5½ thousand per year for the average HECS debt of around $27,000. It makes the repayments fairer by raising the minimum repayment threshold to $67,000. And it also reforms and introduces a marginal repayment system, meaning that repayments are calculated on the proportion of income above the threshold rather than someone's total annual income. Under that measure, the reform in relation to the marginal repayment system, someone earning $70,000 a year will have their compulsory repayments reduced by $1,300 a year—from currently $1,750 down to $450. So this is really significant reform. In addition to doing what we said we were going to do and wiping 20 per cent off student debt, we are also making the way in which people's loans are repaid better and fairer.

We are doing that because we know that student debts are a significant burden on young people in Australia today. That's why we took this measure to the election, alongside a whole series of measures to provide cost-of-living relief to Australians. We know that people in their 20s, who are starting out in life, are just setting themselves up in life. It might be a time in life when they're thinking about buying a house. It might be a time in life when they're thinking about starting a family. It's a time in life when they're embarking on their careers. We know that too many young Australians are weighed down by the debt that they have, and that is why we took this measure, a 20 per cent reduction in student debt, to the election.

During the election campaign, when asked, 'What is the first thing that this parliament will do and will consider?' the Prime Minister said that HECS debt relief would be our first piece of legislation. And here we are today, in the Senate, ready to pass this bill, a bill that will cut student debt by 20 per cent, a bill that will give a person with an average HECS debt a $5½ thousand saving, a bill that will also improve the way in which repayments are made by making sure that people earn more before they have to start paying their debt back. The new minimum repayment threshold is $67,000 a year. At the same time, people's repayments will be calculated just on the income that they make above the new threshold of $67,000. So we are doing exactly what we said we were going to do. We said we would wipe 20 per cent off student debt, we said it would be the first thing that we would do, and that is exactly what we have in front of us in the chamber today.

And, of course, the HECS system is a really proud Labor legacy that has helped so many Australians go to university. We want a sustainable HECS system that allows us to continue to support more students to go to university and have the benefits of higher education. One of the improvements that we are making with this bill is to reform the marginal repayment system, meaning that the way in which your repayments will be calculated will be on the proportion of income above the new repayment threshold. That is a reform that has been welcomed by the architect of HECS, Professor Bruce Chapman, who said it was the most significant reform since HECS was introduced.

We know that we need more Australians to get the benefits of tertiary education. When HECS was introduced, a very small proportion of Australians actually had a tertiary education. Our government wants more people to have the benefits of tertiary education and the opportunities that it brings. These reforms to HECS will help students. These reforms will help young Australians with the cost of living and help them repay their HECS debts as well. And, of course, we are committed to more Australians being able to get the benefits of university by having a sustainable HECS system. The HECS system was introduced by a Labor government and is being improved by a Labor government. We are doing exactly what we said we would do before the election, and that is cutting $16 billion of debt on top of the $3 billion that we already cut in the previous term.

I wanted to take the opportunity to speak to this amendment. Obviously, the opposition have made it clear that we won't be supporting the amendment, not because the amendment—

Oh, Senator Duniam!

I know—to disappoint Senator Henderson! It's not because it's a bad amendment but because we felt that, in terms of this Labor bill which is before us, there would be a better time to deal with the good proposals by Senator Henderson—something that I think we would certainly like to advance as part of a policy down the track.

To that end, we have indicated, as I said in my second reading contribution, that we will not stand in the way of this legislation. Despite the claims the minister makes, we remain concerned about elements of it, especially around the suggestion that the world is all peachy now and that, because of this legislation, the world for young people—students who might be encumbered with debt—is much better. We hear claims that they've fixed inflation as if it's a permanent and ongoing arrangement. Things might be better now, but there are things beyond this government's control which have an impact on these arrangements—to the points made by Senator Henderson.

So, while we won't be supporting the amendment before us today, we do say that there are elements of it which do carry merit. I commend Senator Henderson for bringing forward amendments for discussion. The good thing about the coalition is that I work with colleagues who have minds of their own. They think. It may not be a bunch of automatons doing what they're told by their leader. We can do our own thing. It's great to have robust debate. It's great to have different opinions expressed, and that's something I will always welcome from my colleagues. Yes, it might make a bit more work from time to time, but I'm up for that. That's why we're here—to actually have a free flow of ideas and a frank exchange of views. I accept the points that Senator Henderson has made, but I don't accept some commentary provided by the minister around what this does in terms of fixing everyone's problems once and for all and the world being a better place because of this. It goes some way and costs a lot. It doesn't change things.

We've had two days of churlish political pointscoring in question time in relation to this stuff. I would say to Minister Walsh: take a page out of Minister Clare's book when it comes to being bipartisan. That's a minister who's shown us how government can work with opposition. He's been forward leaning, he's been proactive and he's been professional. He hasn't sought to score political points on this or other matters, and I welcome that. I think that's what Australians want from leaders, which is why I find it baffling that you're here progressing this legislation, we've got very serious issues on the cards when it comes to this portfolio, especially in the early learning space, and we spend time in question time scoring political points. I just don't understand how that is what a leader should do in this debate when young Australians, including those who frequent the galleries upstairs, look down on us and see what we're doing, be it in question time or at other points in the debate. I welcome Minister Clare's bipartisanship on a range of education measures. As stated, we're not going to stand in the way of government delivering some relief to young Australians, but we would certainly welcome an increased approach to bipartisanship on matters that affect all Australians, including young Australians who are embarking upon higher education and who bear costs as a result.

As stated, we won't be supporting the amendment, but I thank Senator Henderson for her efforts in this. I look forward to working with her in the future on anything we may do.

Firstly, I want to thank Senator Duniam for his very kind words. I've worked very closely with Senator Duniam and many other colleagues in relation to this and many other matters in the education portfolio. This is one of the great things about being a member of the Liberal Party. We are able to bring ideas forward from the backbench. While I'm not thrilled about being on the backbench, I have to confess, it certainly does allow all members on our side to collaboratively work with shadow ministers and to bring forward ideas in a way that's collegiate and constructive. I just want to thank all of my colleagues with whom I have worked very constructively on this amendment. I particularly want to thank Senator Duniam for his kind words and for the constructive and very close way that we have worked together.

I also indicate that I agree with Senator Duniam. I think the minister is playing unnecessary politics, and the ribbing I received yesterday during question time about being on the backbench is pretty shabby, frankly. If a member of the Labor Party wants to bring forward an amendment contrary to Labor Party policy, guess what happens in the Labor party? That member gets expelled. So, unlike the command and control in the Labor Party, where any alternative voices or ideas are shut down—we have, of course, seen one member of your party move to the crossbench as a result of her having different ideas—one of the great traditions of our party is the ability to express our views and our conscience as a member of the backbench. So I say to the minister: perhaps it is about time—I've seen this in the childcare space—you stopped playing so much politics and started acting a little more graciously. I would ask you to do so in relation to my right, and the way that my party backs my ability, to bring forward an amendment in the national interest, in particular in the best interests of young Australians and future Australians who are thinking about going to university or vocational education.

One of the really big flaws of the student debt discount bill is that it basically cuts off from 1 June. So any student looking to enrol in semester 2—of course, semester 2 is just about to start—is completely left behind. There's no discount for them. Of course, there's also no discount for future students. Also, you may not be aware, Minister, but the indexation rate which was announced on 1 April and applies from 1 June this year actually doesn't have a two in front of it, as you tried to suggest—and to mislead the Senate on, in my view. It is actually 3.2 per cent. The current HELP indexation rate applying this year is 3.2 per cent. This proposal to cap indexation at three per cent would deliver a moderate saving to each individual student and debtor, so that would deliver immediate cost-of-living relief. It's only fairly modest, as I say, but, over time, when that compounds year after year, that starts to make a really big difference.

I think what's more important about this cap is that it gives absolute certainty and builds confidence in the HELP scheme. Minister, I would ask you to correct the record and ask you to confirm that the HELP indexation rate that applies this year does not have a two in front of it but is in fact 3.2 per cent.

The question is—were you seeking the call, Minister, or do I put the question?

Sorry, Senator Pocock is on his feet.

I want to thank Senator Henderson for her work on this amendment. It makes a lot of sense to me to have a ceiling on indexation, given what HECS is for. HECS is there to ensure that university education can be provided to more Australians. I also recognise that, for most people who go through university, that increases their earning potential. We want people to be able to go to university and have a HECS debt but then be able to repay that debt. Clearly, some certainty around the maximum level of indexation would be really helpful in this scheme, given what we've seen happen over the last few years.

I also want to acknowledge the government's work to reform indexation. We must acknowledge that they did good work in the last term around this, changing the way that it is set and calculated. But it's only half the job done. We are still charging Australians with a HECS debt indexation—effectively interest—on money they have already repaid to the ATO. I find it the most outrageous thing—that we have a system where you can repay for 11 months to the ATO and then get charged indexation on that amount. I got the PBO to look at this, and their calculation is that, over the next four years, Australians with HECS debts will pay to the ATO $700 million of indexation on amounts that they've already repaid to the ATO. Can you imagine the outrage if banks were charging interest on mortgage repayments that had already been paid back to those banks? We obviously don't allow it. Why do we allow this system, which penalises people with HECS debts? Minister, I'm interested to hear from you. Why aren't we changing the date of indexation? I acknowledge the work you've done, but there's still more to do when it comes to indexation.

Thank you, Senator Pocock. I was in the process of jumping before, Chair—

Sorry.

but I understand that I didn't quite get the call. To respond to Senator Henderson, HECS indexation going forward will, of course, reflect the low inflation that we have and a CPI with a two in front of it. I can confirm that. And I appreciate the feedback on question time; it's always good to get feedback from the opposition on question time. But this is a bill that is about doing what we said we were going to do and cutting student debt.

I'll go to some of Senator Pocock's comments now. Senator Pocock, I think you acknowledged in your statement that this is a significant piece of reform and that you'd also like to see it go further. Again, the bill that we have in front of us today reduces student debts that existed on 1 June 2025 by 20 per cent. It also raises the minimum repayment threshold to allow students to start earning a reasonable wage before they have to start repaying their student debt, which is a really important reform. And, of course, we are introducing a marginal repayment system, which means that repayments are calculated on the proportion of income above the threshold of $67,000. These are really important reforms. We said we were going to reduce student debt by 20 per cent—$16 billion for three million Australians. We took it to the election, Australians supported it, and we look forward to having the support of the parliament and the chamber.

In relation to the measure that you're talking about, in terms of further changes to indexation and the dates on which indexation occurs, there were a number of recommendations which were made under the universities accord—a large piece of reform, a big agenda, the biggest review done on the higher education system in 15 years. A range of recommendations were made in that accord. The bill that we have in front of us today, of course, goes to implementing some of the recommendations of the universities accord. We have implemented, either fully or in part, 31 of the 47 recommendations. Further recommendations, like the one that you have spoken about, are being worked through by the new Australian Tertiary Education Commission, which commenced in an interim capacity on 1 July. That's being led by Professor Mary O'Kane AC, the interim chief commissioner. We look forward to coming back to the parliament with more legislation about that. We're really proud of the work that the universities accord did and of the program of work that it gave us. We are continuing to work through those recommendations. What we have in front of us today is a bill which does what it says it is going to do, what it says on the label, which is reduce student debt by 20 per cent.

Thank you, Minister. I accept that a lot of stuff has been put into future reviews and future pieces of work. I still don't understand how there's any justification to charge indexation on amounts that have already been repaid to the ATO.

My other big question is about the government's approach to student debt and why there hasn't been a reform of the Job-ready Graduates Package. When you were in opposition, before I was in the Senate, I heard so much from the Labor Party about how bad Job-ready Graduates was and how it was going to saddle students with extra debt. Indeed, the PBO says that an additional $10.2 billion worth of debt has been added to Australians by having this program. I just don't understand why there's no urgency to actually deal with the root cause. Yes, the 20 per cent wiping of student debt is very welcome for people who have a HECS debt, but, if you are starting in the humanities next semester or have started in even the last little while, this doesn't really help at all. So when will the government move from going for the headline to going for some serious, hard reform, which is so overdue in the university sector?

If you speak to almost any vice-chancellor across the country, one of the first things they raise is Job-ready Graduates. It's not working. Your government knew that while you were in opposition and you've known that for the last three years. Rather than getting on with redesigning that program, you've punted it to another body and said that that piece of work can happen down the track. When will the Labor government get serious about reform in this area, when it comes to Job-ready Graduates and saddling students with more debt?

Thank you, Senator Pocock. We are very serious about reducing student debt. That's exactly why we're here in the chamber today with a bill that does what we, before the election, said we were going to do. We said we were going to wipe 20 per cent off student debt, and that is exactly what we are doing. That's $5½ thousand for the average person with a HECS debt of about $27,000. We think that that is really significant assistance to people. We said we were going to wipe 20 per cent off student debt, and that's the bill that we have in front of us today. It's really going to help young Australians who are just starting out in life.

In addition, with this bill, we are making the other reforms that I've already spoken about, which are the increase to the minimum repayment threshold and the marginal repayment reform, which Professor Bruce Chapman, the architect of HECS, has said is the most significant reform since the system was introduced. So we are making significant reform and we are doing what we said we were going to do. We have a bill in front of the parliament that the people of Australia have voted for and supported. In relation to further recommendations from the universities accord—a big body of work that we did that is more than one budget and more than one MYEFO but a blueprint for the future of higher education—we look forward to working with Professor O'Kane and ATEC to continue to progress those recommendations.

I, too, note that this is not my first speech. It is worth pausing on the significance of this. This is the first piece of legislation tabled by the Albanese government in the 48th Parliament. That's no accident. It's a deliberate choice by a government determined to set the tone—a tone of fairness, of vision and of investment in the future of this country.

Labor recognises that many young people are facing cost-of-living burdens that were not faced by their predecessors. We want to ease these burdens because we need students to understand that they have a stake in our country. When they feel that sense of stake, they contribute that back tenfold. That's what improves intergenerational equity.

The headline-grabber in this bill is the 20 per cent debt-wipe. Less talked about, but equally impactful, are the structural changes regarding the minimum payment thresholds that the minister has outlined and how much you will need to repay and when. The bill does raise the trigger threshold from $54,000 to $67,000. Previously that $54,000 was not too far above the annual minimum wage. So, effectively, you were starting to pay HECS immediately, on the lowest of incomes. Raising this payment threshold, as the minister, Jason Clare, put it, means that you start paying off your uni degree when your uni degree starts paying off for you.

As well, we're replacing the current repayment system with a new marginal repayment system. Unlike the previous arrangement, the new system proposed in this bill will mean that nobody will take home less money after a pay rise. This is a recommendation supported, as we've heard, by the architect of HECS, Professor Bruce Chapman, who said we should have done it years ago. We're doing it now. And it has taken an Albanese Labor government to deliver it—promise made and promise kept.

If you spend even a few minutes on social media, you will see post after post from young Australians sharing their struggles—people working multiple jobs while studying; people who see the dream of homeownership slipping further out of reach; people who are doing everything right, yet feel they're just treading water. This bill is an investment in those people who have taken the brave step of investing in their learning and their future, and we should all support that.

Minister, as a senator for Tasmania, I'm very keen to understand what this will mean for those students in my home state who have a debt. My understanding is that the average outstanding debt in Tasmania is around $23,000 and that a 20 per cent reduction in that debt is worth more than $4½ thousand to each of the 50,000 Tasmanians who will benefit. If we look a bit further afield, in Victoria this bill will wipe $4.7 billion of debt for the 805,264 young Victorians with a HECS debt—including the 17,719 Victorians in the electorate of Corangamite, who, if Senator Henderson had had her way at the election, would have not got this debt reduction at all.

So, Minister, what impact will these changes have on Australian students, including those in Tasmania and Victoria, now and into the future?

Thank you very much, Senator Dowling, for the question. You said that too many young Australians are treading water right now with the debt that they have, and that's why we made this commitment to cut student debt by 20 per cent. It's why the Prime Minister said it would be the first order of business for the parliament, and that's exactly why we're here. It's great to hear that, for those people in your great home state of Tasmania, the average debt relief will be around $4½ thousand. I'm sure your constituents in Tasmania are really pleased that the government is doing exactly what we said we were going to do.

Thank you, Minister. I appreciate that, but I just wanted to bring you back to the Australian Universities Accord. From my reading of it, the very first recommendation, the first mention of reform, is replacing the Job-ready Graduates Package. And I'd just like to impress on the Senate how urgent this task is. It's all good to be wiping 20 per cent of student debt, but, going forward, where is the equity in our system? Why are we penalising students that happen to choose certain courses that are now double the price? Where is the courage from the Albanese government to take on hard reform?

I want to read for the Senate what the universities accord had to say about replacing the Job-ready Graduates Package:

The JRG package needs to be replaced. Its purpose of providing price signals to influence student subject choices has failed—

Labor told us this when they were in opposition. We're now into their second term, and JRG remains in universities—

Only 1.5% of students applied to enrol in courses they would not have applied for under the pre JRG student contribution arrangements. It has left some students facing extremely high student contributions and large HELP debts that do not reflect their future earning potential, and tilted the overall cost burden of higher education further on to students and away from the Australian Government.

There is obviously a cost to reforming JRG. The government is sort of acknowledging that by wiping 20 per cent of student debt. But this is the job of government. Surely, that is why governments are elected: to actually take on hard reform. To go back to the accord:

Particularly significant was the 113% rise in student contributions for students studying communications, humanities, other society and culture, and human movement. By cutting student and Commonwealth contributions in other disciplines, the JRG package also reduced the amount of funding available to … engineering and mathematics. The Review recommends that the Australian Government reduce student contributions for those affected by JRG and moves towards a student contribution system based on potential lifetime earnings.

Yes, this isn't simple—there's work to do here—but, please, I urge the Albanese Labor government to get cracking on this. You've had three years. We can't just kick this to another body and have another review. This is urgent for our higher education sector. You just have to look across the country. It is struggling. It is struggling to actually undertake its mission of educating Australians and undertaking really important research.

We went through this with what I think was the really ill-conceived ESOS bill, where, after a long time of having had funding taken away from them, universities have gone out and relied on international students for cross-subsidisation, for everything from funding research to—if you look at universities like Western Sydney University—equity programs, providing lunch and food pantries to students who are food insecure. We're not listening to them and saying, 'Let's make your funding model sustainable.' So, again, Minister, could you maybe just outline to the Senate what the government's proposed process and timeline is for reforming JRG.

Thanks, Senator Pocock. Well, we are here in the chamber today with a bill that cuts student debt by 20 per cent, that cuts $16 billion of student debt on top of the $3 billion in student debt that we already cut. We are proud of the commitment that we took to the election to do that. We're proud to have this bill in front of the chamber today, and we look forward to the support of the chamber to assist students to have their HECS debt cut by an average of $5½ thousand a year for the graduate who has around $27,000 in debt. At the same time, we are also raising the minimum repayment threshold, from $54,000 to $67,000 a year, to allow students to start earning a reasonable wage before they have to start repaying their student debt. Of course, we want people to see their higher education paying off for them before they have to start paying off their HECS debt.

You talk about reform, Senator Pocock. Again, we are making one of the most significant reforms in how HECS repayments are made. This reform around a marginal repayment system where HECS repayments are calculated on just the proportion of income above the threshold is really significant—again, the most significant reform to HECS that we've seen since it was introduced to help people get an education here in this country. In relation to further work, there is always more work to do. We are implementing the recommendations of the universities accord.

I note that this is not my first speech. Today we have a chance to deliver relief—real tangible relief—to over three million Australians by supporting the government's proposal to reduce student debt by 20 per cent. Yet we are being told by some in this chamber and outside it that this move is not good for Australians. I ask you: which Australians are you talking about? For the Australians that I know—the students struggling in two casual jobs to pay rent, the young families trying to save for a house while paying back debt for degrees they finished years ago and the regional kids who left everything behind just to have a shot at uni—this 20 per cent reduction will change their lives. It will mean breathing room—a chance to build, to plan and to contribute more fully to the economy, not five or 10 years from now but now, through lower repayments.

Let's be honest: for too long we've told young people that education is a public good while treating their debt like a private burden. Indexation has quietly outpaced wage growth. Their debts have compounded while the previous coalition government allowed wages to stagnate. Students then accrued thousands in interest before they even reached the repayment threshold. The HECS system was morphing from a safety net into a slow anchor, dragging down the very people we rely on to power our future.

In Labor's last term, we changed the way HECS is indexed to fix the issue of unfair debt growth, and now, when this government proposes immediate financial assistance—wiping 20 per cent off that burden—some dare to say it's not fair. What's not fair is a 22-year-old graduate owing huge and increasing debt for a degree that society demands but refuses to value in dollars. What's not fair is that student debt has grown faster than the housing market and faster than real wages and we've just told young people to keep quiet and keep paying. What's not fair is the fact that people are deferring life milestones—starting families, buying homes and launching small businesses—not out of choice but because their debt holds them back. We are not talking about luxuries here; we are talking about dignity, about fairness and about the right to pursue an education without being trapped by it for many years to come.

This is not just a policy fix; it is a signal that the government sees them, hears them and values their contribution. It's also economically smart. Reducing student debt gives young Australians more spending power, more capacity to invest in their future and more confidence in their financial footing. This isn't just a social good; it's economic stimulus. Let's not forget that, when we invest in young Australians, we are investing in nurses, teachers, engineers, scientists and social workers. These are not future hypotheticals; these are the very people holding up our society today, and we owe them more than silence.

So, no, I will not just sit here while some pretend that student debt relief is a handout. It is a correction, and it is about restoring faith in government education policy. By backdating the cut in debt to 1 June, we are fulfilling our campaign promise—a promise we made to Australians and promise they voted for. To disregard the wishes of Australians is undemocratic. It is an insult to our political system and the core of Australian values. To those who claim this is not good for Australians I say this: young Australians are not a side issue. They are not a future issue. They are Australians now. This policy—this 20 per cent reduction in HECS debt—is something we are doing for their future and for ours. Support this measure and give these Australians a fair go. Let this chamber send a clear message today that we don't just talk about opportunity, we deliver it, that when young Australians speak, we listen, and that their future is worth fighting for, because it's our future too.

My question for the minister is: 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, and thank you for bringing the voices of young Australians to the chamber today. We look forward to your advocacy on this issue, on other issues facing young Australians and, indeed, on all of the issues that you bring your voice to in our parliament.

Young Australians can look to benefit from this bill that is ahead of the parliament today. This is a bill that cuts student debt by 20 per cent. When somebody leaves university and they end up with the average HECS debt that people have today, of around $27,000, they'll see $5½ thousand taken off their HECS bill. That's what young Australians will see. They'll also see a government that is doing exactly what we said we were going to do.

I remind the chamber that we do have a question before the chair, and that is the amendment moved by Senator Henderson. Debate has become pretty wide ranging, rather than on that amendment.

I want to put on the record how One Nation feels about this, and my feelings about this. I understand that, with the cost of living, people and families are doing it tough out there. The government has actually said, 'We gave taxation relief of $5 a week.' That was fantastic. Maybe they're not going to be paying $7 for their coffee now; they're going to be paying $2. But that's what it averages out as—one cup of coffee.

This is purely about buying the vote of the younger generation. That's all this is. What you've done here is say to them, 'We're going pay off your debt.' Forget about all the other Australians out there who are struggling and want to see benefit for their taxes. What we're going to see here—for the people in the gallery, and I think they need to understand this—is this government adding a $16 billion debt by wiping 20 per cent off the debt of students. We are already owed $81 billion in debt from HECS debts. This is another $16 billion. Yes, people are doing it tough out there, but the fact is that we cannot keep paying. People have to have skin in the game.

What I'm hearing and seeing is that too many people just say, 'I'm going to university.' They haven't got the grades. They shouldn't be at university and they're not academically minded, but we push them through a system, and the taxpayer is paying for it. This is only going to put more debt onto a lot of those people. On the PBO's modelling, if you have a graduate with a low income of 50 per cent of an average graduate income upon completion of their degree falling below the new minimum repayment threshold, it will take another approximately eight years to pay off their repayments. This will add approximately another $21,467 to their repayments. Do they know that? You're not helping a lot of people out there at all.

You're raising the threshold from nearly $54½ thousand up to $67,000 before they start paying back their debts. I bring your attention to the Family Law Act. Under that act you force a parent to pay back payments to the other parent at $27,000, but you're going to raise the minimum HECS repayment threshold to $67,000 before they even pay anything back. This is going to give relief to those people out there who have passed their degrees, PhDs, on really good incomes—about 55,000 people—a cut of about $25,000 a year. Why should someone who's a tradie—who, at 15 or 16, got in to become a tradesperson—now have their taxes go to someone who will, if they get their studies done, possibly end up getting a well-paid job? We're going to give them that relief.

I put it to the public that if you go to the bank because you want to get a loan, you say, 'This is what my income is, and this is what I can pay back,' and they stipulate what your repayments must be. If you go to the bank and say, 'Listen, mate, I want a 20 per cent reduction on my loan,' do you think you're going to get it? Do you honestly think that the taxpayer should be providing that? You knew the terms of the agreement when you signed up to this. It should not be going back to other people that owe money to the taxpayers. We have hospitals, education, infrastructure—failing systems. We are in one hell of a mess. People are homeless.

Bringing this in was a vote-buyer for the Labor Party. I've got no problem with helping those who need that helping hand, but vote-buyers are all the government ever does. They cheat the people and expect others to pay the cost for it. The people of Australia can't keep affording this time and time again. Under Labor, the cost of health has gone up 13 per cent; food, 14 per cent; rent, 18 per cent; and insurance, 36 per cent. I will be supporting Senator Henderson's amendment to this bill because I think it's going to be very good for this. One Nation will not be supporting this bill as a whole, because I think it's an absolute disgrace and a vote-buyer to get the young ones engaged. It's more handouts, and taxpayers can't afford it, so we will not support the bill as a whole.

Minister, what are you going to do in the future to rein in those people who still owe money? You're blowing it out. As I said, it's going to blow out by eight years. How are you going to address the fact that these people will have longer-term debt and another $21,000 on their debt? How do you intend to deal with that? Because that's what you're doing here. You're adding years to the debt and another $21,000 for those who don't reach that income. What are you going to do to address that?

Thanks very much, Senator Hanson. You talked about people who don't go to university in your question, and also people who do, and how this affects them. I want to be really clear that this bill applies to people who have loans that they have accrued through vocational education and training as well as through their apprenticeship loans. It's really important that those Australians also get the 20 per cent cut on their VET course debt and on their apprenticeship debt. We are also extending free TAFE to hundreds of thousands of Australians and benefiting hundreds of thousands of people through both of those measures.

The government is providing considerable cost-of-living relief that goes to all Australians on a range of measures and in a range of ways. In terms of how the repayment methods that we are introducing help people, in addition to cutting $16 billion of debt, 20 per cent debt relief for three million Australians, we are raising the minimum repayment threshold to $67,000 a year. That means people get to earn more before they have to start dealing with their debt. When they do reach that threshold, their HECS debt repayments will only be calculated on the proportion of their income that is above that threshold, and that is going to give people quite a significant saving. For example, someone earning a few thousand dollars above the threshold—say, $70,000—will have their compulsory repayments reduced by $1,300 a year down to just $450 a year, which is a really huge benefit to those people. Of course, the term 'compulsory repayments' is really important. People can make voluntary repayments to reduce their debt at any time they would like to. Again, this is really significant reform—20 per cent off HECS, $16 billion wiped in addition to the $3 billion wiped in the previous parliament, helping three million Australians.

Minister, you talked about government providing cost-of-living relief. Where does government money come from?

The bill before us reduces HECS debts by 20 per cent, and it's $16 billion out of the accounts of Australians who have a HECS debt. The way in which that will be provided for is through the budget, and it's a fully costed policy in the budget.

I'm not asking if it's fully costed, and I understand what's involved with the bill. I asked you a specific question: where is government money coming from to pay for government providing cost-of-living relief? Where does the government money come from that pays for the HECS debt cut? What makes up government money? That is fundamental, but the government doesn't understand that. Neither did you predecessors. If you don't understand where government money comes from, how the hell can you justify spending it?

This is a commitment that we took to the Australian people at the election. The Australian people voted for it. We have a bill in front of the chamber. We look forward to support for the bill.

So you don't know, it seems, that government money comes from taxpayers. It is taxpayer money, not government money. This is so infuriating. You're destroying the country. You also talk about cost-of-living relief from government policies. Where is the money for cost-of-living relief coming from? I'll tell you where it's coming from—it's coming from taxpayers. Am I correct?

This is a commitment that the government took to the Australian people. It is funded through the budget. There are a range of revenues for the budget. The government took this commitment to the election. The Australian people supported it. We have a bill in front of the chamber. This is a bill that will reduce student debt by 20 per cent. It will wipe $16 billion of debt from people's HECS accounts, VET accounts and apprenticeship accounts. We think it's really important that we do exactly what we said we were going to do. That's why it's the first bill that we introduced to the parliament. It will provide significant assistance to three million Australians.

Simple question, Minister: are taxpayers on the hook for your 20 per cent cut? Do taxpayers pay it, ultimately? That's all I want to know.

There are a range of revenues that support the budget. The policy is fully costed. It's been put to the Australian people. It's been overwhelmingly supported. We are here today to consider a bill that reduces student debt by 20 per cent. Like many government measures, this measure is provided for in the budget.

Minister, my understanding of the bill—please correct me if I'm wrong—is that there is $81 billion that's already owed in HECS and HELP debts, and you are going to give that 20 per cent relief to those people. One thing that has been brought to my attention is of a person who has racked up an $800,000 HECS debt. Will they also be getting a 20 per cent relief on that $800,000 HECS debt? Also, I'd like to know, if a person has taken a HECS debt—why have we got 'professional students', who finish a course, go on to do another course and become professional students, that are constantly taking out debt all the time now being relieved by the taxpayer? Why shouldn't they have to do one course and pay back the taxpayer, or attempt to pay back the taxpayer, rather than become professional students who are feeding off of the welfare of the taxpayer and now getting relief? So there is the $800,000—are they going to get a tax relief of 20 per cent off their debt?

Also, I want to know: if you thought this was a good scheme, why didn't you start moving this forward from now for those going to university with a HECS debt? Why did you include those of the past, relieving them of their HECS debt, when they've already signed the contract and knew they had to pay back the taxpayer? Who are you going to give this 20 per cent tax relief to? Everyone who has got a HECS debt?

Thank you, Senator Hanson. Your question goes to people with significant HECS debts, and it's important to know that those sorts of HECS debts that you've referred to can no longer be accrued. There are measures in place to stop that sort of debt from accruing. In terms of the benefit of the bill to cut student debt by 20 per cent, it does apply across the board to the amount of debt that was in student accounts, or in those HECS accounts, on 1 June 2025, and 70 per cent of the benefit goes to people on really modest incomes of around $70,000 a year.

Minister, in response to my question about whether or not taxpayers are paying for the bill, you have not answered that question. Instead, you've used the word 'revenues' or 'diverse revenues', fully costed. Are you not aware that taxpayers are paying for this? Taxpayers are paying for it. What you've also mentioned is cost-of-living relief. The cost of living is rising dramatically because of government policies—your predecessors' and your own. So what we've got is net zero, the Paris agreement and driving up the cost of living, and then we get the cost-of-living bill, which is paid for by who? Taxpayers. And then we have HECS relief because of the cost of living, which is paid for by taxpayers. We are on a money carousel buying votes. That's what Labor is doing. It is a money carousel buying votes, taking money from one pocket to the next pocket. But both pockets are from the taxpayers. Minister, are you not aware that taxpayers fund this government?

Senator Roberts, I refer you to my previous answer, and I note that you made comments about the cost of living under this government. Again, when we came into office in May 2022, inflation as measured by the CPI had a six in front of it, and today the CPI rate over the 12 months to June 2025 was just 2.1 per cent, which is really welcome news for Australians.

Chair, noting the current broad-ranging debate, I'm wondering if my amendment could be determined before the committee proceeds to further general debate.

If there is nobody seeking the call, then I will put the amendment. The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 3376, moved by Senator Henderson, be agreed to.

I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 3370:

(1) Page 22 (after line 30), after Schedule 1, insert:

Schedule 1A — Ending indexation of student debts

Part 1 — Amendments of the Australian Apprenticeship Support Loans Act 2014

Australian Apprenticeship Support Loans Act 2014

1 Section 5

Repeal the following definitions:

(a) definition of AASL debt indexation factor;

(b) definition of CPI indexation factor.

2 Section 5 (definition of index number )

Omit "section 33", substitute "section 99A".

3 Section 5

Repeal the following definitions:

(a) definition of WPI indexation factor;

(b) definition of WPI index number.

4 Section 30 (paragraph (a) of the paragraph beginning "In stage 1")

Repeal the paragraph.

5 Subsection 31(1)

Omit all the words before the method statement, substitute:

(1) A person's former accumulated AASL debt, in relation to the person's accumulated AASL debt for a financial year, is the amount worked out using the following method statement.

6 Sections 32, 33 and 34

Repeal the sections.

7 Subsection 99(5) (note)

Omit "section 33", substitute "section 99A".

8 After section 99

Insert:

99A Meaning of index number

(1) The index number for a quarter is the All Groups Consumer Price Index number, being the weighted average of the 8 capital cities, published by the Australian Statistician in respect of that quarter.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), if, at any time before or after the commencement of this Act:

(a) the Australian Statistician has published or publishes an index number in respect of a quarter; and

(b) that index number is in substitution for an index number previously published by the Australian Statistician in respect of that quarter;

disregard the publication of the later index number for the purposes of this section.

(3) If, at any time before or after the commencement of this Act, the Australian Statistician has changed or changes the index reference period for the All Groups Consumer Price Index, then, in applying this section after the change took place or takes place, have regard only to index numbers published in terms of the new index reference period.

Part 2 — Amendments of the Higher Education Support Act 2003

Higher Education Support Act 2003

9 Section 129-1

Omit ", or the indexation of that debt,".

10 Paragraph 140-1(2)(a)

Repeal the paragraph.

11 Subsection 140-5(1)

Omit all the words before the method statement, substitute:

(1) A person's former accumulated HELP debt, in relation to the person's *accumulated HELP debt for a financial year, is the amount worked out using the following method statement.

12 Subsection 140-5(1) (example)

Repeal the example, substitute:

Example: Lorraine is studying part-time for a Degree of Bachelor of Communications. On 1 June 2013, Lorraine had an accumulated HELP debt of $15,000. She incurred a HELP debt of $1,500 on 31 March 2013. She made a voluntary repayment of $525 on 1 May 2014. Lorraine lodged her 2012-13 income tax return and a compulsory repayment amount of $3,000 was assessed and notified on her income tax notice of assessment on 3 September 2013.

To work out Lorraine's former accumulated HELP debt on 1 June 2014:

Step 1: Take the previous accumulated HELP debt of $15,000 on 1 June 2013.

Step 2: Add the HELP debt of $1,500 incurred on 31 March 2013.

Step 3: Subtract the $525 voluntary repayment made on 1 May 2014.

Step 4: Subtract the $3,000 compulsory repayment assessed on 3 September 2013.

Steps 5 and 6: Do not apply because since 1 June 2013 Lorraine had no amendments to any assessment.

Lorraine's former accumulated HELP debt on 1 June 2014 is:

($15,000 + $1,500)—($525 + $3,000) = $12,975

13 Sections 140-10, 140-20, 142-10 and 144-5

Repeal the sections.

14 Section 198-1 (note 1)

Repeal the note, substitute:

Note 1: A different method of indexation is used for the indexing of HELP repayment thresholds under section 154-25.

15 Section 206-1 (table item 2AA)

Repeal the table item.

16 Subclause 1(1) of Schedule 1

Repeal the following definitions:

(a) the definition of CPI indexation factor;

(b) the definition of HELP debt indexation factor;

(c) the definition of WPI indexation factor.

Part 3 — Amendments of the Social Security Act 1991

Social Security Act 1991

17 Section 19AA (definition of HELP debt indexation factor )

Repeal the definition.

18 Section 1061ZVEA (paragraph (a) of the paragraph beginning "In stage 1")

Repeal the paragraph.

19 Subsection 1061ZVEB(1)

Omit all the words before the method statement, substitute:

(1) A person's former accumulated SSL debt, in relation to the person's accumulated SSL debt for a financial year, is the amount worked out using the following method statement.

20 Section 1061ZZEP

Repeal the section, substitute:

1061ZZEP How to work out FS debt

The FS debt is the amount outstanding under the contract at the termination date.

21 Subsections 1061ZZER(2) and (3)

Repeal the subsections, substitute:

(2) A person's accumulated FS debt referred to in subsection 1061ZZEQ(2) is an amount worked out by adding together:

(a) the person's adjusted accumulated FS debt on the earlier date; and

(b) any FS debt, or the total of any FS debts, of the person that did not exist on the earlier date.

22 Section 1061ZZET

Repeal the section.

23 Subsection 1061ZZEU(3)

Omit "1061ZZET", substitute "1061ZZES".

Part 4 — Amendments of the Student Assistance Act 1973

Student Assistance Act 1973

24 Subsection 3(1) (definition of HELP debt indexation factor )

Repeal the definition.

25 Section 9A (paragraph (a) of the paragraph beginning "In stage 1")

Repeal the paragraph.

26 Subsection 9B(1)

Omit all the words before the method statement, substitute:

(1) A person's former ABSTUDYaccumulated SSL debt, in relation to the person's accumulated ABSTUDY SSL debt for a financial year, is the amount worked out using the following method statement.

27 Subsection 12ZF(1)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(1) If, at the end of the contract period in relation to a financial supplement contract between a participating corporation and another person, there was an amount outstanding under the contract, the person incurs on 1 June immediately following the end of that period a debt (FS debt) to the Commonwealth equal to that amount.

28 Subsection 12ZF(3)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(3) If an FS debt or FS debts of a person that existed on 1 June in a year (the later date) are, or include, an FS debt or FS debts that existed on 1 June in the immediately preceding year (the earlier date), the person incurs on the later date an accumulated FS debt to the Commonwealth worked out by adding:

(a) the adjusted accumulated FS debt at the earlier date; and

(b) any FS debt, or the total of any FS debts, of the person that did not exist on the earlier date.

29 Subsections 12ZF(6), (6A), (7), (7A) and (7B)

Repeal the subsections.

Part 5 — Amendments of the VET Student Loans Act 2016

VET Student Loans Act 2016

30 Section 23CA (paragraph (a) of the paragraph beginning "In stage 1")

Repeal the paragraph.

31 Subsection 23CB(1)

Omit all the words before the method statement, substitute:

(1) A person's former accumulated VETSL debt, in relation to the person's accumulated VETSL debt for a financial year, is the amount worked out using the following method statement.

32 Subsection 23CB(1) (example)

Repeal the example, substitute:

Example: Lorraine is studying part-time for a Diploma of Early Childhood Education and Care. On 1 June 2020, Lorraine had an accumulated VETSL debt of $15,000. She incurred a VETSL debt of $1,500 on 31 March 2020. She made a voluntary repayment of $525 on 1 May 2021. Lorraine lodged her 2019-20 income tax return and a compulsory VETSL repayment amount of $3,000 was assessed and notified on her income tax notice of assessment on 3 September 2020.

To work out Lorraine's former accumulated VETSL debt on 1 June 2021:

Step 1: Take the previous accumulated VETSL debt of $15,000 on 1 June 2020.

Step 2: Add the VETSL debt of $1,500 incurred on 31 March 2020.

Step 3: Subtract the $525 voluntary repayment made on 1 May 2021.

Step 4: Subtract the $3,000 compulsory repayment assessed on 3 September 2020.

Step 5: Does not apply because since 1 June 2020 Lorraine had no amendments to any assessment.

Step 6: Does not apply because since 1 June 2020 Lorraine had no amendments to any assessment.

Lorraine's former accumulated VETSL debt on 1 June 2021 is:

($15,000 + $1,500)—($525 + $3,000) = $12,975

Part 6 — Application provisions

33 Application of amendments

The amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to working out an amount of debt as at 1 June 2025 and as at a later time.

This amendment actually removes indexation for all student debts. It won't cap the debts. It won't take the lower of CPI or WPI, because that's still unfair and adds masses of debt for students—debt that actually shouldn't exist.

The government's attempt to deal with runaway indexation has totally failed—I agree with Senator Henderson on that one—because Labor's so-called solution still means that the mountain of student debt keeps growing every year, even when people are not earning enough to pay it off. Labor's move to tie indexation to the lower of CPI or WPI still resulted in a student debt increase of 15 per cent between 2022 and 2025. This is completely unsustainable. And a one-off 7.9 per cent debt cut won't fix it, because indexation will quickly offset this debt relief.

If Senator Henderson is—and, indeed, if the coalition are—serious about doing something for students, they can actually support this amendment to scrap indexation altogether. I guess it is good to see them coming on to the side of students, because what they did a few years ago was to introduce the worst, crappiest, messiest piece of legislation—the job-ready graduates bill—which increased fees for students. Arts degrees, because of that, are now $50,000. So maybe the coalition can support this amendment and also my next amendment—to dump the jobs-ready-graduates fee-hikes—because, as long as indexation exists, young people will be stuck on the student-debt hamster-wheel, struggling to keep up with annual hikes. Indexation lengthens and grows student-debt sentences. It needs to go, and I urge senators to support this amendment.

I thank Senator Faruqi for her amendment. The government will not be supporting this amendment. I note that abolishing indexation was considered by the Senate Standing Committees on Education and Employment in 2023. The committee recommended that the Senate not pass that bill. Indexation plays an important role in ensuring that loans maintain their real value over time and reinforces the long-term financial sustainability of the HELP system and other loan systems.

The government recognised that the system could be better and fairer. That's why, last year, we passed legislation to cap indexation to the lower of CPI and WPI, and backdated that change to 1 June 2023. That cut around $3 billion in student debt for more than three million Australians. It ensures that debts won't grow faster than wages in the future. Our changes provide relief for students and young people while continuing to protect the integrity and value of the HECS system, which has massively expanded higher education access for millions of Australians. This bill wipes another $16 billion from student debt and delivers important structural reforms to repayments, which will benefit generations to come.

The question is that Greens amendment (1) on sheet 3370, moved by Senator Faruqi, be agreed to.

I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 3371:

(1) Page 33 (after line 22), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 3 — HELP debt indexation to account for withholding amounts

Higher Education Support Act 2003

1 Subsection 140-5(1)

Omit "is worked out by multiplying", substitute "is the sum of".

2 Paragraphs 140-5(1)(a) and (b)

Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:

(a) the amount (the person's base debt for the financial year) worked out using the method statement in this subsection; and

(b) the person's *indexation amount for the financial year (see subsection (1A)).

3 Subsection 140-5(1) (example)

Repeal the example.

4 After subsection 140-5(1)

Insert:

(1A) A person's indexation amount for a financial year is the amount worked out using the following method statement:

Example: Tom is studying for a Bachelor of Laws and Bachelor of International Relations. On 1 June 2024, Tom had an accumulated HELP debt of $15,000. He incurred a HELP debt of $1,500 on 31 March 2024. He made a voluntary repayment of $525 on 1 May 2025. Tom lodged his 2023-24 income tax return and a compulsory repayment amount of $3,000 was assessed and notified on his income tax notice of assessment on 3 September 2024. Between 1 July 2024 and 30 May 2025, Tom had a total of $4,000 withheld from his salary in relation to the collection of compulsory repayment amounts in accordance with section 154-70. Assume for the purposes of this example that the HELP debt indexation factor for 1 June 2025 is 1.030.

To work out Tom's base debt for the 2024-25 financial year (before indexation on 1 June 2025), first work through the method statement in subsection (1):

Step 1: Take the previous accumulated HELP debt of $15,000 on 1 June 2024.

Step 2: Add the HELP debt of $1,500 incurred on 31 March 2024.

Step 3: Subtract the $525 voluntary repayment made on 1 May 2025.

Step 4: Subtract the $3,000 compulsory repayment assessed on 3 September 2024.

Steps 5 and 6: Do not apply because since 1 June 2024 Tom had no amendments to any assessment.

Tom's base debt before indexation on 1 June 2025 is:

($15,000 + $1,500)—($525 + $3,000) = $12,975

To work out Tom's indexation amount for the 2024-25 financial year, work through the method statement in this subsection:

Step 1: Take Tom's total withholdings of $4,000.

Step 2: Given Tom's total withholdings do not exceed his base debt, subtract all of the total withholdings of $4,000 from the base debt of $12,975 for a base debt less withholdings amount of $8,975.

Step 3: Subtract 1 from the HELP debt indexation factor of 1.030 for a result of 0.030.

Step 4: Multiply the base debt less withholdings of $8,975 by 0.030.

Tom's indexation amount for the 2024-25 financial year is:

$8,975 x 0.030 = $269.25

Therefore, Tom's former accumulated HELP debt in relation to his accumulated HELP debt for the 2024-25 financial year would be the sum of his base debt and indexation amount as follows:

$12,975 + $269.25 = $13,244.25

5 Subclause 1(1) of Schedule 1

Insert:

indexation amount has the meaning given by subsection 140-5(1A).

6 Application provisions

The amendments of the Higher Education Support Act 2003 made by this Schedule apply in relation to working out a person's former accumulated HELP debt in relation to the person's accumulated HELP debt for the first financial year to start after the commencement of this item and later financial years.

Let us be clear that student debt cannot be fixed, because student debt really shouldn't exist. The same goes for indexation. It is not a flaw to be tweaked but a fundamentally unjust mechanism. Unfortunately, the Labor government, despite its commanding majority, doesn't have the courage to pursue the ambitious reforms that are needed. But, hopefully, they can support the Greens with this bare-minimum amendment to address a glaring unfairness in calculating indexation.

This amendment changes the way indexation is calculated on student debt, because applying indexation to a debt that has already been repaid is plainly unreasonable and unjust. Repayments must be properly counted before any indexation is added. This amendment changes the timing of indexation and offers a modest but meaningful shift towards fairness. I call on the government and others in the chamber to support it.

Thanks, Senator Faruqi. The government will not be supporting this amendment. As I've said, the Labor government is currently responding to recommendations in the universities accord. We're implementing 31 of the 47 recommendations in full or in part. This includes making the indexation of HELP debts fairer, providing cost-of-living relief for students, supporting people in the outer suburbs and regions to go to university and making structural reforms to our tertiary education system.

The universities accord made a number of recommendations in relation to the HELP system, including changing the date that indexation is applied. As the minister has said, the accord 'is not a plan for one budget but a blueprint for the next decade', to help us build a better and fairer education system. This bill wipes $16 billion from student debt and delivers important structural reforms to repayments which will benefit generations to come. The minister has said we'll keep working through the accord's recommendations and we'll take advice from the Australian Tertiary Education Commission.

The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 3371 be agreed to.

I rise today in the Senate with a very heavy heart to mark the sudden and heartbreaking passing of a friend and staff member of mine, James Edward Mentor, last month. What I share today is drawn from the eulogy that I delivered at his funeral, words spoken among his friends and family in honour of a life lived with passion, loyalty and purpose. Jimmy was a cherished mate, a loyal companion, a beloved colleague and a real patriot of the Labor cause. To many of us in Victoria, he was like family. His sudden passing has left a very deep void in our hearts and in our movement.

I first met him in the Australian Labor Party just over 19 years ago. We were both members of Young Labor and worked casual roles outside of school. He was a deli assistant at Safeway Middle Camberwell and a very proud union member of the SDA. Jimmy joined the Canterbury branch of the ALP in 2005 and quickly took on several executive roles, including secretary of his branch and the Kooyong FEA, and was elected a delegate to the Victorian Labor state conference. While I wasn't as deeply involved in student politics at the time, I did, however, enjoy the stories that Jimmy and many other Labor Unity luminaries would share over a late night coffee or spaghetti carbonara at the La Notte restaurant on Lygon Street in Carlton, about the battles, mainly against our comrades in the Socialist Left. One thing became very clear from early on: James was a person that I and many others could call, proudly, a friend.

In 2009, Jimmy was elected senior vice-president of Australian Young Labor. Some will recall an evening briefing here at Parliament House in Canberra where a New South Wales convener laid down the three Ps of what it meant to be a member of the Right—progressive, principled and pragmatic—insisting that we bind together and that it's important that we stay together. Jimmy, however, without missing a beat, responded, 'Yeah, nah, I'm from Victoria, and we don't bind.' As you can imagine, the room burst into laughter. Jimmy had a presence that could light up a room without demanding attention. He had a rare gift: making you feel seen, heard and important just by being himself.

He was the very first person that I employed when I was appointed as a senator of Victoria on 6 March 2019. After leaving in 2023 to work with Responsible Wagering Australia, he returned to my office at the start of this year to assist me with the federal election. Jimmy was more than a political ally; he was family. He deeply believed in the labour movement, not as an abstract cause, but as a living, breathing mission to uplift working people, to create fairness and to drive collective action. He lived those values every single day.

While completing his arts degree at Monash University, Jimmy served as president of the Monash Labor association, education officer at the Monash Student Association and welfare officer at the National Union of Students. He travelled overseas in 2009 as part of a study tour to Israel with the Australian-Israel and Jewish Affairs Council—AIJAC—fellowship program. James was a staunch supporter of the State of Israel and the United States's alliance with Australia, even when those views weren't always shared with comrades in the movement.

After finishing at NUS, and his degree in politics, Jimmy worked for former senator Jacinta Collins, first as an electorate officer, then as an assistant adviser focusing on disability in schools. He later held roles at the Catholic education office in Melbourne and worked for several state MPs, including as an adviser to the then Victorian deputy premier and education minister.

Outside of work, James had two great loves: sport and history. Watching a game with him was an experience full of passion and sharp commentary. When the match ended, he'd switch seamlessly to a deep conversation about politics, history, or some random stats. Whether it was the AFL, cricket, soccer or rugby, Jimmy was always fully invested. Being part of the Rugby Club of Victoria gave him a chance to give back to a sport that brought him so much fulfilment. He would have had strong words about last weekend's Wallabies-Lions match at the MCG. No doubt, he'd still be fuming about the clear penalty that was not awarded to Australia in those dying minutes. I can just hear him saying, 'If that's not a penalty, what is?' And then there was Aussie Rules footy. A passionate Collingwood supporter through and through, you could spot him on game day with his Magpies scarf wrapped tightly around his neck. He was in his element at the MCG, often with a beer in hand at the Frank Grey Smith Bar in the MCC members reserve, riding every bump and cheering every goal. And, whilst James wasn't always known for his punctuality in my office, when it came to sport, he was always there early, scarf on and ready.

During the COVID pandemic, when so many of us felt isolated, we took regular walks during lockdown as we lived nearby. It became a ritual. True to form, Jimmy turned those walks into a journey through time, sharing the rich history of the local area as we wandered the streets of Hawthorn and its surrounds. He'd point out how Hawthorn Creek, now a drain, was once a natural waterway prone to flooding, or he'd show me the old inner circle or Kew train lines. Around this time, James and I became regulars at the Hawthorn RSL, a place where we quickly grew from visitor to valued member. He embraced the subbranch and its members as though he'd been there for many, many years. For Jimmy, it was never about obligation; it was about genuine care for the veterans and the comradery it fostered. From serving on the Melbourne Rebels Rugby Union government subcommittee, to serving as a personal tax advisory group member for the ATO, a Centrelink national student services group member, a City of Melbourne youth safety committee member and Victorian youth convener for the Australian Republic Movement, James gave his all, bringing passion and integrity to every single role.

It didn't matter if you were a veteran, a senior staff member or an intern, he treated everyone with the same respect. He was a mentor, not just in name but in action. His sudden passing in June is a heartbreaking reminder of how fragile life can be and how quickly someone, at the age of 38, with so much potential and full of promise, can be taken from us so soon. It was a moment of deep sorrow, but a privilege, to be by his side holding his hand in hospital as he left this world. I hope he knew how deeply he was loved, as was evident at his funeral.

To the friend who made burdens feel lighter, to the colleague who always had our back, to the mentor who lifted others quietly and humbly, and to the passionate believer in fairness who inspired us all to act boldly and love deeply—you are a man who loved history, who loved sport and who loved deep conversation and a beer with friends. Thank you for your unwavering support, old mate. We miss you, we love you and we'll never forget you. May you rest in peace, my mate. Vale, Jim.

Senator Ciccone, on behalf of all coalition senators and, I'm sure, everyone in the chamber, please accept our sincere condolences.

I want to speak on behalf of Western Australia's livestock producers, who have once again been sold out by the Albanese Labor government. First, Labor moved to shut down the live sheep export trade, a long-established, regulated industry that supports thousands of jobs and communities across Western Australia. That decision ignored evidence, disregarded trading partners and shattered confidence in government decision-making. Now, Labor is doing the same to our cattle producers.

The reckless decision to allow United States beef imports into Australia—including beef processed from cattle originating in Canada or Mexico—directly undermines Australia's biosecurity and our domestic beef market, and it endangers premium product produced by Western Australian cattle producers, particularly in the north-west of the state. Our northern producers operate to some of the highest biosecurity and traceability standards in the world. Their beef is renowned in international markets. Labor is jeopardising that by opening our market to a beef supply chain that does not meet Australia's rigorous protections. And, as with live exports, it is doing so without proper industry consultation or risk assessment. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has not even met with President Donald Trump since his return to the White House 268 days ago. He has given away access to Australia's beef market without so much as sitting at the table with the President. While the European Union has just concluded a new bilateral trade agreement with the United States, putting their farmers and exporters in a stronger position, Australia remains on the sidelines because the Prime Minister has failed to build this key relationship.

This inability to secure a proper trade agreement is actively damaging Western Australian agriculture and businesses and weakening our nation's economic competitiveness. In 2024, WA producers turned off around 657,000 cattle, producing roughly 34,000 tonnes of beef. These are not just numbers; they are the livelihoods from the Kimberley to the Gascoyne. WA livestock producers have already endured the shutdown of the sheep trade. Now they face price pressures, supply chain uncertainty and biosecurity threats from imported beef. Once again, our producers, including in my home state of Western Australia, are being taken for granted by the Albanese Labor government. It's time for the Prime Minister to look our livestock producers in the eye and answer for his government's growing list of broken promises to the people who feed this country.

Today I'd like to take time to acknowledge the passing of a man whose leadership extended far beyond his faith community—that is, Emeritus Chief Rabbi Dr Shalom Coleman, who passed away on 26 April 2025, aged 106. For more than 40 years Rabbi Coleman served as the chief rabbi of the Perth Hebrew congregation. He was a respected religious figure, a civic leader and a proud Western Australian.

Born into an orthodox family in Liverpool, England, in 1918, he gained a Bachelor of Arts with honours and a Bachelor of Letters in Hebrew and Ancient Semitic Languages and Egyptology at the University of Liverpool. His education was interrupted by World War II, when he served with the Royal Air Force. He returned to university life in 1945 and, at the same time, worked for the final certificate of Jews' College, London, gaining his rabbinic ordination in 1955 before taking postgraduate studies at Cambridge.

In 1961, Rabbi Coleman came to Sydney as Rabbi of the South Head and District Synagogue. He was a member of the Sydney Beth Din, vice-president of the New South Wales Board of Jewish Education and a founding director of the David J Benjamin Institute of Jewish Studies. He established a seminary for the training of Hebrew teachers and lectured in postbiblical Hebrew at the University of Sydney. He received the Sir Robert Waley Cohen Scholarship of the Jewish Memorial Council in London in1964, using it for research into adult education in South-East Asia, Israel and the United States of America. The following year, he became Rabbi of the Perth Hebrew Congregation in Western Australia. Rabbi Coleman obtained land as a gift in trust from the state government for a new synagogue, youth centre and minister's residence.

In addition to his service with the Jewish community and maintaining his interest in the area, Rabbi Coleman taught for the department of adult education at the University of Western Australia and served on the Senate of Murdoch University. A proud Rotarian since 1962, he was both Rotary president and governor, as well as vice-president of the Save the Children fund.

Despite the changes occurring around him, Rabbi Coleman was a man who stood firm. He met with premiers and ministers, advised governments on issues ranging from education to social cohesion and played a key role in building the multicultural, tolerant Western Australia we are so very proud of today.

Rabbi Coleman was a voice for unity in difficult times. When acts of antisemitism appalled the community, he responded not with division but with resolve and calls for solidarity. When tragedy struck abroad or tensions flared at home, he reminded us that democracy, dignity and decency must be our guiding lights. He understood the importance of living values, not just preaching them. He opened the doors of his synagogue to the broader community because he believed, as many of us do, that public faith must lead to public good.

We debate many things in this chamber, but behind those debates lies a deeper question: what kind of society are we seeking to build? Rabbi Coleman had a clear answer to that question, one marked by mutual respect, civic responsibility and compassion for all. Western Australia is a better place for his life's work. To all those whose lives were touched by him, I offer our heartfelt condolences. May his memory continue to guide us.

This year marks the 10th anniversary of the 2015 general election in Myanmar, an event that, for a brief and hopeful moment, represented a turning point in that country's long and troubled history. Myanmar was under brutal military rule for decades. Even after the formation of a nominally civilian government in 2011, the military retained sweeping control, including a quarter of all parliamentary seats, under a constitution it wrote itself. And yet the 2015 election marked real progress. It was the first genuinely contested national election in a generation. The National League for Democracy, led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, won a decisive mandate. Voter turnout was high, and the military, surprisingly, accepted the result.

That election would not have been possible without the resilience of the Burmese people. But it was also supported by international engagement, particularly from Australia. The Australian government provided a total of $5.4 million to support Myanmar's 2015 election, and a bipartisan delegation of Australian parliamentarians, which included me, travelled to Myanmar to witness the event. We assisted in ensuring transparency, credibility and a degree of global attention. It was a meaningful act of solidarity on our part—a signal that Australia stood with those seeking democratic reform in our region. The delegation's final report noted a peaceful and largely fair process. But it also pointed to serious flaws, especially the disenfranchisement of ethnic minorities and the ongoing power of the military under the constitution.

Sadly, those flaws would later be exploited, with terrible consequences. In 2020, the NLD won an even larger majority in another credible election. But in February of the following year, and before the new parliament could convene, the military staged a coup. It arrested leaders, imposed a state of emergency and plunged Myanmar back into repression. Since then, thousands have been killed, tens of thousands have been imprisoned, millions have been displaced and today refugee numbers surge. It is no overstatement to say that the hopes of 2015 lie in ruins.

And yet the legacy of that election still matters. Australia has an important role to continue to play, offering humanitarian assistance and supporting international accountability for crimes committed by the military. Importantly for Australian parliamentarians, we must stand united and speak with one voice to restore democracy and human rights to Myanmar. (Time expired)

I rise to make some comments about the nation's housing nightmare and to give a preview as to why the coalition is not of the view that prioritising build-to-rent developments is appropriate in any way. We have a massive failure on housing which starts from the basis that the government has presided over the largest growth in population since the 1950s, but, at the same time, has presided over a collapse in housing completions. We've gone from an average of 200,000 houses a year under the previous coalition government, and now we're down to 170,000 new houses each year, despite having the largest growth in employment since the 1950s.

Then we have a massive growth of regulation, with 5,000 new regulations in the last parliament enacted by this government. Now we see the Minister for Housing, Clare O'Neil, the productivity minister and the Treasurer talk about this thicket of regulations. They talk about a thicket. It's a very interesting word, 'thicket'. That thicket was put in place by this government. In three years, it put in place 5,000 new regulations, including 1½ thousand new regulations in the Treasury and Infrastructure portfolios, where housing policy resides.

Then we have the CFMEU given a green light to get back in business, to get back on track, perhaps. They were given a green light over the weekend to do their worst in New South Wales, and we'll see the CFMEU flags flying atop new apartment builds in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. Every time you see a CFMEU flag, you should be thinking to yourself, 'This is a 30 per cent tax on young people.' Young people will pay 30 per cent extra for the mafia and thuggery and corruption of the Labor Party's CFMEU.

Then we have perhaps the saddest stats of all to be recited in these chambers this week in Canberra, in relation to homelessness. I quote the ABC:

The number of people accessing homelessness services each month has increased by 10 per cent since Labor was elected in May 2022.

This has been a disaster. Beyond the boondoggle of the Housing Australia Future Fund, we have more homeless people than ever before and we are at a decade low in housing completions, despite having the biggest population we've ever had.

But what is the priority of this wonderful Labor government? Its priority is to give a big, fat tax cut to foreign asset managers so they can come and build houses in Australia—homes that Australians will never own. Australians will never own these houses. These are only to be owned by foreign asset managers from any country. They could even be sovereign wealth funds. So that's the starting point. We don't think it's a good idea to prioritise build-to-rent. We actually have no problem with the market deciding, 'We want to build an apartment building, we're going to have build-to-rent and we're going to do that.' We love the market. We think that's a good idea. Fine, you can do that. But we don't think it needs a tax cut.

The problem the Australian people have, having had this government for over three years now, is that the government is completely captured by vested interests that they are personally and financially close to. They think, because they've been told so by their mates in the unions, the big super funds and the property industry, that it's a really good idea to give foreign fund managers a tax cut so they can build houses people will never own. Do you know why it's a good idea for them? Because they're going to collect the lower taxation and then all the revenue from leasing houses to Australians. Of course, the poor old Australians become serfs to these people, to these corporates—foreign fund managers, sovereign wealth funds, whatever. So this is their priority. After presiding over the greatest housing calamity in Australian history, they want to do this—a tax cut for build-to-rent developments.

The superannuation industry is of course one of my favourite groups of people, and, when they were at the Senate inquiry, I asked them whether it was a good idea for the super funds or big institutions to own houses. I said, 'Do you think the Australian people want to rent their houses from a super fund?' And the super fund executive from the association said, 'I think they'd be very happy with institutionally owned residential property.' Well, I think that they are wrong. I don't think it's what most Australians want. I think Australians want to own their own houses. That's what they want. They don't want this American model. They do not want to see the Americanisation of Australian housing. If you're wondering what I'm talking about, in cities like Atlanta, Charlottesville and Jacksonville, institutional investors own 25, 18 and 21 per cent of the houses. That's the Americanisation of Australian housing that the Labor Party want to bring to this great country. That's what they want. That's their agenda—houses owned by big super funds and all their mates at the unions.

So it doesn't need a tax cut. If you want to have build-to-rent, fine, but it doesn't need a tax cut. In fact, Cameron Murray, who's a very interesting economist, told the Senate that you've got the Abu Dhabi Investment Council, which owns the Smith Collective on the Gold Coast, which is 1,251 build-to-rent dwellings. Okay. And he says that it's bizarre that the government wants to prioritise and give foreigners a tax cut when they're already doing it here. So we're trying to make it even easier for them. It's crazy. Build-to-rent, across the board, in Melbourne's Kensington, in Sydney's Zetland—there are dozens of developments across the country where this is already happening. So I think it's a big problem, and the property industry itself has said of the legislation brought to you by the Labor Party that it's probably not going to work anyway.

So that's why we're moving—in the next sittings, I expect now—to disallow these regulations, because we need to have an honest conversation with the Australian people about rectifying this situation. It is clear that the only way out of the housing calamity is to build more houses. If people want to build build-to-rent, fine, but it doesn't require a tax cut. But, more broadly, the tradespeople, the builders and the developers—the people involved in home building—will tell you that the supply side needs support from the Commonwealth, and that's what we should be having a debate about, as well as sensible ways to help tilt the scales for first home buyers.

But we're not of the view that the government should be allowed to be a government for vested interests. Our job is to scrutinise this government. That's what the Australian people would expect. I think the reason this build-to-rent tax concession was held up for a long time in the last parliament was that a lot of others also shared the concern that this is a very unusual priority. It would be an unusual priority to most Australians. When you have a close look at this government and you understand that this is a pattern of its behaviour and that it is very dedicated to specific vested interests, then perhaps it is not surprising, but it is not the right priority. And the message it sends is very culturally jarring, because it's saying that individual Australians are no longer the focus: 'we've given up on you owning your own house, and the only solutions we have left are where someone else owns your house or you co-own the house with the government.' And don't take my word for it. You can take the ABC's data, reported on the ABC, on how bad the situation is. A government that has blown so much hot air on housing and built so much bureaucracy is presiding over not only a massive collapse in construction but also the worst homelessness crisis in history. What more data do you want to see?

So I'm surprised that someone of the calibre of the minister hasn't been prepared to look at the housing policies that were inherited from the Prime Minister and come to the realisation that this is not working, so the government needs to course-correct. We will help them do that; but we will also be moving to disallow this very bad law.

On the evening of Thursday 17 July, just a couple of weeks ago, I attended a peace vigil for Gaza in my home town of Launceston at our beautiful Launceston Town Hall. I was disappointed to learn on the night that the Launceston city council executive had made a last-minute reversal of a decision to allow a light display with the colours of the Palestinian flag on the town hall. It was explained to me by vigil organisers that the executive made this decision on the basis that such a light show would not encourage positive community outcomes or promote community unity. I wrote to both the Launceston city council general manager and the mayor on Friday 18 July and again on Monday 28 July, this week, to seek an explanation of how this decision was arrived at and to request a meeting with them to discuss this. So far, crickets.

The Palestinian flag is a powerful and hopeful symbol for a pathway forward for peace. Palestinians have a right to self-determination; they have a right to a sovereign state. Whether it's through a self-determination process that leads to a single free Palestinian state or a two-state solution, either way, it's the most viable pathway forward to end the horrific genocide in Gaza and for long-term peace and stability in the region for both Israelis and Palestinians. Our current government supports a two-state solution, as do many nations around the world, so how can a light show projecting a Palestinian flag that promotes peace and a pathway forward to peace be controversial, not be in the community's interest or not promote community unity? I'm still stumped. I know there are a lot of good councillors on the Launceston city council. I haven't had the opportunity to discuss this with them personally—or, unfortunately, with the general manager or the mayor either. I ask them to make their voices heard on this issue, if they haven't already.

Doctors Without Borders, Amnesty International and numerous other global humanitarian organisations, including prominent Israeli human rights organisations, have publicly stated that the Israeli government's actions in Gaza amount to genocide. Thousands of innocent Palestinian children are being starved, bombed and cut down in cold blood while they queue for food. These kids are not Hamas fighters. Israel is acting with impunity. If leaders at a local government level, at a state government level and here in federal parliament don't stand up for these innocent Palestinians and for a long-term pathway for peace, then I don't know who will. It is our moral duty to highlight the need for a pathway to peace and challenge the perpetuators of injustice and those breaking international law. I will leave it at that, in the hope that the Launceston council will get back to me and that I will get to meet with them on this.

I want to highlight another issue that is also near and dear to my heart. I was very fortunate, actually, in the last week of the election campaign to go to Lord Howe Island for two days to join the scientific team at Adrift Lab. My friend Dr Jen Lavers; her partner at Adrift Lab, Alex; and their team of scientific volunteers from around the world come to Lord Howe every year to study the shearwaters, which, sadly, pick up a lot of plastic from the ocean. In fact, while I was there, tragically, we had a shearwater that broke a record that had stood for nearly 16 or 17 years of studying these birds—it had more than 800 pieces of plastic in its stomach. It's hard to fathom that a little bird can actually have that much plastic in its stomach. When they come out of their burrows to take their first flight—and they've got a two-week window to do that—of course, they can barely move, let alone fly. Tragically, I got to witness that.

Jen recently wrote to me and some of my colleagues to point out something else to us that I think is really important to talk about in the Senate chamber today. Just for the record, Jen is a marine scientist specialising in anthropogenic impacts, using seabirds as sentinels or bioindicators of ocean health. Now, while her team at Adrift Lab do not undertake research on algal blooms, such as we have seen recently—and it's very concerning that we've had a number of algal blooms off Tasmania's coast, which is an increasing worry for the future—they do study marine heatwaves and their impacts on seabirds.

One thing that struck Jen while she was reading the reporting on South Australia's algal bloom, which, I'm pleased to say, has been reported on by reporters across the country, including by those in the press gallery here—and a shout-out to Phil Coorey for taking such a strong stance on it in the Fin Reviewwas my quote, where I said, 'If sea life was washing up on the beaches of Sydney, there'd be a national outcry.' She said to me: 'Sadly, Peter, this is not the case.' During the summer of 2023-24, Australia's east coast experienced one of the worst marine heatwaves ever recorded, with the Tasman Sea temperature anomaly exceeding two degrees Celsius. The peak of the marine heatwave coincided with the arrival of seabirds into Australia, after they'd migrated over 10,000 kilometres from their overwintering grounds, and peaked again when the adult birds were attempting to feed their chicks. As a result of the rapid and significant rising water temperature in the Tasman Sea, Jen said that he birds' prey, which is fish and squid, shifted lower in the water column or relocated elsewhere. Either way, they suddenly became unavailable, and the birds died of starvation.

Australia does not have a national beach bird monitoring program, so Jen—like she's done on Lord Howe—on the smell of an oily rag, has set up such a program, using volunteers right across the country. In fact, over 300 observers, volunteers and citizen scientists submitted photos and data to Adrift Lab, and, based on this, over 5,000 seabirds, mostly shearwaters and mutton birds, were recorded dead on beaches from Brisbane to Hobart. Numerous reports were also sent from beaches around Sydney, with dozens of shearwaters reported dead on Bondi Beach, Narrabeen Beach and Manly Beach. In a single day an incredible 99 seabirds were reported washed up, dead, on Dee Why Beach. Despite Adrift Lab's substantial efforts to share this news with the community, local politicians and media, there has been no reporting on it; hence, I'm raising this in the Australian parliament today. This has been very disappointing for Jen and her team, who, as I said earlier, have been spending mostly their own time to monitor this terrible situation and bring it to our attention. Anyway, they, along with their volunteers, have recorded data from over 2½ thousand kilometres of Australia's coastline. Dr Jen Lavers' team note that the proportion of birds observed on beaches represents a tiny fraction of the total number that have died on the Australian coastline.

You might be wondering, Deputy President, how many seabirds the Adrift Lab team have told us have died on Australia's coastline from marine heatwaves—the same thing that's causing the toxic algal bloom on South Australia's coast, with the thousands of dead marine creatures washing up and the terrible impact that's having on biodiversity and on local communities and businesses. I know Senator Farrell, as a South Australian, would be very interested in this. The answer to the seabird question is horrifying. From November 2023 to May 2024, more than 612,000 seabirds died on our Australian beaches along the east coast of Australia from marine heatwaves, in Sydney, Brisbane, Hobart and everywhere in between.

Why does no-one know about this catastrophic loss of life? It's nearly the same number of wildlife deaths as were attributed to the 2019 Black Summer bushfires. Why does nobody know about this? Well, it's because only a few people have the resources and the motivation to study this. When I look at how much of our last federal budget was spent on the environment, the WWF estimated that 0.01 per cent of our federal budget is spent on the environment. Surely we can do better than that at a time of national crisis. We know we need to monitor what's going on. We need to fund the scientists and the community organisations that are doing this, and we need much better solutions.

Lastly, whether it's the devastating loss of coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef or on the Ningaloo Reef on the west coast or the toxic algal bloom in South Australia in an area on the Great Southern Reef that was previously considered a refuge from many of the changes we've seen during climate change—whatever it is that you're focusing on in the sad decline in our natural world that's happening right before our eyes—we come back to the fact that we need to reduce emissions. We need to stop all new fossil fuel projects and transition as rapidly as possible to a clean-energy renewable future.

I rise today as a proud Mutthi Mutthi and Wamba Wamba woman and as a Victorian to speak about the nation-leading work that is happening in my home state on the path to treaty, truth and justice. Victoria has led the way. We established Yoorrook, Australia's first truth-telling commission, led by First Peoples. After four years, its work is done. The truth is now on the public record. We now have a shared history of the state of Victoria, and what a wonderful thing that is.

Let me be really clear: that work didn't just happen magically. It wasn't luck, and it certainly wasn't fast. It's the result of decades of tireless advocacy by First Peoples in Victoria. It is the result of communities demanding justice long before governments were willing to hear it and of a Labor government choosing to act, not just with words but with law.

There's a truth some people still don't know or choose not to see. Victoria was not just touched by the stolen generations; it helped to create them. Victoria was one of the first jurisdictions to pass laws that gave the state the power to remove Aboriginal children from their families—children taken not for protection but for assimilation, taken without cause, without consent and without return. These weren't isolated incidents; it was government policy. Whole communities were torn apart, culture was deliberately severed, and families were left searching for their children across decades, even to this day. That is a part of our legacy in Victoria, and it's a chapter we cannot look away from.

The economic cost of this injustice has been profound. Generations of Aboriginal Victorians were denied access to land, education, fair wages and the opportunity to build wealth like every other Australian. Children removed from their families lost not only their culture and connection but a chance of any economic security. The Yoorrook Justice Commission has made clear that the impacts of dispossession are ongoing and reflected today in income gaps, in housing insecurity, and in reduced opportunities. Justice must include repair, not just social but economic. The trauma of those removals lives on in memory, in policy and in the overrepresentation of Aboriginal children in out-of-home care today.

Just weeks ago, Victoria marked a historic milestone with the conclusion of the Yoorrook Justice Commission, which has now placed these truths on the public record. Our task is to face them not with defensiveness but with honesty, humility and action. Yoorrook's work was deep, forensic and uncompromising. Over four years, it heard from thousands, it reviewed thousands of documents, and it delivered two landmark reports—one setting the public record straight and the other laying out a blueprint for transformation. It found what our communities have long known—that the experiences of Aboriginal Victorians amount to genocide—and it made clear that truth must come before justice.

But Yoorrook didn't just document the past; it designed a way forward. With a hundred recommendations across land, health, housing, education and justice, it calls for deep reform and a genuine rebalancing of power. That work now falls to government, to the First Peoples' Assembly, to treaty and to all Victorians, because, in Victoria, treaty is not just a hope; it's a legal process backed by legislation set in motion by the Advancing the Treaty Process with Aboriginal Victorians Act 2018 led by the First Peoples' Assembly of Victoria—a democratic representative body for our people.

The assembly has already established a treaty authority, an independent body grounded in First Nations law and cultural authority. It has built the architecture for negotiation, dispute resolution and accountability, and it has done so not by asking for power but by exercising it. That's what makes Victoria's approach different. It's not just consultation but co-design. It's not symbolic gestures but structural change. It's not temporary programs but a generational shift. This is no accident; it is a result of First Peoples organising for decades. It's a result of our elders, who never, ever stop pushing, but it is also the product of a Labor government willing to legislate for truth, for justice and for treaty.

Imagine spending 25 years of your life unable to talk, unable to speak up for what you need. That was life for a young man with autism on Tassie's east coast. Eighteen months ago he could only speak three sentences in total; today he can speak independently, and that's because of the great work he's been doing with his speech therapist, but that might now be taken away from him. On 1 July the National Disability Insurance Agency introduced new measures to cut costs. They chose to slash the travel allowance by 50 per cent for allied health professionals on the NDIS. The NDIA says this is to make sure participants are only paying for the true cost of care, and no-one wants to see vulnerable people be overcharged and taken advantage of. But this change means services to rural and regional areas of Tasmania will stop. It means hundreds of vulnerable Tasmanians will go without care.

It's a four-hour return trip from Launceston to Scamander, on the east coast—$90 isn't enough to cover the costs of that travel. It's not even enough to cover the petrol costs. I've talked to Tassie providers and allied health workers, who are absolutely devastated. They can't absorb these costs. They've been put between a rock and a really hard place. Do they stop looking after some of our most vulnerable people or take on the costs and send their organisations broke? It's an impossible choice, and it's left NDIS participants scared and confused. Imagine being that young man from Scamander and having come so far in 18 months just to have it all ripped away from you by the stroke of a pen, by bureaucrats in Canberra.

The NDIS needs to cut spending. You won't see me arguing about that at all. The NDIS costs the government more than Medicare does. It's about to cost more than the age pension. We've got to start being more efficient and sustainable, but there are ways to do that without making cuts that impact on the care people receive.

Here are my thoughts on what should be done instead. We should be reusing medical equipment, and wheelchairs are a great example of this. I've heard stories of a child getting a wheelchair on the NDIS, equipped with all the bells and whistles, but, as anyone who's raised kids knows, they grow pretty quick. Suddenly, the child has outgrown the wheelchair, in six months or 12 months, and they need a new one. What you think happens with the old one? There's nothing wrong with it, and it could be used again. Instead, it just gets tossed out and is never used again—what a waste. Where we can, we should be repurposing medical equipment that's still fit for purpose. Imagine giving that used wheelchair to another child in need at half the price. It would mean they wouldn't be spending as much money from their plan, and we'd be being much more sustainable in the way we reuse and recirculate equipment. It's not a system that can be set up overnight, but it's the perfect place to start to stop leaking money and stop the waste.

Another way to save money in the NDIS is to give organisations more flexibility on what supplies can be bought and where they can be bought from. This is just a little example I heard from a physio. Let's say a participant needs a therapy ball. You can get one from Kmart for $13, and we all like going to Kmart. But the NDIS wants these products to come from speciality disability stores, where a therapy ball costs $50 plus postage. There's no difference between the two balls, by the way; they're exactly the same. Sometimes the Kmart therapy ball will be approved; sometimes it won't be. If it's not approved and the physio really wants to save their client money, they will write letters to the plan managers about why the Kmart ball makes sense over the specialty one, but taking time to write the letter costs the client too.

Another example I heard from a speech therapist was about communication devices used for therapy. They used to purchase iPads for their clients to run the program they needed. It would cost between $500 and $1,000. The NDIS says that iPads aren't allowed anymore and clients have to buy specialty communication devices. Guess what? That costs four grand. Once again, the client is paying far more than they need to for the equipment that they need. And that means taxpayers are paying more than they should pay too.

Fixing the issues with equipment approvals or reusing perfectly good equipment won't happen overnight. That's why it's easier for the NDIS to slash travel allowances and rates for physios. But, if we are going to get the NDIS to a place that's more efficient and more sustainable, this is where we need to start. We need to pull back spending on the NDIS, but there are plenty of ways to do it that won't impact on the care vulnerable Tasmanians receive every single day.

Collie, in the south-west of Western Australia, has a proud and enduring history as one of our state's great industrial heartlands. For nearly a century, its coalmines and power stations have powered Western Australia, fuelled our economy, provided jobs and sustained a close-knit community. Generations of my family have worked in the Collie coalmines, but the world is changing. Demand for coal-fired power is falling; infrastructure is ageing. When the decision was made to retire Collie stations in a phased and planned approach, it was never going to be a matter of just switching off the lights. It's not just an economic challenge but a deeply human one. The workers and families who have built their lives in Collie deserve certainty, respect and a genuine and just transition, and that is what is being delivered. My union, the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union, has stood alongside government, local workers and the community to make sure that's what is being delivered.

Union led advocacy has ensured that Collie's workforce has been a part of the decision-making on the future of their town and their industries. It's meant access to upskilling and retraining pathways and an ongoing dialogue to maintain trust and inclusion. They have helped shape a world-leading model of transition that creates real opportunities for workers and their families. Since 2019, unions have worked hand in hand with government, industry, local leaders and the community to build a road map that secures Collie's future. It's been guided by representatives like Darcy Gunning from the Just Transition Working Group. Collie's approach has centred on workers' rights and community decision-making, not imposed change, not just by simply replacing one industry with another but by creating a diversified and thriving economy that gives locals choice and confidence. At the heart of all of this is the understanding that this can't be done by one level of government alone. That's why it's so encouraging to see this government recognising the national scale of this challenge and backing it with serious policy and serious investment.

The Net Zero Economy Authority is now tasked with coordinating the transition for workers in coal- and gas-fired power stations around the country. That means working with many communities across our country, just like Collie, to ensure national policy supports local plans. The Albanese government's Future Made in Australia plan is unlocking over a billion dollars to back in green industry like critical minerals, clean manufacturing and low-carbon technologies. That opens the door to federal incentives for projects already underway in Collie. And, just this week, the government has announced a major expansion of Australia's renewable energy underwriting scheme, supporting the deployment of up to 40 gigawatts of large-scale solar, wind and storage projects by 2030. It's exactly the kind of market certainty that industrial towns like Collie need to attract clean investment and futureproof local jobs. What's happened in Collie is more than just a local success story; it's an international blueprint. It's fast becoming a blueprint for the eight million coal workers right around the world facing the future beyond fossil fuels.

These initiatives show what is possible when state governments, federal governments, union leadership, the local community and workers come together with the same goal of a fair and people focused transition. It's a model for how we do this right; how we transition communities with respect, with ambition and with solidarity. There is of course more work ahead, but the people of Collie, supported by their unions and Labor, are proving that a just transition isn't a pipe dream; it's a promise.

Earlier this month, the Yoorrook Justice Commission, the first formal truth-telling commission of its kind in this country, handed down its final historic reports. Amongst the commission's many findings were that crimes of genocide were committed against the First Peoples of Victoria. The report clearly calls for federal action on land rights, reparations for the crimes committed against us and repatriation of our cultural, secret and sacred objects. This could be a turning point for all people in this country and for the self-determination and independence of First Peoples and First Nations not just in Victoria but across this continent.

I want to start at the beginning. Yoorrook means 'truth' in the Wemba Wemba language, a language that is now extinct and one of the many victims of the attempted genocide against the First Peoples of this continent. We talk a lot about truth-telling, but why do we need to tell the truth or have a truth-telling commission? Well, when we talk about the truth of this country, people don't want to hear it. It makes them uncomfortable, so they object to it and they hide it. They call it the 'black armband' version of history. They say it's a history better forgotten, buried, left unsaid. They want to continue the lies, especially in this place. Our leaders have a selective memory, and what they choose to remember and forget is deliberate. It's political and it's a sophisticated effort to distance themselves from atrocities not only committed in the past but which continue to be committed under their watch today.

Take, for example, our Anzacs, who have a national day of mourning, a sacred day that recognises their sacrifice, struggle and loss. Few people know that returning First Nations Anzac soldiers were given nothing. They were considered good enough to die for this country, but they were still not good enough to be considered as citizens or granted the same entitlements as their returning white counterparts. Soldier settlement schemes gifted huge parcels of land to white soldiers, yet First Nations soldiers were denied in a continuation of land dispossession and racist segregation.

Our leaders not only have a selective memory but a deliberate doublethink. They acknowledge the findings of Yoorrook with bleeding hearts while knowingly upholding and expanding the racist system of dispossession that kills us. If we don't collectively reckon with our history, then how can we understand where we are today? How can we move forward together in healing? That is why truth-telling is urgent. If we don't know where we have come from, how do we know where we are going?

I urgently call on this government to follow through on its previous promises to establish a national truth-telling commission. As the Yoorrook Justice Commission said, the past is the present, and the policies of genocide, assimilation and destruction are not behind us. The systemic violence continues to harm our people every day. This genocide continues to traumatise our people, and acknowledging the past is only the beginning. We must hold to account those responsible for the ongoing genocide. Truth-telling alone is not enough. It must be accompanied by change and action that will liberate our people from the colonial shackles and chains once and for all.

I rise to place on the record of the Senate my congratulations to the member for Blair, Shayne Neumann, on his outstanding seventh election victory for the community there. I said during the election campaign that you would be hard-pressed to find a harder-working member of parliament than the member for Blair. In his election victory and the commitments he was able to secure for sporting and multicultural groups, as well as a commitment of $200 million for the Amberley interchange upgrade, were a testament to his work ethic and commitment to delivering for his community.

That is why it is with deep disappointment that I place on the record of the Senate some of the misinformation, scaremongering and aggressive behaviour which were employed by those in the LNP during the campaign in Blair. The member for Blair and his campaign team had to put up with some of the worst campaign behaviour I have ever seen in my 20 years as a Labor Party member. Anyone who drove through the suburbs of Ipswich or the Somerset region would have seen the juvenile and misleading attacks on the member for Blair made by those opposite and their mates.

There were thousands of corflutes placed on the streets of Blair by those opposite. This included hundreds of plainly bizarre caricatures of Shayne as a Lego character which were illegally authorised by a made-up 'Ian Renkin from Battler Voice'. These were later sanctioned by the AEC and revealed to have been authorised by former Queensland Liberal Party vice-president Graham Young. The same authoriser peddled misinformation on other corflutes, claiming that Labor were going to introduce a tax on utes and that Shayne Neumann was personally responsible for crime in Blair. There were also deeply concerning reports from multiple voters in Blair that received cold calls from individuals who purported to be from the Labor Party pushing divisive issues with voters to turn people off from voting for the Labor Party.

It is a credit to the member for Blair and his campaign team that they rose above these lies and misinformation put forward by those opposite. They were laser focused on talking to voters about the issues which mattered to them, delivering more cost-of-living relief, strengthening Medicare with bulk-billing and delivering Shayne's plan for better roads for Blair.

I would also like to put on record the deeply disturbing relationship between the LNP campaign and the Exclusive Brethren. This was first revealed by the Age during the election, which reported that members of the Plymouth Brethren Church had been deployed to at least 17 marginal seats across the country, including in the seat of Blair. On the ground, the Exclusive Brethren had rented out multiple mobile billboards and LED message trailers across the electorate which encouraged voters to 'Make Australia happy' and 'Put Labor last'. In addition, it was reported that the Exclusive Brethren had made nearly one million phone calls for those opposite during the campaign.

Polling booths in Blair were overcrowded with as many as 20 members of the Exclusive Brethren handing out for the LNP at each polling booth. Their behaviour at polling booths was absolutely atrocious. As the member for Blair recalled in his address-in-reply last week:

Exclusive Brethren members stood in front of Labor volunteers and verbally abused them—men and women—physically blocked them from handing out how-to-vote cards, filmed Labor volunteers …

When I helped on the Raceview early voting booth, I heard from voters who complained about the intimidating environment heading into the booth and the absurd number of volunteers handing out. The scale of the Exclusive Brethren operation across the country begs the important question: what did those opposite promise the Exclusive Brethren in return for their support on the campaign? If those opposite are committed to renewal, they should come clean in terms of the agreement they reached.

I want to again congratulate the member for Blair on his victory. Those opposite threw everything at his campaign and stooped to an all-time low in campaigning. Anyone who was associated with the LNP campaign in Blair should be ashamed of their behaviour and that association. But it still wasn't enough. The member for Blair stood strong. He stood on his principles and track record of what he delivered for his community, and I know that, now that he is re-elected, he will go on to continue to deliver for his community and deliver the election promises that he made as a member of the ALP. Those opposite continue to push the politics of division and commit to scare tactics rather than actually having a meaningful policy offering for the community, but those on this side of the Senate will get on with the job of delivering for Australians and doing what we can to ensure that we're there to help them.

I want to give Australian parents examples of what's being taught in our classrooms: 'You can't tell if someone is a boy or a girl by looking at their genitals. You can be a boy but feel like a girl inside. You are assigned male or female at birth, but this can change. Some people feel they did not get a good match with their body parts and they don't want to be called a boy or a girl.' These are just a few examples of the perverse rubbish our children and grandchildren—in some cases as young as four years old—are being taught in our schools across Australia. This is ideological indoctrination, not science and not truth. As a grandmother myself, I know this is causing untold damage to our kids. I am raising this issue because I'm immensely concerned that our children's health and wellbeing is being sacrificed for a vicious, hateful ideology trying to remake human beings into its own deviant image. I'm raising it to bring awareness to parents.

My seven -year-old grandson recently came home from school and asked his mother, 'Where's your penis?' 'What do you mean?' she asked, reminding him that she is female and females do not have a penis. My grandson then sked his mother where his vagina was. Troubled, my daughter asked him where these questions were coming from and why. 'From school,' he said. He said, 'School told me that you can choose if you want to be a boy or a girl,' and then added that he wanted to know when he gets to choose. Let's think about that for a second. He wanted to know when he gets to choose. All his life up to the age of seven years, he's been told he's a boy. He was reared as a boy, he looks like his father and his brother, he knows he's not like his mother, and now he gets to choose. Now he knows he's a boy—his parents told him that—because biological sex can't change because of words or an operation. I wonder if the school is also teaching him, if he then says he has a vagina, how he has a baby.

Parents and grandparents across Australia, you need to be aware of this. You need to find out what your children are being taught and take a stand against this perversity. Schools and departments call it 'sexual education'. It is part of the Australian national curriculum, promoting diversity and inclusion. No, this is absolute rubbish. We need to step in now before more harm is brought upon our kids, whether it be in public, private or religious based schools. This is happening everywhere across Australia, and many parents are simply unaware.

Parents are being deliberately kept in the dark. This is being delivered, in some instances, by a third-party external provider under various names and banners, including the Growing Up Program in Tasmania or Respectful Relationships in Victoria, which is now extending to Queensland, New South Wales and South Australia. It is all the same: transgender ideology which is pressuring our children and causing great distress and long-term harm. In many cases, no prior consent or permission is obtained from parents to teach this curriculum, and in some cases parents are denied access to or visibility of the content when requested. Why? Because, apparently, it's commercial-in-confidence. Why and how is this allowed? What are they trying to hide? Parents have a right to know what is being taught to their children, and under no circumstances should this be withheld or children be told to keep it a secret from their parents. That's exactly what paedophiles tell their victims. Schools do not have this right.

Our schools are being perverted into turning our kids into fodder for gender clinics where they are drugged and butchered. Parents are being backed into a corner and having to resort to school shopping in the hope of finding a principal who is willing to intervene and stop this deviancy. Unfortunately, they are few and far between. More and more parents have lost faith, trust and confidence in the education system and are turning to homeschooling, as they have no other option. In Queensland alone, homeschooling increased by 229 per cent from 2009 to 2014. (Time expired)

We will now move to two-minute statements.

I want to tell you a story about a man from Queensland who was doing a job for the last three years which was somewhat related to government—in fact, I would say it was quite heavily related to the functioning of Canberra's government. He did that job for three years. Then, after the election that was conducted earlier this year, he read a book from America. The book was called Abundance, and this man read this book. After he read this book, he discovered that what he had been doing in the first three years of this job was all wrong—it was terrible. He read an American book to discover that what he'd being doing in Canberra was actually wrecking Australia. The man's name is Dr Jim Chalmers, who is the Treasurer of Australia.

Is he a doctor?

Well, he is a doctor; he's a doctor of something. He's read a book and now he's changed his whole view about what's happened in the last three years. He's repudiated three years of Labor government, where they put in place 5,000 new regulations—and growing. Today we see in the newspaper or on the TV that there are going to be more regulations. Now YouTube is banned. All sorts of websites are going to be filtered by the government. We're going to have more and more regulations. The problem with this is that's not what the book said to do. The book told him that he needed to cut regulations and to abolish the thicket of regulations that he's been talking about alongside the housing minister and Dr Leigh. Maybe this book wasn't actually well thought through, in the sense that he didn't understand what it said. Maybe he needs to read another book because he's at risk of doing again what he did in the first three years, which is more laws, more regulations and more red tape, which is bad.

It is with great sadness that I rise to speak about the extraordinary Lyn Rivers, president of the South Australian and Northern Territory branch of the SDA, who tragically passed away last week. Lyn was an exemplary leader of our movement and a mentor to many. Deeply committed to the union movement, to retail workers and to her fellow members, she was a part of our union for over six decades. Lyn worked in some of Adelaide's most iconic department stores, including John Martin's, Myer, David Jones and Harris Scarfe. Her commitment to the union movement never faltered. She never missed a meeting. She always stood up for what was right, with both courage and conviction.

Elected to the SDA Committee of Management in 2000, Lyn went on to serve as SDA president for almost 20 years. She worked closely with SDA secretaries Senator Don Farrell, Peter Malinauskas, Sonia Romeo and Josh Peak. Collaboratively, she worked with our union to drive meaningful progress and change for all retail, fast-food and warehouse workers. She was fearless in her fight for them. Lyn was a force for our members, fighting to ensure retail workers are treated with the dignity and the respect at work that they deserve.

Lyn leaves an incredible legacy to our union and to the broader Labor movement and will always be an inspiration to many. Her commitment, passion, loyalty, focus, fierce spirit and always friendly face will be missed. I extend my heartfelt condolences to Lyn's family and friends, our union movement in South Australia especially, and all those in South Australia who knew Lyn and who loved her.

I rise to speak in support of our public school teachers. Next Wednesday teachers in Queensland will go on strike for the first time in over 15 years, standing together to demand better pay and conditions and recognition for the essential work that they do. As a Queensland public school teacher myself for more than 25 years, I know the commitment and dedication teachers bring to the classroom every day, and for most it's a labour of love.

Teachers work tirelessly and passionately every day to educate and support our kids, often in incredibly challenging conditions. Teachers in the public system in particular do the heavy lifting when it comes to improving outcomes for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged students. Yet most public school teachers remain poorly paid and face unacceptable working conditions in a system that on its current trajectory will be underfunded for another decade. It's driving good teachers out of the classroom and disincentivising people from entering the workforce altogether. This is a disservice not only to teachers but to the students who rely on them.

Today's NAPLAN results show us what happens when you don't value teaching and learning. While students from more privileged backgrounds continue to perform well, those from disadvantaged backgrounds are falling further behind. If we're to have any chance of reversing this trend and lifting all kids up, we need to invest in our teachers, reward them properly for their work and ensure they have the in-class supports that allow them to do their jobs properly. Teaching conditions are learning conditions. That's why I would urge all Queenslanders to support next week's strike action by Queensland's public school teachers and join their calls for fairer pay and better working conditions—solidarity with Queensland's teachers.

As the co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Parkinson's group throughout the last parliament, I have seen and heard just how little many Australians know about this disease. Parkinson's is the world's fastest-growing neurological condition, with around 220,000 people living with the condition in Australia, but it remains a mystery to most until they or a loved one is diagnosed. As someone with friends and loved ones living with Parkinson's disease, I can fully appreciate the importance of education and awareness to help equip people with the information they need to manage the condition. That is why I was pleased to learn of the launch of the latest 'massive open online course' focused on Parkinson's disease. A massive open online course, or MOOC, is an online course available for anyone to participate and undertake the course at their own pace on any internet enabled device.

The Parkinson's MOOC is purposefully designed to be accessible and practically useful for people with Parkinson's disease and their care partners through to healthcare professionals, support workers, researchers, health policymakers and anyone with an interest. This MOOC, delivered in partnership between the Wicking Dementia Centre, Menzies institute, the University of Tasmania and the Parkinson's Research Foundation, builds on the important work pioneered by Wicking after they launched their Understanding Dementia MOOC. Since its launch in 2013, the Understanding Dementia MOOC has recorded over 330,000 enrolments from around the world, which is absolutely incredible. I am certain that the Parkinson's MOOC will also have a significant response, and I extend my congratulations to the community and industry leaders at Wicking, Utas and Menzies and in the Parkinson's community on this innovative program. It will transform the understanding of Parkinson's for ordinary Australians and contribute to important discourse about how to manage this condition.

The Albanese Labor government is driving a national push for practical long-term economic reform, reform that lifts productivity, strengthens the budget and improves the lives of working Australians. Later this year, the Treasurer will bring together leaders from business unions, the community sector and key institutions for our national Economic Reform Roundtable. The aim is simple: to build consensus around the kinds of reforms that will make our economy more dynamic, more resilient and fairer. This is not a Canberra conversation; it's a country-wide challenge, and it has to be shaped by the lived experience of people across the nation.

That's why I'm proud to say Tasmania is a part of it. On 6 August, the Tasmania federal Labor team will bring together local voices from business, education, the care sector and research for a Tasmanian economic round table in Hobart to talk through the challenges we face and the opportunities ahead, because real, lasting reform starts by listening to the people who live it. We will be focusing on three big areas: lifting productivity in a way that works for regional economies; building a skilled and supported workforce; and unlocking Tasmania's strength in clean energy and technology. Good policy must start with place. National reform must make room for local knowledge, real-world experience and plain common sense. Nationwide diversity should be a strength not a barrier. The ideas and insights from the Tasmanian roundtable will feed directly into the national conversation, and I want to thank all those who are stepping up to be part of it. This is how we do reform: carefully, collaboratively and with a focus on what actually works for people.

My comments today follow on from the vote last night calling for a review of the compulsory code of conduct for search engines, for which I thank Senator Babet. I also thank Senator Shoebridge for his contribution to the debate.

Australia is set to introduce unprecedented age-verification checks for search engines such as Google and for YouTube, video sites, AI and, bizarrely, maps. What started as concern for children on social media has rapidly expanded to mandatory, wide-ranging, biometric age-checking across the digital landscape. For what reason? Safety? These measures vastly exceed what's necessary to keep kids safe. Instead of waiting to see how the under-16 social-media ban goes—if it works, if it's even possible, and how children get around it—the censorship bureaucrats are already trying to push through further nanny-state privacy-destroying restrictions on the internet.

Google and Microsoft will implement age-assurance technology, under threat of a $50 million repeating fine. This verification will be used to automatically censor an unspecified range of content. Yet the experience in Britain and the EU, where almost identical legislation has come into effect, shows that the powers will be most commonly used against material that hurts people's feelings—especially the government's feelings. This week, Britain has started removing any post which shows the current protests against excessive immigration, housing and the cost of living. The wording of the Australian code encourages the eSafety commissar to act in the same way. Did Prime Minister Anthony Albanese mention that in the last election campaign? No, he did not.

If democratic protests around important issues affecting safety and society cannot be spoken of, then we no longer have a democratic society. I'm disgusted. Enough is enough. We need to have an inquiry into digital regulatory overreach, including information about the actual events unfolding right now in Britain and the EU. We know how this legislation will turn out. Why are we making the same mistake other countries are making?

The algal bloom disaster is still unfolding in South Australia. My thoughts are with the communities that have been and are being affected. I extend my thanks to my fellow senators for supporting the motion to enable the Senate to have an inquiry into the algal bloom. Special thanks to Senators Cadell and Grogan. I'm also grateful for the federal government and state government interventions.

Scientists are still researching the causes of the bloom. It is likely that a key factor will be ocean temperature. What we do know is that the event is unprecedented. It's timely to reflect that we are not as ready to respond to this type of disaster as we might be to a flood or a bushfire. Just because this event is taking place at sea should not exclude it from being declared a national emergency, given the scale of the bloom.

It is a core conservative principle that we must provide for future generations. The argument that we are free to pollute because other nations are polluting is not an argument founded in conservative thought or tradition. Also we must reflect that the sea life and habitat are already under stress from pollution and are therefore less likely to cope with unprecedented events. Governments at every level, together with communities, are going to need to work together to make our economy sustainable. We need to find ways to not pollute. From my recent reading on what it is to be a patriot in the modern world, it is to selflessly serve your nation—not only the citizens of today but the citizens of tomorrow. And that must mean including a real commitment to care for nature.

Over the last two weeks of sittings of the 48th Parliament, the Albanese Labor government has been delivering on our election commitments. We've been delivering on what we said we would do, and we are putting that into practice. If you dive into the legislation that has been brought before the other place and this place, it displays a commitment to deliver for every Australian across all ages and demographics. We've been improving wages for Australians on the minimum wage, securing penalty rates for 2.6 million Australians, and reducing HECS and student debt for Australians by 20 per cent—this means every Australian with HECS or a student debt, including VET and TAFE loans, will see a 20 per cent reduction over the next six months, with an average saving of $5,500. We've reduced the PBS medication scripts to $25; this is a practical cost-of-living measure that helps Australians who require essential medicine for their health.

We are also ensuring the safety of our children in child care. This legislation will give government the power to cut off funding to childcare centres that don't meet the national quality standard when it comes to safety and quality, where there's a breach of the law, or where centres are acting in a way that puts the safety of children at risk. No more profit before the safety and security of our children! These powers will be used in close collaboration with states and territories, regulating quality and safety under the National Quality Framework.

Today and every day, the Albanese Labor government—that is, the people on this side of the chamber—are focused on delivering the commitments that we made. We are delivering to our communities and to our students, we are relieving their debt, securing penalty rates and cost-of-living relief— (Time expired)

Sharks are apex predators, and healthy shark populations are essential to healthy oceans, so it was with great alarm that I recently read that new genetic tests of great white shark populations, a species that is protected under state and federal laws, tell us that only 500 adult great white sharks are left around our nation. It's with significant concern that I've learned, from speaking to scientists in South Australia, that this toxic algal bloom has seen not only thousands of dead marine creatures wash up on the beach but also nearly eight adult great white sharks. The scientists tell me that is probably just the tip of the iceberg as to how many have been impacted by this toxic algal bloom.

Another significant source of concern is the fact that state governments like the New South Wales government and the Queensland government still refuse to remove barbaric, last-century shark nets. Shark nets are designed to catch and kill sharks and reduce shark populations, including great white sharks. They don't protect our beaches—surfers have been killed inside shark nets by sharks—they are simply there to protect politicians. It is good that the New South Wales government is at least moving to trial removing shark nets from selected locations, but at a time in history when our shark populations are under so much pressure, we need to do a lot better.

It might surprise knuckle-draggers like Ray Hadley at the 'Daily Terror-graph' in Sydney, that I am a surfer. I spend a lot of my time in the ocean surfing and diving. I've been out to the Neptune Islands on a scientific expedition and dived with great white sharks, and there are many surfers and ocean-lovers—in fact most surfers and ocean-lovers—who want to see sharks, as well as people, protected through better technology. (Time expired)

The government's sudden decision to include YouTube in its social media ban for under-16s is a textbook case of panic-driven policy, not principle. It's a backflip so hard and fast it should come with a neck brace. Make no mistake, this won't just cost them the youth vote; it'll cost them votes across the board, in my opinion. YouTube is a platform for learning, creativity and free expression—everything that the government should be supporting. By slapping a ban on YouTube for under-16s—which is what this is—this government is sending a clear message to young Australians: we don't trust you; we will decide what you are allowed to watch.

Everyone wants to protect kids online, but let's be honest: this isn't solely about protection; it's also about control. This ban triggers mandatory ID verification for all ages, and it opens the door to full-blown surveillance of every single Australian. Bureaucrats have no business micromanaging our digital lives, and parents should have the right to raise their own children and not have the government make these decisions for them.

This government's digital nanny state is growing by the day, but this ban is not going to make kids any safer; it is just going to make them more angry. When they are old enough to vote, they are going to remember which party treated them like chumps for daring to try and watch YouTube, of all things. This government has lost the plot, in my opinion, and it is about to lose an entire generation. But do you know what's funny? This government wants you to provide ID so that you can use YouTube, but it's not going to ask you for ID in order to vote. That's just a bit silly, right?

For more than 90 years, the Royal Flying Doctor Service has been a lifeline to rural and regional communities, delivering not just emergency care but also essential primary care to communities in need. But the barriers faced by patients in regional areas are also faced by our healthcare trainees. Rural healthcare students often have to relocate for study, face financial pressure and leave their social supports behind, yet, when they do graduate, they are far more likely to return and serve in those very same communities.

That's why the Royal Flying Doctor Service's Give Them Wings scholarship is so important. Now in its 14th year and largely community funded, it provides $6,000 to support our future healthcare professionals, enabling them to overcome these challenges and get a taste of rural medicine. At a ceremony for scholarship recipients I recently attended, I heard from Audrey, who researched cancer outcomes in Gippsland and saw the real gap between city and country health; Sandra, who chose medicine after witnessing the vital role of her GP in her regional community; and Ruky, who, after moving from Nigeria with her two children, has decided to become a nurse and give back, inspired by the care her grandmother received.

These healthcare workers will go on to serve but also to inspire others, and that's the multiplier effect in action thanks to the flying doctors. Strengthening and supporting rural communities is what the flying doctors do, and this is why the Albanese Labor government has backed them in, with $75 million towards more dental, mental health and primary care, and has also committed to an additional $1 billion over the next 10 years to further support them and give them certainty. Thank you to all the staff, the dedicated healthcare workers on the ground and in training, and of course the many donors and philanthropists who back in the flying doctors.

Today I want to honour Heather Calgaret, a proud Yamatji, Noongar, Wongi and Pitjantjatjara woman who died in custody in 2021 after being found unresponsive in her cell at Victoria's Dame Phyllis Frost prison by her sister. Heather was a mother of four, a loving sister, a gifted artist and the rock of her family. This week, the coroner found that her death was entirely preventable. Heather was given the wrong medication and left without proper monitoring. Her newborn had just been taken. She was denied parole despite being eligible. Every one of these failures contributed to her death.

This is not new. Aboriginal women have sounded the alarm about our treatment in prison for years. We lost Veronica Nelson in a similar way. Premier Allan, of the Labor Victorian government, says she's listening to the coroner, but this week she's winding back bail reforms that were introduced after Veronica's death—laws recommended by the coroner that we fought hard to change. This will lock up even more of our people, especially our women and children. This is shameful hypocrisy, saying the right things to one grieving family while betraying another. We need action from federal Labor. If they're serious about addressing deaths in custody, they need to take a stronger stance by withholding funding from states and territories doing harm. Without federal intervention, incarceration rates will keep rising, and so will deaths. For Heather and for every life stolen by state violence in this country, we demand action.

The recent release of the NAPLAN results highlights the continuing trend of mediocrity and declining standards in our education system. The latest results reveal that one in three students, or more than 1.5 million Australian students, are struggling to read, write and do maths. Across the country, students are continuing to underperform, with average results going backwards in many key categories. An acceptance of these declining standards doesn't just stop with our education system; it extends to all facets of life.

This is evident in my home state of South Australia, with recent revelations that the South Australian police have abolished literacy and numeracy testing for police academy applicants. This also extends to allowing failed applicants to reapply, not because the standards were too high but because so many applicants were failing. Now, this is not a policing issue. It's an education issue, and it's a troubling one at that. Lowering the bar may get more recruits through the door, but it signals a retreat into mediocrity. We are not tackling the root problem and we are adjusting our expectations to accommodate failure.

These NAPLAN results continue to highlight a worrying trend of mediocrity in our education system. Basic literacy and numeracy are not optional. They are essential. If we abandon these standards we compromise both safety and justice, particularly in our police force. We owe it to the next generation to demand better from our education system. Anything less is a disservice to our young people, to our institutions and to the communities that they will one day serve.

Everyone in this chamber has lived the power of education. We see firsthand, in the states that we love and represent, education's capacity to transform lives. Education is not a privilege for a few; it's a right for all. It transforms not only the individuals who encounter and receive a wonderful education; it transforms the capacity of our entire country and, indeed, our economy.

Labor values have driven every education reform that we've undertaken. We've made TAFE free, we've introduced paid prac, we've made child care more affordable and more accessible, and we've made it safer, and we'll continue to attempt to do that work in the parliament—and I hope that we will be able to pass that legislation over the course of the coming days.

We have reached historic agreements with our states and territories to fully fund every single school in every state. These are reforms that were long overdue, after a decade of neglect from those opposite. Indeed, I refer to the speech of the Governor-General, who, in short—one small paragraph—said:

Fourteen years since the Gonski review identified the schooling resource standard, the Commonwealth now has an agreement with all states and territories to make that standard a reality.

The law captures Australians into schools by compulsory attendance for 13 years of education. We are talking about an entire generation who have been ill served by the games played around education in this chamber.

There are critical pieces of education legislation before us this very day—passed by the House and endorsed by the Australian people in a resounding Labor majority. Stop getting in the way of advancing the education, the health, the wellbeing and the prosperity of our nation. Pass Labor's education legislation. Let's get on with the job.

I don't think we're in the way at all, Senator O'Neill. You have your supermajority, you have your ability to govern and you need to go and do it. I think it's time. You need to get ahead and do your job. You can't keep pointing to the opposition for any of the reasons that you can't do anything that you need to do. We have an example this week with the childcare legislation. You have a duty, an absolute duty to lead on this and to ensure that you get the states and territories to do what they need to do. We can't do that for you, but we will support you in that. It is a critical priority to get that right. So, while we can sit and point fingers and shout across the chamber, ultimately when you have the responsibility of leading you need to do it, and it's time to do that. So bring the people to the table to have those conversations in a manner that you should. We're here to support you to do that, but you actually have to lead on it and get the states and territories to act on that, and that will be seen. Australian families and children deserve that, particularly those families that take their children to childcare centres every day.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Hamas is a terrorist organisation in exclusive control of the Gaza Strip. Hamas slaughtered 1,200 Israeli civilians in cold blood on 7 October 2023, including numerous women and children. Hamas then took hundreds of hostages, many of whom they murdered, and Hamas still hold a number of hostages in their tunnels two years later. Hamas routinely uses the people of Gaza as human shields. They use hospitals for military operations, they disrupt the flow of aid to their own population and they constantly say that their primary aim is to wipe Israel off the map. Given that the brutal terrorist organisation Hamas continues to exclusively control the Gaza Strip, will the Albanese government categorically rule out ever recognising a Palestinian state while Hamas is in control of Gaza?

I thank Senator Cash for the question—for the opportunity to speak about recognition and also, again, to reiterate the same condemnation of Hamas that the government has issued since the horrific events of October 7. I know that Senator Cash only wants to talk about Hamas. I would say to her: I've answered your question and the questions of your colleagues since this war began about our position on Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist organisation. We condemn them. They are a listed terrorist organisation dedicated to the destruction of the State of Israel. We have a very clear position in relation to Hamas.

In relation to recognition, as you would know, all countries, including Arab countries, have made clear that they want to see a reformed Palestinian Authority and wish to see Hamas demilitarised. Countries have made clear that they want the security architecture in the Middle East to ensure the security of Israel. This is where the international community is, this is where the discussion is and this is where the government is engaging.

Why are we engaging on these issues? We're engaging on these issues because we know, as does the rest of the international community—you would have seen the announcement by the United Kingdom, following the announcement also by the President of France—that, if we want long-term peace and security in the Middle East for Israelis and Palestinians alike, we need to deal with the issue of a Palestinian state. That is the best way to ensure stability and peace for both Israelis and Palestinians. So, Senator, I would suggest to you that it might be good to grapple with that reality, because that is where the discussion of the Middle East is internationally and where countries understand— (Time expired)

Senator Cash, first supplementary?

I ask again: will the Albanese government categorically rule out ever recognising a Palestinian state while Hamas is in control of Gaza? In particular, the former Labor frontbencher—now a backbencher—Ed Husic has said that he believes right now is the time to recognise a Palestinian state.

What I would say to Senator Cash is: please refer to my previous answer and the multiple answers I have given over the last years, since this conflict began. Really, people should understand in this place just how out of touch the coalition is on this. They don't even support a ceasefire, which the whole world, including President Trump, supports. You do not even support a ceasefire. That is how extreme the position of the coalition is with this person as shadow foreign minister. She does not even support a ceasefire that President Trump himself supports. That says something about the extent to which your position is divorced from the reality of what is happening on the ground, what is happening for people in the Middle East, and what is happening to the women and children of Gaza, who are—

Hamas.

No, they are not all Hamas, Senator. This is the problem with your position. (Time expired)

Senator Cash, second supplementary?

Almost every legitimate body has the goal of an enduring, negotiated and peaceful two-state solution. The fighting could end tomorrow, but so far Hamas has rejected every peace plan and opted to continue the conflict and suffering for its own purposes. Does the government acknowledge, as many Arab countries in the region now appear to have done, that the primary obstacle to peace in Gaza is not Israel but Hamas?

I think the question that we are all confronted by when we see what has happened in this horrific conflict over so long is: What can we now do to make a contribution to peace and stability? What can we now do to make a contribution to the provision of aid to people who are starving as a consequence, in great part, of a deliberate decision by the Israeli government to withhold aid, which was made? We have all condemned Hamas. I consistently, as does the Prime Minister, call for hostages to be released. But I would suggest to you, Senator, that your position is out of kilter with where the international community is going. You don't even support a ceasefire, which is supported by President Trump and the whole world.

At some point, it would be good to be able to say something without her constantly talking at me. I've been pretty reasonable. I've let her go on. She is the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, but— (Time expired)

This is not my first speech. My question is to the Minister for Youth, Senator Walsh. I refer to the Albanese Labor government's legislated social media minimum age limit and the government's ongoing commitment to delivering world-leading online safety measures. How is the government taking action to protect young Australians now and into the future from the persuasive and pervasive pull of social media and giving parents across the country peace of mind?

Thank you very much, Senator Dolega, for the question. We look forward to hearing your first speech, and I am pleased to get this as my first question as the Minister for Youth. As the Minister for Youth and the Minister for Early Childhood Education, I am acutely aware that the first 16 years of a person's life really matter, and I know that Senator Dolega shares that view. The Albanese Labor government is stepping up to help parents and their kids to be safer online, with world-leading laws. From 10 December, social media won't be an assumed part of life for Australian families, and Australians should be immensely proud that we are prioritising the online safety of our children and leading the world with these reforms.

The relationship between social media and children's mental health is one of the most important conversations of our time. Social media connects us and binds us but is also used to abuse, control and harass us. Put simply, we want our children to have another three years away from the perils of online abuse. The first 16 years of life are incredibly important for a young person's development. There is a place for social media, but there's not a place for predatory algorithms damaging the brains of our kids. Young people will have three more years to know who they are before social media assumes who they are. These years shape a young person's trajectory in so many ways, including academic, social and emotional development. They lay the foundation for future learning, health and wellbeing. We also know that positive early experiences foster healthy development while negative ones have lasting harmful effects. That's why we're delivering this important change for children and for their families.

Senator Dolega, first supplementary?

The Albanese Labor government takes the impact and danger of online harm seriously, especially when it comes to our kids. How is the government's historic legislation to delay access to social media until the age of 16 holding big tech companies accountable and families at the heart of decision-making. What will this legislation mean for Australia's young people?

The Albanese Labor government is on the side of families. We have faced and will continue to face pressure from major companies, but we can't be clearer: we are on the side of families in this. Delaying access to social media until the age of 16 will protect young Australians at a critical stage of their development, giving them three more years to build real-world connections and online resilience. There are heavy penalties of up to $49.5 million per breach for companies who fail to take reasonable steps to prevent underage account holders accessing their services. We want Australian parents and carers to know that the Albanese government has their backs. We are putting parents before platforms, because we know what a gift childhood is, and this gives children back their childhoods.

Senator Dolega, second supplementary?

The social media minimum age rules will deliver on the Albanese Labor government's commitment to protect young Australians at a critical stage of their development. How is the government responding to expert advice from the eSafety Commissioner and providing more certainty for parents and kids on the upcoming social media minimum age restriction?

Thank you, again, Senator Dolega, for the question. In response to advice from the eSafety Commissioner, Ms Julie Inman Grant, the online safety rules specify which types of online services will not be captured by the social media law, including messaging apps and health and education services. From December, all services that meet the definition of an age restricted social media platform in the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 and are not excluded in the rules will be subject to the social media minimum age law. This law requires social media platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent Australians under 16 from having an account from 10 December 2025. The onus is strictly on social media platforms; there are no penalties for under-16s who may gain access to an age restricted platform or for parents or educators who may provide that access. Again, Australians should be immensely proud that we are prioritising the online safety of our children and leading the world. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. The Prime Minister told Australians on at least 71 occasions, 'All you need is your Medicare card, not a credit card,' and that it would be free to see a GP. Minister, does the Prime Minister stand by the promise he made to Australians at least 71 times before the election that all you will need is your Medicare card because seeing your GP will be free?

We absolutely stand by the policy we announced in the election and the policies that we implemented previously, and we have made clear—

As Senator Gallagher reminds me, you actually supported them, Senator Ruston. That's how good they were. Those policies will see Australians being able to access urgent care clinics. As you know, we increased the number of those in the first term from what we promised, and now we have committed to further investment in urgent care clinics. As you know, Senator Ruston, they do provide access to bulk-billing. Yesterday I took the opportunity to remind you of the history of our investment in bulk-billing in this country. In 2023 we tripled the bulk-billing incentive for pensioners and concession card holders. When those 11 million Australians go to the GP, they are bulk-billed 90 per cent of the time.

Senator Ruston?

On direct relevance—I was quite clear. All I asked the minister was whether the statements made by the Prime Minister which categorically state that Australians will get free access to their GP—all Australians—

Senator Ruston—

Will they stand by that?

Senator Ruston, I did remind you yesterday that when you call your point of order there's no need to repeat the question. The minister is being directly relevant. Minister Wong.

Again I remind the senator that bulk-billing is the way in which you deliver access for Australians with their Medicare cards. That is the primary way in which governments ensure we do deliver that. As I said, in 2023 we tripled the bulk-billing incentive for pensioners and concession card holders. That means, when those 11 million Australians go to the GP, they are bulk-billed 90 per cent of the time.

Now what are we doing? We are expanding that reform, because we're extending that bulk-billing incentive to cover all 26 million Australians for the first time. We were upfront with Australians that we anticipate that, by 2030, that will enable nine out of 10 GP visits to be bulk-billed. I don't know which part of that, Senator, you don't support. Which part of that do you not support? I thought you did support this policy at the last election, or have you reverted to the position that you— (Time expired)

Senator Ruston, first supplementary?

Minister, if the Prime Minister was indeed telling the truth, why did Australians spend more than $166 million in out-of-pocket costs at the GP in the month of May 2025? That is $166 million spent by Australians out of their own pockets while the Prime Minister was waving his Medicare around. This is according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Was the Prime Minister telling the truth?

This is from a member of a party that wanted to impose a GP tax. This is from a member of a party that froze indexation so that it became less, not more, affordable for Australians to see a doctor. This is from a shadow minister who used to tell people that Medicare was unsustainable and now wants to have a go at us for actually trying to get 90 per cent of Australians the capacity to see a doctor free of charge—to be bulk-billed. This is the policy of the Ley opposition, that they actually do not want to expand bulk-billing—

Senator Ruston?

Your feigned indignation does not answer the question.

Senator Ruston, why are you on your feet?

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Senator Gallagher?

We have noticed the tactic of the opposition of raising numerous points of order where they just repeat their questions. I wonder whether you could consider that in how you deal with these, because it is apparently just to repeat the questions that they have already asked.

Senator Ruston, I haven't called you. Thank you, Minister Gallagher. I did, indeed, remind Senator Ruston to get to the point of order and not repeat the question. In your latest attempt to stand up, Senator Ruston, you didn't even suggest it was a point of order; it was just launching into the politics of it. Across the chamber, everyone needs to think about a point of order and put it in the spirit and the way in which it is described in the standing orders. Senator Ruston.

On the response to the point of order on direct relevance: I would suggest to you, President, that my points of order have always been on relevance. I apologise for not saying it was raised on relevance. The minister is not going in any way to answering my question.

The time that you got to your feet before this time, you simply made a statement; you didn't even mention 'point of order'. The minister is being relevant, and I will ask her to continue with her response.

We talk about indignation. Well, I think there's a fair bit of indignation about an opposition, a coalition party, that has spent so many years trying to unpick and unravel Medicare, that froze bulk-billing and Medicare rebates for six years and that tried to introduce a GP tax, now coming in here and pretending that they care about Medicare.

Senator Ruston, second supplementary?

The Prime Minister told Australians on at least 71 occasions that it's 'free to see a GP' or:

All you need is your Medicare card, not your credit card.

But the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare data says that Australians paid almost $2 billion in out-of-pocket costs to see a GP in the year to May 2025. Minister, when will this $2 billion in out-of-pocket costs be reduced to $0, as promised by the Prime Minister?

As I said—an $8.5 billion investment in Medicare extending the bulk-billing incentive to cover all 26 million Australians for the very first time. Let's be clear: we have been upfront with the Australian people—nine out of 10 visits bulk-billed by 2030 and the investment in 87 urgent care clinics plus an additional 50, all bulk-billed. This is what we do. What do they do? They want GP taxes and freezes on Medicare rebates, and this shadow minister's telling Australians, 'I'm sorry; Medicare is unsustainable.' Now you come in here and say, 'Oh!' Well your policy—

Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Ruston.

On direct relevance, I've asked the minister a specific question three times today now, and she hasn't answered any of them. Could you please bring her to answering the question, unless she can't.

The minister is being relevant to the question. I'll ask her to continue.

It seems remarkable, doesn't it, that they don't understand that the way you deliver free access to a doctor is through bulk-billing? She thinks bulk-billing isn't relevant to visits to the doctor—well, that says something about the lack of understanding on that side. (Time expired)

My question is to the new minister for the environment and water, Minister Watt. Studies have shown that toxic microplastics are infiltrating our lives—our brains, blood, placentas and lungs. Some projections have oceans containing more plastic than fish by 2050. Next week, your department—or you, potentially—will attend the final round of negotiations in Geneva to develop a global plastics treaty to end plastics pollution. The Albanese government has claimed to be a leader in these negotiations to date, pushing for legally binding action, not simple voluntary agreements, to reduce plastic pollution in our lives. Minister, do you think Australia's credibility on the global stage is undermined by Australia currently having no legally binding laws of its own at home—specifically, no federal bans on harmful single-use plastics, no legally binding national waste-reduction targets and no legal agreements that hold big producers and retailers responsible for the plastic that they produce and pollute with?

Thank you, Senator Whish-Wilson, who I understand is one of the two Greens spokespeople for environmental matters.

All 10 of us are.

You've got 10—it's Scott Morrison-esque, the number of shadow ministers for the environment in the Greens. I'm happy to meet with all of you individually!

I welcome the question from Senator Whish-Wilson and, in particular, his inquiry about how Australia can be taken seriously on the international stage about these matters. I can assure Senator Whish-Wilson, having recently attended the United Nations Ocean Conference in Nice, that we are internationally seen as a world leader when it comes to these matters. What was very clear at that conference was that the commitments Australia has made, in general, around ocean protection matters—including our commitment to pass legislation to see the ratification of the high-seas biodiversity treaty—are very much welcomed. The action that we've taken as a member of the High Ambition Coalition, when it comes to the plastics treaty that Senator Whish-Wilson is asking about, is also very much welcomed.

I participated in an event at that conference that included representatives of upwards of 80 countries who are members of the High Ambition Coalition for signing that plastic treaty. Senator Whish-Wilson is correct that, in the next few weeks, the treaty will be up for discussion at the relevant conference in Geneva. That is not a conference I will be attending, because I will be hard at work here in Australia, but we do take these matters about plastic pollution seriously, and I do seriously welcome the interest from Senator Whish-Wilson, who I know cares about these matters very deeply. The reality is that plastic pollution is a global problem; it's going to need global solutions. But we are, in the meantime, getting on with work domestically. I'm happy to talk more about that should there be some further questions.

Senator Whish-Wilson, first supplementary?

Minister, I'd be happy to go in your place, if that helps. It does stick out like a sore thumb that, while claiming to be a driving force behind the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution globally, your government has not legislated binding action on reducing plastic pollution at home. Minister, will you today take the opportunity to show the necessary leadership by committing to this chamber to legislate reform to tackle the plastic-waste crisis in this term of parliament?

Thanks, Senator Whish-Wilson. Of course, I would expect Senator Whish-Wilson to focus on particular aspects of this issue that the government continues to work on. But I think it is worth reminding the chamber that, even in our first term of office—under Minister Plibersek in this portfolio—Labor delivered over $1 billion with governments and industry to boost recycling by 1.4 million tonnes per year, including $60 million for soft plastics, and created thousands of new jobs in the process. We have also been working with states and territories to reform packaging regulations with strict new rules and targets in addition to the work we have been doing on the international stage for a binding treaty.

I acknowledge that there is still more to be done on those matters, but we did take action in our first term to get this process underway after, yet again, it was ignored for 10 years under the coalition, and we expect to continue that work over the course of this term. I would be more than happy to speak further with Senator Whish-Wilson about our plans in this regard, and I would welcome the Greens' support to back in those efforts as well.

Senator Whish-Wilson, a second supplementary?

We will certainly look forward to some legislation on this. It has been widely reported that the Global Plastic Treaty negotiations have so far failed to achieve any binding action between nations because big business, who produce and retail plastic, have flooded the negotiations and undermined outcomes, insisting on weak voluntary agreements. Is the resistance to lobbying from big business at home in Australia also the reason that, after three years in government, you have been unable to take action on legislating to end the plastic waste crisis?

I do have to take issue with Senator Whish-Wilson's characterisation of this, because it is not the case that this government has failed to take action on these matters. In my previous answer I went through some of the steps that we had taken in our first term to deal with the very real issue of plastic pollution, along with a range of other steps we had taken in relation to recycling in the circular economy. We recognise that there is more to do, and we will be doing more over the course of this term in partnership with the states and territories, who have a lot of responsibilities as well when it comes to these matters and waste matters in general. I am aware that, as we see at many international conferences, some countries aren't as supportive of action as Australia is and as many other nations are, but we will be working very closely with those other members of the High Ambition Coalition to get that plastics treaty done and to really take another step towards better regulation of plastics in the future.

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Today the Australian Bureau of Statistics released new figures that show that headline and underlying inflation are at their lowest rates in four years. Can the minister update the Senate on the latest economic data and tell us what progress has been made in the fight against inflation?

I thank Senator Marielle Smith for this really important question. We have had some very pleasing results out of the ABS, with their inflation data released this morning. It does show that both headline and underlying inflation have fallen to their lowest rates in almost four years. It also shows that headline inflation has now been in the band for a full year. Trimmed mean inflation was also down when we compared data from the June quarter to the March quarter.

I remind those who weren't here last term that when we came to office headline inflation had a six in front of it and was rising. It is now about a third of that. When we came to office, trimmed mean inflation was 4.9 per cent and rising. It is now almost half of that. Quarterly and monthly inflation is down, headline and underlying inflation is down, goods and services inflation is down, and tradable and non-tradable inflation is down. On all measures, we can see that substantial and welcome progress has been made in the inflation challenge that has affected all countries, particularly here. It's great to see that inflation now well and sustainably within band.

At the same time as we've been doing that, we've been getting real wages going again, living standards are increasing again, we've had two surpluses, we have got the debt down and interest rates have come down. But we know the job isn't done. There is more work to do—we acknowledge that. There are structural issues in our economy and we also recognise that people remain under significant pressure, which is why we have more cost-of-living relief rolling out the door. It's one of the reasons the Treasurer will be convening the productivity roundtable for three days next month.

Senator Marielle Smith, a first supplementary?

The Albanese Labor government has worked hard on the global fight against inflation. Our government has continued its key focus on cost-of-living measures to help households deal with the impact of higher inflation as we also work on budget repair. Minister, how important has budget repair been in this fight against inflation?

I thank Senator Smith for the supplementary. She is right that budget repair has been a key focus of the Treasurer's, of mine in the Finance portfolio and of the whole government over the last three years. The data out of the ABS, but also the fact that we've delivered $100 billion worth of savings since we came to government, show that the Australian Labor Party is actually the party of responsible economic management. That has been well and truly consolidated with the approach we took over the last three years, and we will continue it in the next term. We have made a number of savings right across government—as I said, $100 billion. Ninety-four billion dollars of those savings was delivered last term, and, of course, we announced $6.4 billion worth of savings in the election campaign to be achieved over the next three years.

Senator Marielle Smith, second supplementary?

What other measures has the Albanese Labor government invested in that will continue to help households this year?

I thank Senator Smith for the question. I note how silent those opposite are—did you notice? Senator Canavan called you irrelevant; now you're almost invisible. You're irrelevant and invisible. I know those opposite are going to hate this, but, if we compare the situation when we arrived in government in 2022 with the situation now, we see employment is up, participation rates are up, the gender pay gap is down, the number of women employed full time is up, manufacturing jobs are up, industrial disputes are down, annual headline inflation is down, annual wage growth is up and annual real wages are up. That is what a Labor government delivers: responsible economic management, budget repair, dealing with inflation and making sure people can earn more and keep more of what they earn.

Order! I do acknowledge the quiet from the other side, and I am in charge of the chamber, so, if a minister encourages you to be noisy, please ignore them. Senator Tyrrell?

Good advice, President, thank you. My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Senator McCarthy. In April 2025, the Albanese government announced an increase to the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme's assistance rates over two years. For Tasmania the cost of living is the cost of shipping. What we buy comes in on ships; what we sell we ship out. But, when I chaired the 2024 select committee into the operation of the scheme, I heard that the thing Tasmanians want most urgently and need most critically is streamlining. The TFES is slow to administer, slow to deliver and overly complicated to apply—and, for many producers, the juice ain't worth the squeeze. Tasmanian industry spent the whole federal election listening for some commitment from Labor and the coalition to modernise this bureaucratic and outdated scheme. I didn't hear one. Did I miss it?

Thank you, Senator Tyrrell, for the question. No, you would not have missed the fact that our government has committed very strongly to Tasmania. We have delivered on our election commitment to increase assistance under the Tasmania Freight Equalisation Scheme and we are backing Tasmanian communities and businesses by boosting the TFES payment by 25 per cent for the next two years so they do get a fair go.

Senator Tyrrell, first supplementary?

Big businesses can afford to have someone on payroll who just handles TFES applications day in, day out. For small businesses you can't do that, so most of the money paid out under the scheme currently goes to the big producers. Of Tasmania's 130-odd registered exporting businesses, five receive one-third of the TFES reimbursement. Without reform, won't your 25 per cent increase just go to the big players and not help out the little guys?

Thank you, Senator Tyrrell. Naturally, our election commitment to Tasmania is an important one. Clearly, if there are particular issues that you have with people coming to you, I know that the minister would like to hear from you directly in terms of those particular stakeholders. But I do say that, throughout the election campaign, we were very clear on delivering our election commitments right across Australia and, indeed, especially in Tasmania. It's wonderful to see the Tasmanian representation that we do have in our government.

Senator Tyrrell, second supplementary?

During the election, you also announced an independent review to ensure TFES is fit for purpose. Do you not already know whether it is fit for purpose? I can't understand how there is any doubt on this question. Labor was represented at the Senate select committee public hearings. Former senator Urquhart was there. You heard from witnesses and read the submissions. They told you it's not fit for purpose—verbatim, repeatedly. What do you expect your 'independent review' will tell you?

Senator Tyrrell, I believe I have answered your questions in regard to our commitment to Tasmania and TFES, but I will take on board some of those points you've just raised and get back to you.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. As you may recall, Minister, last week you did not know how many houses the Housing Australia Future Fund had built. My question is: do you know the number they've built as at today?

I'm asked about housing numbers. Can I give you a housing number, Senator? I'll give you the number of 80,000 homes that you are trying to stop being built, with the position that you have announced in the opposition to the build-to-rent regulations. I would make this point: we are getting on the job. We are delivering 55,000 social and affordable homes; 18,000 homes are in planning or construction through the HAFF and—

Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Bragg?

I'm reluctant to have to raise a point of order, but the question was very clear: how many houses has the Housing Australia Future Fund completed—built?

I believe the minister is being relevant. I will listen.

Already 18,000 homes are in planning and construction through the Housing Australia Future Fund and the National Housing Accord. I'll give you another number, Senator: 5,000 social and affordable homes that, during the caretaker period, we asked you for support to sign contracts on, and you refused. So this opposition—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! I can barely hear the minister's response.

So not only did the coalition delay the Housing Australia Future Fund, thereby holding up additional supply—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! I am waiting for order.

Senator Ruston, I'm not quite sure which part of me calling for order you failed to respond to.

Not only did the coalition delay the Housing Australia Future Fund, thereby preventing housing construction from starting, but during the election campaign the minister wrote to the opposition asking that 5,000 homes could proceed under the caretaker conventions, and you said no. Now you have 80,000 homes—

Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Cash?

It's a point of order in relation to direct relevance. The question, with all due respect, could not have been clearer: does the minister know how many homes that have been built? There is a fundamental difference between a built home and a press release.

I'll draw the minister back to the question.

As I said, I've already given the number of houses which are currently in planning or construction under the HAFF and the National Housing Accord facility. I think it is reasonable—

Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Bragg?

Point of order on relevance—the question was: how many have been built?

I think the minister is being relevant to the question, Senator Bragg.

Senator Bragg, I know that you don't want to see 580 HAFF projects in Merrylands delivered, 10 in Casino and South Grafton, 144 in Maroubra, 221 in Macquarie Park and Lane Cove and— (Time expired)

Senator Bragg, first supplementary?

As at—

I'm not a member of that club, thank you.

Senators!

I withdraw.

Well, thank you, Senator Ayres, but I was asking for silence. Senator Bragg, I'm going to invite you to begin again, and restart the clock.

As at 31 March 2025, Minister, it seems that just $223 million of the required $500 million had being debited from the Housing Australia Future Fund account. Minister, was the remaining $277 million debited to spend on houses between 1 April and 30 June this year?

I'm asked a question by Senator Bragg, or Braggy, as his colleagues call him—I quite like that—about the lack of expenditure from a fund that they wanted to abolish, that they held up and that, during the election, they refused to allow expenditure from. Just so I get that clear, Senator Bragg, you're asking for expenditure from a fund that you wanted to abolish, that you opposed and held up and that, during the election campaign—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order!

I've asked for order. Senator Cash and Senator McGrath, order!

Why won't you answer the question?

Senator McGrath, come to order!

I again repeat it, because it really bears some repeating, doesn't it? The coalition is asking us why there hasn't been more spent from a fund that they opposed and wanted to abolish. Their election costings abolish it. I'm not surprised you're embarrassed.

Senator Bragg?

On relevance, the question was about the financial outgoings of this scheme.

That's right. You asked about the scheme, and the minister is entitled to respond to your question, and the minister is being relevant.

But it is interesting, President, that they complain about the money out of the scheme being less than it should be when they actually wanted all of it abolished, they held it up and they, during the election campaign, refused to agree to 5,000 houses being commenced out of the HAFF. That's your policy. (Time expired)

Senator Bragg, second supplementary?

I think we'll just have one more go at this. The questions are: How many houses have been built as at today, and how much of that money was spent in the last quarter of the last financial year? It's two simple questions.

I've already answered the question about the number of houses that are currently in construction or being planned. What I would say to the coalition is that I think Australians understand—including from the display today—that there is only one party that is seeking to add to housing supply in this country, and that is the Australian Labor Party. There are parties that have always stood in the way of more houses for Australia and are continuing to stand in the way of more houses for Australians, and they are the coalition, led by, obviously, Ms Ley but also Senator Bragg, who seems to have this ideological view that governments shouldn't help to provide housing. Well, we have a different view, Senator Bragg. We have a different view; we want to build more houses for more Australians. (Time expired)

My question is for the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Minister, earlier this month, you acknowledged that the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody said that, to reduce deaths in custody, we must reduce incarceration rates. You said this will be achieved through the Closing the Gap agreement, but it's clear that states and territories are not even trying to reduce incarceration. This week, Victoria is passing laws that will jail more of our people. The NT government is doing the same and is even reintroducing spit hoods for 10-year-old children. What action will you take to hold states and territories accountable when they intentionally break their commitments?

Thank you, Senator Thorpe, for your question. Recently we held the Joint Council on Closing the Gap in the Northern Territory, and one of the first things we did there, as a joint group with First Nations ministers and the Coalition of Peaks, was to call on all governments to commit and maintain true commitment to the agreement. It is tough. Without a doubt, it is very tough. There are no actual penalties in that agreement for not agreeing to it. I remind all parliaments and cabinets across Australia that they have signed up to this. Both sides of the political spectrum have signed up to it. It is very tough, Senator Thorpe, to be able to ensure that, across the country, all of those jurisdictions adhere to that—in particular, in the area of justice. We've seen rising numbers of Indigenous people being incarcerated, both youths and older people—in particular, in a number of states and the Northern Territory. But I have to keep working at it, Senator Thorpe. I have to keep working with my colleagues here in the federal parliament on all sides, but especially in the cabinet.

Senator Thorpe, first supplementary?

The Northern Territory land councils and NAAJA are calling for federal funding constraints on the Northern Territory government. They know the Commonwealth has more tools at its disposal to drive progress. When will you acknowledge that conversations are not working and withhold funding from states who introduce laws that harm our people?

That is correct, Senator Thorpe. Organisations in the Northern Territory, in particular the land councils, are calling for strict control over the funding that goes to the Northern Territory. The difficulty here, Senator Thorpe, is that nearly 80 per cent of the Northern Territory's budget comes from the Commonwealth. So we have to be responsible in our response to the Northern Territory, but we also have to be responsible to all citizens of the Northern Territory who receive that. I am looking at those numbers, and I am looking at those lengths, in terms of the federal agreements, but not just for the Northern Territory. This also has to be about the federal agreements and the communications that we have with all states.

Senator Thorpe, second supplementary?

The count has just passed 600 deaths in custody since the royal commission. We've had 17 deaths this year. It's not slowing, and incarceration rates are rising. We know the Commonwealth has powers that you've chosen not to use yet. When will you use all the powers you have to stop this? Where is your red line, Minister?

We don't want to see any death in custody or any Australian die in custody. You go into custody or into prison for a reason. Sometimes those reasons are fair, and sometimes they're unfair, but we certainly want to see people come back out if that is what they are in there to do. I think that's really important to point out.

In terms of what we're trying to do, I am working with the Attorney-General, who, I'm very pleased to see, is taking this on and has also met with you, Senator Thorpe, which is an important step in terms of trying to look at the issues around the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and its outstanding recommendations. We are taking your calls for oversight very seriously, and we will also be looking at this conversation more broadly with all of the attorneys-general from across the country at SCAG when they meet next month.

My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator Watt. Yesterday the Minister for Climate Change and Energy announced further support for renewable energy projects, delivering on a commitment the Albanese Labor government made to the Australian people at the last election. In order to achieve our ambitious target for renewable energy generation, environmental approvals need to keep pace with this rollout. How are timely approvals from the minister's department supporting our nation's goal of achieving net zero by 2050?

Thanks, Senator Whiteaker—another terrific advocate for Western Australia joining our ranks. Yesterday the Albanese government announced that we will substantially expand the Capacity Investment Scheme by 25 per cent, and that means we will underwrite the construction of 40 gigawatts of large-scale solar, wind and storage by the end of the decade. In capacity terms, this is nearly twice as much energy infrastructure as the country's existing coal-fired power fleet. This investment is just one of a number of actions the Albanese government is taking to accelerate the rollout of renewables.

Another is taking action to speed up the approvals process. Yesterday, as I mentioned, I announced the speedy approval of the 90-megawatt Summerville Solar Farm, in the Richmond Valley, in the electorate held by the Nationals deputy leader, Kevin Hogan. The news was reported by the ABC under the headline, 'A solar farm approved in weeks shows how renewables rollout could be sped up'. And it's worth noting that the picture used in the article shows what the National Party says is simply not possible; it shows what must be hundreds of sheep grazing under and between thousands of solar panels, proving once again that agriculture and renewables can coexist. I know that's a hard concept to get your head around—I know. You've just got to get out there and have a look that it's actually happening.

This example and other recent quick approvals of renewables projects show that, if you get the system right and everyone is working cooperatively, it is possible to get much faster approvals while also generating environmental gains through the development of cleaner energy. Unfortunately, while there are these sorts of good examples to point to, we need to see more of them. What we want to do is make sure that quicker approvals which meet strong national environmental standards actually become the norm rather than the exception. That is one of the reasons we do need to reform our environmental laws. I look forward to working constructively with all sides of this chamber over the coming months to ensure that these very important reforms can be implemented for the benefit of all Australians.

Senator Whiteaker, first supplementary?

Excellent answer—thank you, Minister. Earlier this year, the Albanese Labor government approved the Narrogin Wind Farm, in my home state of Western Australia. Why is the rollout of renewables a good thing for the West?

Senator Whiteaker is right. The Narrogin Wind Farm, in Western Australia's Wheatbelt, was approved by the Albanese government on 1 May, and it's expected to generate enough power for 130,000 homes. It is sad, though, to see projects like this not being supported by everyone in Western Australia. As I mentioned yesterday, over the weekend we all saw Senator Cash up to no good, backing an anti-net-zero motion at the Western Australian Liberal conference. When her party leader, Sussan Ley, is desperately trying to hold her party room together, why would the Liberal Senate leader be so publicly opposed to her own leader? News Ltd columnist James Campbell had a bit to say about this. He said, 'To some of her colleagues, the way the WA senator is behaving is reminiscent of how Nick Minchin did everything he could to make Malcolm Turnbull's life hell when he was the Liberal leader in 2009.' So, rather than the coalition Senate leader bringing good policy up, she's working to bring the coalition leader down.

Senator Whiteaker, second supplementary?

The Albanese Labor government is unified in its approach to investing in renewables to achieve net zero by 2050, which will ultimately protect our precious environment. How important is policy certainty around our energy market, particularly for business investment around the country?

Thanks, Senator Whiteaker. Our government's position on protecting the environment by investing in cheap and green renewable energy is clear. But what isn't clear is the coalition's position on this matter, because we've now got this incredible situation where the leader of the coalition in the House of Reps is supportive of net zero, but the leader of the coalition in the Senate is not. This week we've learned that even the coalition Senate team are deeply divided on net zero. We've seen Senator Cash and Senator Canavan on a unity ticket, fighting net zero. But, last night, Senator Sharma went where few moderates dare to go, 'Sky after dark', to say, 'We need to certainly listen to the voices in the party room, but we also need to remember that we've lost a lot of people from this room, and they're the seats we need to win.' Imagine that—a coalition member who thinks it's actually worth listening to the millions of Australians who support net zero! Senator Sharma, it must be a very lonely place over there in that party room at the moment, because, whether it's climate, education or housing, the divisions run deep in the Liberal Party, as Senator Cash tries to tear Sussan Ley down. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Industry and Innovation, Senator Ayres. Minister, the Australian Workers' Union said earlier this month:

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

Does the minister agree with the Australian Workers' Union that the skyrocketing energy prices which his government has presided over are risking good union jobs at Australia's manufacturing smelters?

Thank you, Senator Canavan. I'm very pleased, I have to say, with what Mr Farrow, as leader of the Australian Workers' Union—his union has very strong membership and has a rich history of collective bargaining and representing that important sector, Australian manufacturing—has had to say about the importance of that sector. And I'm really pleased with the collaborative approach that the labour movement has taken, with Mr Murphy from the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union and Mr Farrow on a unity ticket focused on the issues that matter for that sector and their members. That's a sort of lesson in working-class discipline and focus, and it wouldn't hurt—

I raise a point of order in relation to relevance. The quote is in relation to skyrocketing energy prices. That's what the AWU has said.

Thank you, Senator Cash. The minister is being relevant. Minister Ayres.

I just say that we welcome Mr Farrow's view, and I welcome the views put forward—particularly in relation to your home state of Queensland, Senator Canavan—by Ms MacRae, the Mayor of Mount Isa, who's been up and about here in Parliament House and on national radio and television, making the case for that important industrial community. I actually welcome people making the case for their communities in a constructive way that is focused on the facts. I've listened to Mr Farrow's view in quite some detail, as you can imagine. There are issues pressing on that sector. They are not all energy related, but some of them are energy-price related. There is a consistent stream of issues here, and I'm looking forward to the next— (Time expired)

Senator Canavan, I invite you to ask your first supplementary question.

Minister, reports this week suggest that the owners of the Mount Isa copper smelter and the Townsville copper refinery have told staff to brace for a pause on production and for potential job losses. The Australian Workers' Union has said:

Many Australian smelters face collapse without urgent intervention from state and federal governments.

Will the federal government heed the AWU's warning and intervene to save copper jobs in North Queensland?

I should start this answer by noting the fact that there are workers in Mount Isa this week who are losing their jobs this week in the mining facility. My heart goes out to them. I understand how important those jobs are. Glencore's decision in relation to its copper-mining facilities is having a real impact in that community. The smelting facility is vital in its own right, from an economic and social perspective, and Glencore is making decisions about the future of that facility in terms of its investment there and its strategic decision-making about the future of its whole asset, including its zinc assets. There is absolutely an imperative for clear action and coordination between the Commonwealth and the state governments. I welcome the approach that the Queensland government has taken, and we are working very closely with them as we advance our way through this important— (Time expired)

Senator Canavan, second supplementary?

Minister, the Albanese government came to power promising to lower energy prices, yet now Australian unions are complaining that high energy prices are risking manufacturing jobs. Since your government was elected, electricity prices have risen 10 per cent and gas prices 45 per cent for Australian manufacturers. Will your government lower energy prices for Australian manufacturers in your second term?

I am focused on the relationship between energy prices and the future of manufacturing in Australia, absolutely, but a question from Senator Canavan about energy prices really is a bit like the arsonist complaining about how fast the fire brigade arrives, like one of those teenage arsonists with the stopwatch out, worrying about performance of the rural fire service turning up to a bushfire.

Point of order on relevance: personal insults to the person who asked the question is not a substitute for an answer.

I'm sure in the spirit of a good chamber and good chamber management, Senator Ayres will (1) withdraw the comment and (2) go back to the question.

I withdraw it, and I broaden the observation out to what happened after a decade of mismanagement, disinvestment, policy uncertainty and an absolutely scrambled egg of energy policy mess that has left the Australian energy system and this government with an enormous amount of work to do to recover what has happened to energy and Australian manufacturing over the course of that decade.

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

I would like to answer a question by Senator Tyrrell. The independent review of the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme will seek to ensure the scheme is fit for purpose and delivers for Tasmanians into the future. Commissioning an independent review was a key recommendation of last year's Senate select committee inquiry. The review will consider the committee's further recommendations, including the Bass Strait Passenger Vehicle Equalisation Scheme and how to modernise the system to ensure it best serves Tasmanians, including reducing administrative burden for more efficient shipping. As the scheme nears the end of its fifth decade in operation, the Albanese government is commissioning this review to ensure it continues to support Tasmanian businesses into the future. TFES was introduced in 1976 by the Whitlam government.

I move:

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

As many in this place and many listening along to what happened in question time today would know, the last hour is the opportunity for senators to ask questions of the government to gather answers about what the government is doing to make lives better for everyday Australians. It's a very key accountability tool that we have in this place. Frankly, it should be an opportunity for the government to showcase leadership and how they are delivering for Australians. And, particularly given we had an election only a couple of months ago, I would have thought it was an opportunity for the government to demonstrate how it is fulfilling its election commitments. But, frankly, we heard none of that today, at least not in the responses of the government to the questions asked by the coalition.

Speaking of that election campaign, I think we all remember—and we heard it mentioned in question time today—how the Prime Minister, during that campaign, couldn't appear at any press conference without flashing his Medicare card at the cameras. It was almost like the card was surgically attached to his hand—and I question, if that was done, whether that surgery was bulk-billed! That Medicare card became a symbol of the Prime Minister's promise to the Australian people. He claimed that under Labor all you'll need is your Medicare card, not your credit card. Senator Wong said that they're doing everything they can as a government to ensure that Australians can see the doctor for free, and the way you do that as a government is through bulk-billing. But, in reality, the facts tell a different story.

We've seen this week, with documents released under freedom of information laws, that the health department's own advice clearly demonstrates that nearly one in four GP clinics in this country will not bulk-bill, even under Labor's incentive scheme that Labor talked so much about during the election. We have to ask whether this government are being honest with the people of Australia when they talk about their election commitments and whether they're delivering on them, particularly when they come into this place and answer questions asked by the opposition, because the reality for most Australians is that when they visit their GP they are taking the credit card as well as handing over their Medicare card, and they're just hoping that they're going to be bulk-billed for the exercise.

We know that it literally has never been harder or more expensive to see a doctor in Australia than it is right now, and again this flies in the face of everything the Prime Minister said to us during the election campaign. GP bulk-billing is 11 per cent lower right now under Labor than it was when the coalition left government. That is a statistic that many in this place should reflect upon, because we do so often hear this nasty rhetoric from those on the other side that the coalition is not a friend of Medicare, that we don't want Australians to access health services. Of course we want Australians to access health services. That is why GP bulk-billing was higher under us than under this government.

There were 40 million fewer bulk-billed GP visits in the past year alone. This means, as I said, that more Australians, when they go to the doctor, are having to hand over their credit card as well as their Medicare card. We also know that Australians are now paying more out of their own pocket to see a GP than ever before, as the average out-of-pocket cost has reached a historic $48. That doesn't line up with what the Prime Minister told us during the election campaign, and it doesn't line up with what this government told the chamber during question time.

Many Australians who are doing it tough right now, and many Australians who are trying to access health services right now, who lived through an election campaign in March, April and May this year, when almost every day they saw the Prime Minister out there, shaking his Medicare card, expect more from this government, I think. It is now on the Prime Minister to ensure that the promises he made to the Australian people at the election are kept, and we in the coalition will continue to ask questions until we get some more honest answers.

I feel like I'm going around in a washing machine here. There seems to be such a common theme of what the Albanese Labor government are doing to try and overcome the decade—the disastrous decade—of the coalition government.

I love Medicare. My family loves Medicare, from the day-to-day prescriptions, the knocks and bumps, the aches and pains and the advice at the local pharmacy—a big shout-out to John and Nam, who run my local pharmacy and are invaluable to my family—to the more serious cuts and breaks, which our urgent care clinics are now providing an excellent service for. I've had cause to take members of my family to the urgent care clinic for both of those things, and it has been an excellent service that is fully bulk-billed. Then there are the unfortunate circumstances where people need hospital and emergency care, and again I'll tell you my family has had to use those. Nobody wants that, but it is such a relief to know that it's there, that there's someone there for you and that your Medicare card will carry through any of your health needs.

But that's not what we've seen from those opposite at all. Now, they can argue numbers. We can argue about which set of numbers we're looking at and what year they are from and compare which bit to which bit, but—bottom line—let's not forget what they did when they were in government. Let's just own exactly what you did to Medicare and to the health system in this country while you were in government. There was the introduction of, or the attempt to introduce, a GP tax. You froze indexation on Medicare rebates. I've spoken to clinics and hospitals whose doctors have gone on and on about how that just about crippled them over those, I think, seven long years. They have spoken about how crippling that freezing of indexation was to their ability to keep up. That's before we even go to the $50 million cut from public hospitals and the fact that you tried to get people to pay a fee to go to an emergency department. So I'm sorry, but it is the same old story here: almost a decade of you not actually having a care in the world for the average person out there who's trying to just get by, deal with their health conditions and make sure that they can get the care that they need when they need it.

So I think the way you are approaching the situation right now is quite cheeky, whereas we over here on the government benches, having been re-elected in May this year for good reason, have delivered cheaper medicines, saving well over $1 billion in out-of-pocket costs for people. We've frozen the maximum PBS co-payment for every Australian—the largest cut to the price of PBS medicines—and that co-payment is going to change. It's going to go up further. Sorry, it's going to go down further; our rebate is going to go up further. We've taken the co-payment from $42.50 down to $30, and then on 1 January it'll go down to $25. These are things that impact people every single day. These are cost-of-living measures that help people every single day. That's before we even get to the additional 18 million bulk-billed GP visits each year. That's what the policy is. That is what it says. This is what we are doing. This is going to make an enormous difference.

Beyond that, we've had a huge doctor crisis, a huge problem with getting access to doctors, and why is that? Again, significantly, you can look at the almost 10 years of having insufficient training for doctors and an insufficient pipeline of medical professionals coming through, and that can only be sheeted back to those opposite. What we've done is to put thousands more doctors into training programs. This year, we saw the largest ever GP training program, and that's something that we are really proud of, because we're not just here for the sugar hit. We're not just here for today. This is about building the pipeline for the future to address the crisis that was, embarrassingly, left by those opposite. We will support people, and it will be your Medicare card that you will take with you and that you can rely on for the services, supports and health care that you need. (Time expired)

First, I'd like to make some remarks in relation to the position regarding the copper smelter at Mount Isa and the copper refinery in Townsville. I must say it will be absolutely heartbreaking for those communities if the copper smelter in Mount Isa and the refinery in Townsville close. I say that as someone who, decades ago, spent a lot of time in Mount Isa as a young in-house lawyer at Mount Isa Mines and acted in some really difficult cases involving some workers at Mount Isa. I got to know some of those miners. They were some of the best people I've ever met in my life—down to earth, salt of the earth and really good people. So I really am feeling for the communities in Mount Isa and in Townsville at the moment, and I desperately hope that a way is identified to keep the smelter in Mount Isa and the refinery in Townsville open.

I should say, wearing my hat as shadow spokesperson for multicultural affairs, that Mount Isa is a great example of a successful multicultural community. People may not know that Mount Isa actually has a substantial Finnish community. A lot of Finnish miners came out from Finland when Mount Isa started and were part of opening up Mount Isa. Going back to the early seventies, there were workers in Mount Isa from over 50 different nationalities, who came to Mount Isa seeking a better future for themselves and their families and worked together on the project that we call Australia. It's a great example of a wonderful community, and my heart goes out to that community and to those workers. I desperately hope a pathway is identified to keep the copper smelter open and the refinery in Townsville open. As a Queensland senator, I really do hope that. I'm sure all my colleagues from Queensland and, in fact, from across the country have similar sentiments.

I'd like to make some comments in relation to the answers that were given to Senator Bragg's question about the Housing Australia Future Fund. Senator Wong, as she does so well, managed to avoid answering the direct question that was put to her by my colleague Senator Bragg. It was the obvious question: how many houses have been built by the Housing Australia Future Fund? You couldn't get a more simple question. We've had this $10 billion fund set up that was announced two years ago. The question was, 'How many houses has it built?' and the answer we got was quite clever but avoided answering the question. The answers provided a number of houses that were either constructed or planned—not built; constructed or planned.

I'm sure there was some planning that went into the construction of that answer, but we weren't after how many houses were or are planned. We were actually after how many houses have been constructed. We received an answer in Senate estimates earlier in the year that indicated that, at that point in time, only 17 houses had been constructed two years after the Housing Australia Future Fund had been established—not 1,700 or 17,000 but 17, one-seven, houses constructed by this $10 billion fund. Perhaps more disturbingly, we heard that the fund had acquired 20 times as many houses as it had constructed. Three hundred and forty houses had been acquired.

I don't remember it ever being the intention of the Housing Australia Future Fund to go out into the market and compete with everyday Australians to acquire houses. It was all about building future housing supply. We got no answers from the Labor government with respect to giving us an update on the number of houses constructed. Very disappointing. (Time expired)

Imagine my surprise this afternoon to have Senator Canavan come into this place quoting the Australian Workers Union. I know I speak for myself, Senator Chisholm and other members of this chamber when I say this: welcome aboard, Senator Canavan! You are in great company. It is wonderful to have you on board quoting the Australian Workers Union. I look forward to his ongoing advocacy in this place on behalf of the entire workers union movement. Perhaps we might see him step up to the plate and back in working families. When the penalty rates legislation comes into this place, I expect to see Senator Canavan coming over here, joining his comrades, voting with us on the penalty rates legislation. I will eagerly wait to see my comrade Senator Canavan join us on this side when that legislation comes through here.

Let me also touch on the smelters issue raised today. The government is, of course, committed to a sustainable long-term future for our industry, while those opposite have left a graveyard of discarded energy policies in this place, with backbenchers too focused on their own politicking and their own appearances on 'Sky after dark' to hold a consistent position. I will touch on that because we saw some pretty interesting scenes in here yesterday. We saw opposition members almost bowl themselves over running out of this place to get out of this chamber and avoid taking a public position on a net zero target motion. The only person who had a bit of ticker was my comrade Senator Canavan across the chamber, a man who has not met an anti-net-zero motion that he doesn't like. There he was across the chamber, casting a lonely shadow, sitting next to his comrades from One Nation. There were people in this chamber, but they rushed out of here away from a vote. Poof! Vamoose! They were gone.

We saw it again this morning. They ran out of this place to avoid a vote. Their colleague Senator Henderson placed an amendment here today and, all of a sudden, when it came time to vote, they disappeared again. They disappeared again. I know I am new around here—it's my second week on the job—but I thought the point of showing up in this chamber was to vote and do our job, not to avoid a vote and run away from voting. Maybe I'm a bit old-fashioned, or maybe I need to learn a thing or two, but those were quite interesting scenes today, seeing them run away from a vote. They couldn't avoid it if they tried.

We also had our friends from the opposition talking about Medicare. The gall of these guys to come into this place and talk about Medicare—the same people who left it in such a state after 10 years of neglect; they ran it into the ground—and about bulk-billing rates! It had never been harder or more expensive to see a doctor than under the coalition government, and they want to come in here and lecture this government about Medicare. Bulk-billing rates were in freefall. You needed a parachute to catch them; that's how bad they were under the coalition. Unfortunately, they want to come in here and lecture us.

This government isn't about talk; we are about action. We promised 50 urgent care clinics and we delivered 87. We jumped over that target and then some. I've been proud as a new senator for Queensland to get out and visit some of our very well utilised urgent care clinics. I've been to see Dr Evan Jones in Morayfield in the seat of Longman, where thousands of patients were treated last year. It was a very busy urgent care clinic doing amazing things for that community. I've been up in the seat of Groom, visiting the Toowoomba urgent care clinic, which is also seeing thousands of patients. All you need is your Medicare card. You walk in the front door, and they take walk-ins seven days a week for long hours to treat people—young kids, elderly patients and working families.

It's amazing to see the absolute gall of those opposite. Under this government we have seen an $8.5 billion investment in Medicare, the largest single injection in its 40-year history. We've also seen a commitment to take bulk-billing rates so that nine out of 10 visits to the GP will be bulk-billed by 2030, an amazing commitment. The record investment from this government is reducing and reversing the cuts we saw under the Liberal Party. I cannot believe the gall of those opposite.

Motions to take note of answers are normally meant to be engaging. I like to think of it like amateur stand-up, frankly. Anyway, I've got five minutes, and I could do a critique of that, but I won't.

Bring it on!

Well, it wasn't very funny. Anyway, what I am here to talk about though are the questions and the answers given to them. I listened to the debate earlier about a range of issues, including the Housing Australia Future Fund, the $10 billion fund which we know now is yet to build, I think, fewer than 17 houses—or 17 houses; certainly not many. We're not going to house the 1.5 million new people that have entered this country over the last three-and-a-bit years with that kind of number. Fine. But we also heard a little bit about the position on fuel tax credits. We're now seeing the government unable to rule out cuts to diesel fuel rebates, which were relied on by all of the people that drive this country—truckies, farmers, miners—and this is all in the name of emissions.

The pressure on everyday Australians and everyday Australia is absolutely real, and it got me thinking about a scenario. We're always in here talking about—and I note, by the way, that it's alright for female senators and MPs in this place to talk about the manner in which things affect female Australians, but we never hear the flip side, on what's happening to young men in this country. These are the sorts of policy positions which are putting, as I am now witnessing out in community, the most enormous strain on young Australian males that I have ever seen. If anyone's not seeing it, then they're not talking to enough young men out there. Whenever I talk to a young bloke in this country, he tells me that, no matter how much he works, no matter how hard he works and no matter how diligent he is with his savings, he simply can't afford the life that his parents did, the life that his father did, the life that his grandfather did, and the anxiety out there because of the pressure on young men is a real and present problem in this country that is not being addressed properly.

The young men that I speak to talk in this country about the simple things in life, like being too scared to ask a woman out, to ask a girl out, simply for a cup of coffee, because they're not sure they can afford it anymore, thanks to the policy settings we're seeing from the government across the chamber. There are a range of other issues affecting young men today. The Me Too movement has made them almost frightened to approach young women for fear of being called names, I might say. But that's a different issue; we're talking about the economic side of it. The changes to the manner in which we treat young men now, I think, are extraordinary. We hear them talking about their careers and the manner in which they feel that, even if they do a good job in their workplace, they may well get stepped over the top of because of some DEI target. We talk about them listening to commentators and politicians in this place effectively accusing them of being offenders in waiting. We find that we're now living in a world where this situation is causing angst and unrest, it is causing problems at home and it is not being addressed, and it is something that I think is going to ultimately become a serious problem. It has never, ever been more expensive for young people in this country than it is at the moment, and that is placing a huge amount of pressure on the next generation. People are reluctant now—young men are reluctant now—to go about the process of starting a family and owning a home. They feel they can never, ever, ever be in a position where they're going to get onto the front foot.

So we can talk about all of the problems facing the economy, we can talk about the gender pay gap in this place, and we can talk about the 'Gen Z boss and a mini' and all of this sort of stuff that we see floating around out here, but the question that is being left is this: what are we going to do with the generation of young men in this country who feel totally and utterly let down by the system, totally and utterly left behind by an Australia that doesn't want to talk about them in anything other than pejorative terms? For the longest time, I have been talking about this. It is often accused of being toxic in itself. But the reality is that this is a growing issue in this country. It is one that politics is not addressing, and it needs to.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for the Environment and Water (Senator Watt) to a question without notice I asked today relating to plastic pollution.

I've been campaigning against plastic pollution and trying to do something about this issue for nearly 20 years, including 13 years in this place. While we have always been aware that plastic is dangerous in the environment, especially in the marine environment, recent studies—and there have been a lot of them—talking about the human health impacts of plastic congestion, especially microplastics, are really quite chilling. This includes recent evidence that microplastics are now being linked to higher levels of cancer in young people, which is a significant area of ongoing research.

This is an environmental issue where it doesn't matter what your politics are, what your demographic is or where you're from; everybody wants something done about this issue. If you want any evidence of that, look at the outrage around the country when REDcycle collapsed a couple of years ago, because people wanted to do the right thing by taking their soft plastics back to the supermarket. People really care about this issue, and they want action from government.

Of course, it makes sense for the world to have a global plastics treaty and a high-ambition coalition of countries that will work to actively reduce plastic pollution by tackling it at its source: where it's produced, how it's produced and whether it's produced for its end of life—that circular economy concept. But—and I could have told you this 20 years ago—the reason we are not getting legislative action that's binding is that the companies and businesses and the countries where these businesses are domiciled do not want to see regulatory action. They want to put the responsibility onto you, as a consumer of plastic. I've always had the view that it should be both. You should be responsible when you use plastic, but the companies that produce it should produce it for its end of life so that it can be properly recycled or reused.

This is where the rubber hits the road at these global plastic negotiations. Some plastics just need to be banned—and even the industry itself recognises that—because of the harmful chemicals they have in them. Other industries, like the recycling and waste industries, want to see problematic plastics banned. These are plastics that make it really inefficient and expensive at collection and sorting depots, from the local government level all the way through to big business. It's on us as decision-makers in places like this, in the parliaments of the world, to make the decision. That means the good old-fashioned textbook case of regulating an externality, because where a business produces a product that creates an externality, like an environmental harm, the cost of that harm should be built into the cost of the product. That's something my first-year economics students could have told you many years ago, and it's remarkable how powerful these companies have been around the world and how effective they have been at stopping any regulations.

I wish this global plastic treaty success next week in Geneva. It has repeatedly failed, to this point, to get an outcome because the lobbyists that turn up have outnumbered the countries and the NGOs and other organisations trying to get action on this issue. They have literally gatecrashed these negotiations and have made sure that they have failed. They have been repeatedly pushing for a weak, voluntary, non-binding agreement that allows them to basically do nothing and, in fact, to greenwash the—I was about to say something unparliamentary there, but I won't. They are going to use this as a greenwashing opportunity, and everybody knows that. They have done it in this country for 20 or 30 years, and they are doing it everywhere around the world.

So the minister's department is going to go there next week and lobby for a legally binding global plastics treaty. But the problem is this: we don't have it here in Australia, so how can we be taken seriously as leaders in this space when we don't have it at home? You know what? If we get a globally binding plastics treaty, it will be a big celebration, but then we've still got to come home and do it, and all the solutions are at our fingertips. I can point you to four Senate inquiries in the last 10 years—three of them I've chaired myself—all with very similar recommendations. The previous government went part of the way to achieving what needs to be done. We all know what the solutions are. We've just got to get on and do it.

Question agreed to.

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

by leave—I move:

That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:

Environment and Communications References Committee —

Appointed—

Substitute member: Senator Grogan to replace Senator Ghosh for the committee's inquiry into algal blooms in South Australia

Participating member: Senator Ghosh

Northern Australia — Joint Standing Committee —

Discharged—Senator Walker

Appointed—Senator Whiteaker

Parliamentary Standards — Joint Statutory Committee —

Appointed—Senators Brown and Polley

Privileges — Standing Committee —

Discharged—Senator Sterle

Appointed—Senator Sheldon

Can I just confirm that this doesn't deal with the controversial matter we're going to be dealing with—

This does not. We're saving that one up for later.

Question agreed to.

I have received a letter from Senator Walsh, resigning from her place as a member of the Council of the National Library of Australia; and from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, nominating Senator Askew to serve as a member of the council.

by leave—I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the National Library Act 1960, the Senate elect Senator Askew to be a member of the Council of the National Library of Australia for a period of 3 years, on and from today, in place of Senator Walsh.

Congratulations, Senator Askew.

Question agreed to.

Congratulations, Senator Askew.

I move:

That the following bill be introduced:

A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to elections and referendums in respect of electoral communications, and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

I present the bill and 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 table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.

Leave granted.

I table an explanatory memorandum, and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

Today, I introduce the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Communications) Bill 2025.

This bill implements recommendations of the 2023 multipartisan Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM) to introduce truth-in-advertising legislation modelled on the existing laws in South Australia.

Public confidence in Australian elections is essential to preserve the legitimacy of our democratic processes.

Democracies around the world are increasingly facing threats that undermine public trust and promote cynical disengagement with democracy.

Perhaps the most concerning is from misinformation and disinformation.

Advancements in technology, like artificial intelligence (AI), mean it is easier than ever to create and share misinformation and disinformation.

While these technologies have a significant positive impact in our society, when used maliciously they have the potential to mislead voters and undermine the legitimacy of our electoral processes.

Australia's electoral system is strong. But it is not immune to the nefarious activities that we have seen play out in elections overseas.

Australia's electoral laws must evolve to maintain public trust and protect the integrity of our electoral system.

This bill will create new civil penalty provisions that protect against inaccurate and misleading statements being purported as fact.

These provisions are modelled on the framework that has worked successfully in South Australian state elections for the last 40 years.

The bill will also create new civil penalty provisions to address the threat of the misuse of Al in electoral processes.

This will apply to artificial intelligence deepfakes and voice-clones.

The bill introduces specific exemptions to ensure the offences are targeted and proportionate.

These prohibitions will not apply to expressions of opinion or regulate any private communication, satirical content, art, educational material, academic content, professional news media or anything outside of a federal election or referendum.

These prohibitions will apply only to campaign material already subject to regulation under the Electoral Act. These are electoral advertisements and promotional items like pamphlets, posters and how-to-vote cards.

Only the person ultimately responsible for the communication will be liable for any breach of these prohibitions. The prohibitions will not apply to broadcasters, publishers or those who simply share the content.

The bill establishes an Electoral Communications Panel to administer these new civil penalty provisions.

The Panel will be a secondary statutory body within the Australian Electoral Commission. This recognises and preserves the Australian Electoral Commission's neutrality and ensures the operations of the panel are fully legally independent.

Transparency of use of artificial intelligence (Al)

While a whole-of-government response to the opportunities and challenges of AI is required, the bill is a step forward in protecting our democracy from some of the most concerning risks posed by AI in elections.

This bill expands existing electoral authorisation requirements. Under the new requirements, certain electoral matter will need to disclose whether digital technology was used to substantially or entirely create or modify its content. This aligns with the interim report from the Senate Select Committee on Adopting AI, such as implementing a credentialing of AI generated content.

Subject to the passage of the bill, these amendments to authorisation requirements will be in force for the next federal election to help voters make an informed choice.

Media blackout period

This bill will remove the media blackout period that prohibits electoral or referendum matter being broadcast on television or radio in the three days before, and on, voting day.

Removing the blackout period will provide consistency across the media sector and responds to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters' findings.

Conclusion

The crossbench has led the government on the urgent need for truth in political advertising laws for many years. It is time for the Government to get on with legislating reforms it introduced in the 47th Parliament.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than Friday, 1 August 2025, the referral decision brief for Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation matter 2025/10161.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 56, standing in the name of Senator Whitten, be agreed to.

I move:

(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy, be established to inquire into and report on:

(a) the prevalence of, motivations behind and impacts of misinformation and disinformation related to climate change and energy;

(b) how misinformation and disinformation related to climate change and energy is financed, produced and disseminated, including, but not limited to, understanding its impact on:

(i) Australian politics,

(ii) domestic and international media narratives, and

(iii) Australian public policy debate and outcomes;

(c) the origins, growth and prevalence of 'astroturfing' and its impact on public policy and debate;

(d) connections between Australian organisations and international think tank and influence networks associated with the dissemination of misinformation and disinformation related to matters of public policy;

(e) the role of social media, including the coordinated use of bots and trolls, messaging apps and generative artificial intelligence in facilitating the spread of misinformation and disinformation;

(f) the effectiveness of foreign agent disclosure guidelines in Australia as applied to political and policy influence organisations based outside of Australia, with particular regard to the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme;

(g) the efficacy of different parliamentary and regulatory approaches in combating misinformation and disinformation, what evidence exists and where further research is required, including through gathering global evidence;

(h) the role that could be played by media literacy education, including in the school curriculum, in combating misinformation and disinformation; and

(i) any other related matters.

(2) That the committee present its final report by Wednesday, 4 February 2026.

(3) That the committee consist of 6 senators, as follows:

(a) two nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate;

(b) two nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate;

(c) one nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate; and

(d) one independent senator.

(4) That:

(a) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or any minority party or independent senator;

(b) participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee; and

(c) a participating member shall be taken to be a member of a committee for the purpose of forming a quorum of the committee if a majority of members of the committee is not present.

(5) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.

(6) That the committee elect as chair a member nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate and, as deputy chair, a member nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

(7) That the deputy chair shall act as chair when the chair is absent from a meeting of the committee or the position of chair is temporarily vacant.

(8) That the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, may appoint another member of the committee to act as chair during the temporary absence of both the chair and deputy chair at a meeting of the committee.

(9) That, in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.

(10) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members, and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to consider.

(11) That the committee and any subcommittee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.

(12) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President.

(13) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.

by leave—I move the following amendment:

Omit paragraph (1)(f).

Question agreed to.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 35, standing in the name of Senator Whish-Wilson and amended by Senator Gallagher, be agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Indigenous Australians, by no later than 10 am on Wednesday, 13 August 2025, all written or digital correspondence (including all attachments to any written or digital correspondence), briefing materials, text messages, file notes, meeting notices or minutes or other records of interaction since 1 June 2025, between:

(a) the Minister for Indigenous Australians (the minister) or her office and the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA);

(b) the minister or her office and the Northern Land Council (NLC); or

(c) the NIAA and the NLC;

in relation to Good Advice Pty Ltd, Beetaloo Energy Australia Ltd (formerly Empire Energy Group Ltd) or Top End Aboriginal Coastal Alliance Inc, including any employees, agents or representatives of these entities.

The question is that general business notice of motion no. 50, standing in the name of Senator Thorpe, be agreed to. Those of that opinion, say aye; against, no. I believe the noes have it?

The ayes have it.

I think I only heard one voice, Senator Thorpe.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! I think we all know the rules for formal motions, so, when I call, please indicate clearly what your vote is.

I was of the understanding that Senator Thorpe was going to amend this motion, but I didn't hear the amendment being moved, which is why we opposed it. We were to support the motion if the motion had been amended as per discussions.

Well, Senator Thorpe hasn't moved an amendment, the vote has been put, and a division has been called for.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

With the indulgence of the chamber, Senator Gallagher has asked leave to cancel the bells and recommit the vote.

Leave granted.

Senator Scarr, Minister Gallagher is happy to give an explanation if you require one; otherwise, I'm going to recommit the vote.

If you want to, Minister.

by leave—Referring back to my previous comments about how we would support it if there was an amendment moved, my understanding is that it was amended last night. That hadn't been picked up. My apologies for that. That changes the government's position on voting on this. We will be voting in favour of the motion.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 50, standing in the name of Senator Thorpe, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Indigenous Australians, by no later than 10 am on Monday, 1 September 2025, all written or digital correspondence, all attachments to any written or digital correspondence, briefing materials, text messages, file notes, meeting notices or minutes or other records of interaction since 1 October 2023, between the Minister for Indigenous Australians or her office, the Northern Land Council (NLC) and/or the National Indigenous Australians Agency, related to:

(a) the ascertainment and management of conflicts of interest of NLC councillors, directors and senior staff, including but not limited to connections to and involvement with proponents;

(b) the involvement of NLC councillors, directors or senior staff with the gas industry, including but not limited to Australian Energy Producers Ltd, Santos Ltd, Tamboran Resources Ltd and/or Beetaloo Energy Australia Ltd (formerly Empire Energy Group Ltd); or

(c) the involvement of NLC councillors, directors or senior staff with Good Advice Pty Ltd and/or the Top End Aboriginal Coastal Alliance Inc.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That, in recognition that these documents were announced by the Government to be publicly released by 2024, there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by 9.30 am on 25 August 2025, all completed documents and data sets that make up the Government's National Climate Risk Assessment and National Adaptation Plan.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 57, as moved by Senator Waters, be agreed to.

I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 60 relating to an order for the production of documents relating to the Special Envoy's Plan to Combat Antisemitism. I understand the amendment has been circulated. It's just a change of the date when the documents are to be tabled.

Leave granted.

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

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, by no later than 9 am on 6 August 2025, all documents, reports, advice, notes and correspondence pertaining to the research referenced on page 4 of the Special Envoy's Plan to Combat Antisemitism at section 2.2.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 60 standing in the name of Senator Faruqi, as amended, be agreed to.

I move:

That—

(a) the Senate notes that:

(i) standing order 19(4) provides that the Standing Committee on Appropriations, Staffing and Security consists of 8 senators, including '3 other senators not being members of the government party' and that 'in the absence of agreement between the opposition and any minority groups or independent senators as to nominations, any question as to representation shall be determined by the Senate', and

(ii) agreement was not reached prior to the appointment of non-government senators to the committee on 22 July 2025; and

(b) Senators Askew, Duniam and McKenzie be discharged from the committee to enable negotiations to be held in relation to the appointment of non-government senators to the committee.

by leave—I move the following amendments:

Omit paragraph (a)(ii), substitute:

(ii) Senator Askew was duly appointed by the Senate because the Greens failed to lodge their committee membership letter in time;

(iii) Labor and the Greens have done a secret deal to add a senator from the Greens to this committee; and

Paragraph (b), omit "Senators Askew, Duniam and McKenzie", substitute "notwithstanding the above, Senator Askew".

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

I just want to record that I think it's a deep shame that we are at the point that we are, where this is coming to the Senate for resolution. The standing orders provide for three non-government senators to be members of the appropriations committee. There had been discussions about having a Greens nomination on this committee. That was not accepted by the opposition and now we are where we are. I encourage everyone across the Senate to do what we do all the time, which is to negotiate outcomes and settle matters before they need to be brought to the Senate, as this has been and as a motion Senator Pocock will be moving later today will be. There are forms in this place where we negotiate and then we reach agreement, because it is a minority chamber. It appears to me that those opposite need to understand that that's the way it's going to work here or we will crunch you like we are crunching today.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The Greens will not be supporting this amendment from the opposition. We sought to resolve this matter outside the chamber and the opposition arrogantly refused. Well, now you're going to experience what happens when you aren't in control—because you do not control this chamber. The crossbench do have a right—

Senator Hanson-Young, I have Senator Scarr on his feet.

President, on a point of order, the senator should be directing her comments through you as President, especially when she's speaking in such a hostile, aggressive manner.

I remind Senator Hanson-Young to make her comments to me.

Thank you, Madam President. It seems that the nerves are touchy on the other side. Through you, Madam President, I say to the opposition: you're hardly even an opposition at the moment. You're split; you're a rabble. At the very least, ensuring that the crossbench can have a say and a role on these types of committees is important.

Senator Scarr?

Is she finished?

What's your point of order?

Actually, I rose to seek leave to make a short statement.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senators, order! I'm running the chamber. Senator Hanson-Young has 11 seconds remaining. Please only stand if you have a point of order.

Again, what they are displaying is that they are a rabble—rabble, rabble. They're a mess. They're hardly even an opposition. They don't deserve three seats on this committee.

Given that Senator Hanson-Young has made a statement, I seek leave to make a very short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

I should advise those listening to this debate that the issue arose because my good friend Senator Askew was duly appointed by the Senate because the Greens failed to lodge their committee membership letter in time. They failed to do their homework, and Labor and the Greens have done a secret deal to add a senator from the Greens to this committee. But, notwithstanding the above, in order to progress the matter we're simply seeking that the Greens' motion, which would seek to purge my three colleagues Senator Askew, Senator Duniam and Senator McKenzie, be amended so that only Senator Askew would leave the committee. That seems a very reasonable amendment from our perspective.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order, senators!

Order, Senator Colbeck! I called you to order.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Is leave granted?

Since we're talking about—

Senator Pocock, a moment, please. Leave is granted for one minute.

Sorry. For fear of being crunched, I—

No-one's going to crunch you, David!

In all seriousness, I just wanted to make a short statement given we're talking about the way that committees have been negotiated. I just make the point that the Greens are half the crossbench and yet, if you look at the committees and what went down the other day, the Greens are basically all of the committee members and got every single committee membership that they wanted. When the rest of the crossbench said, 'Hey, I'd just like to be on one committee to be able to contribute to the Senate given I'm an elected senator,' there was a deal done between Labor and the Greens and, as we saw in the votes, that's how it rolled out. So I appreciate what they're saying on this one, but I think it has to work both ways when you want to talk about the crossbench.

Senator Thorpe, you are out of order. The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Scarr be agreed to. I believe the noes have it.

The ayes have it.

I only heard your voice, Senator Scarr. There need to be two voices, and you know that. With the indulgence of the Senate, I will recommit the vote. The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Scarr be agreed to.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 61, standing in the name of Senator Hanson-Young, be agreed to.

I seek leave to postpone general business notices of motion Nos 62, 63 and 64 to the next day of sitting.

Leave granted.

I move:

That, in recognition of the allocation of private senators' time to Senator Lambie for Thursday, 31 July 2025 when she is on leave, Senator Lambie be allocated time on a later sitting day in 2025 for the consideration of a bill.

by leave—I move that the motion be amended in the following terms:

After "That", insert (a)".

At the end of the motion add ", and

"(b) the consideration of private senators' bills not proceed on Thursday, 31 July 2025 and instead, a motion may be moved by Senator Thorpe and the question be put following 30 minutes of debate (5 minutes per speaker)".

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

One Nation supports all senators, especially crossbench senators, receiving their full entitlement of time to debate in this chamber, yet this motion seeking to reorganise Senator Lambie's time tomorrow is open ended. It doesn't specify from where that future time would come in the schedule of debates already rostered to each senator. Under this motion, there is nothing to stop the government taking time off One Nation or any other senator in the future to make up for the debating spot Senator Lambie will miss tomorrow. We welcome any efforts to come to a better outcome for all, but, without that clarification or protection, One Nation will not be supporting this motion.

Question agreed to.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.

I move:

That the following bill be introduced:

A Bill for an Act to establish a Parliamentary Joint Committee on Public Consultancy and Services Contracts, and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

I present the bill and 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 table an explanatory memorandum related to the bill.

Leave granted.

I table an explanatory memorandum, and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Public Consultancy and Services Contracts Bill 2025 is a bill to legislate the establishment of a joint parliamentary committee to review and approve consultancy and services contracts entered in to by Commonwealth entities. This bill will provide parliament with greater oversight of consultancy contract expenditure and, with it, increased transparency. It is a sound and practical piece of legislation, one which is most demonstrably required and one that speaks to the very principles of our system of governance and parliamentary control.

The need for this bill and the committee it establishes was overwhelmingly evident as a result of the inquiry led by the Finance and Public Administration References Committee into 'Management and assurance of integrity by consulting services'. The final report from the committee included the following recommendation:

"The committee recommends that the Parliament legislate to establish a Joint Standing Committee to review and approve consultancy and services contracts with provisions and thresholds similar to those in the Public Works Act 1969 but appropriately adjusted to suit the requirements of providing oversight for this significant element of government spending."

This bill seeks to implement that recommendation.

Where large sums of public funds are being expended, there is a case for wider scrutiny than is given at present. In 2022-23 the Australian Government spent $3.272 billion on management advisory contracts. This represents 4.37 per cent of the total value of procurement contracts. Such a significant outlay of public monies demands parliamentary oversight and scrutiny and offers inherent justification for the introduction of the bill. If enacted, the proposed parliamentary joint committee will consider and report to both Houses of Parliament on any public consultancy contract referred to the committee, to a contract that provides consideration to a value above $2 million dollars. The Committee may also inquire into any matter relating to a public consultancy contract or public consultancy contracts generally when referred to it by either House of Parliament or the Minister.

An area where a similar value of government expenditure occurs is that of major public works. Such expenditure is overseen by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. The purpose of the Public Works Committee is to provide parliamentary scrutiny of government expenditure for public works. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Public Consultancy and Services Contracts bill seeks to establish a similar parliamentary body; to make certain the same level of scrutiny is applied to public consultancy contracts as with Public Works.

The main provisions of the bill will ensure high standards of accountability for the expenditure of public money, providing greater transparency of consultancy contracts. In the establishment of a joint standing committee to thoroughly examine and consider proposed public consultancy contracts, this bill will safeguard the maintenance of integrity and achieve value for money.

"Huge sums are being, and have been, spent for years past, without proper inquiries and without that information to which the House is entitled. No big public work ought to be undertaken until this House has passed judgement upon it. That is one of the prime functions of a legislative assembly anywhere and always; indeed, this proposition goes to the very root and basis of our system of responsible government and parliamentary control."

These words were spoken in 1913, by then Prime Minster Joseph Cook in a parliamentary debate regarding the creation of a Commonwealth Public Works Committee. One hundred and twelve years later, the principle being expressed in those words reflects precisely the principle within the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Public Consultancy and Services Contracts bill. This is not an adversarial bill, rather a bill that reflects our function of government. It is a straightforward and practical approach to address and correct current issues relating to engagement in consultancy contracts.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, by no later than 5 August 2025, communications and documents prepared by Deloitte for the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) related to IT systems used for administration of the Targeted Compliance Framework, including:

(a) all versions of the statement of assurance received by DEWR to date;

(b) all versions of the full report received by DEWR to date;

(c) any email correspondence or letters between DEWR and Deloitte since 1 May 2025 regarding the status of the report, expected submission dates and potential publication of the statement of assurance and full report;

(d) any email correspondence or letters between DEWR and the office of the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations (the minister) since 1 May 2025 regarding the status of the report, expected submission dates and potential publication of the statement of assurance and full report; and

(e) a list of stakeholders consulted by DEWR, Deloitte and the minister in relation to these matters since 1 January 2024.

Question agreed to.

by leave—At the request of Senator Ruston, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, she will move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that the Prime Minister promised 71 times to Australians that 'all you need is your Medicare card, not a credit card' and that it would be 'free to see a GP';

(b) notes that, despite the Prime Minister's promise, according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare:

(i) while the Prime Minister was busy waving around his Medicare card claiming it is all you need to see a doctor, Australians have forked out almost $2 billion to see a GP in the past year,

(ii) in May 2025 alone, during the election campaign, Australians paid a staggering $166 million in combined out-of-pocket costs, and

(iii) Australians need their credit cards more and more, as well as their Medicare card, to see a GP under Labor;

(c) condemns the Prime Minister for not being truthful with Australians during the Federal Election campaign; and

(d) calls on the Prime Minister to admit that he misled Australians about Medicare.

Senator McKim has submitted a proposal, under standing order 75, today, which has been circulated and is shown on the Dynamic Red:

That the risk of mass death from starvation in Gaza, with millions of Palestinians facing catastrophic hunger, is a result of Israel's aid blockade, and that it is critical the Australian Government intensify its efforts—including diplomatic and economic measures—to pressure the Israeli Government to open all border crossings and allow the unimpeded flow of humanitarian aid."

Is consideration of the proposal supported?

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

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

At the request of Senator McKim, I move:

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

That the risk of mass death from starvation in Gaza, with millions of Palestinians facing catastrophic hunger, is a result of Israel's aid blockade, and that it is critical the Australian Government intensify its efforts—including diplomatic and economic measures—to pressure the Israeli Government to open all border crossings and allow the unimpeded flow of humanitarian aid.

I used to say we are sliding into a dystopian future, but it is clear now that we are already living in it. Israel's mass starvation, displacement, demolition, slaughter and devastation are deliberate. It is brutal, it is inhumane, and it is savage. We warned you all, from the very beginning, that this is where we would end up. Israeli ministers themselves made it clear that this is where we would end up, but you flocked to defend Israel, knowing they have been killing, arresting, torturing and permanently injuring Palestinians for decades. Labor MPs, including members of this chamber, flocked to Israel for photo opportunities with genocidal Israeli soldiers and politicians. Our Attorney-General turned up to Israel to shake hands when he should have been issuing arrest warrants. Labor governments across the country are still working overtime to stop antigenocide protests and protesters. It has taken almost two years for Labor to wake up.

With this Greens motion here in front of us today, even with the amendments that Labor is going to propose, the Senate will vote to support a motion that says that Israel's aid blockade is a breach of international law and that it is critical that the Australian government continue intensifying its efforts, including diplomatic and further action, to pressure the Israeli government to open all border crossings and allow the unimpeded flow of humanitarian aid. This motion today is only happening because of the pressure that people out there in the streets have put on this Labor government, week after week after week, for two years. The Greens have been very proud to bring that pressure and their voice right into parliament.

Today, the Senate will agree that the Albanese government needs to take more action—not more words, not more signatures, but more action. We will not stop here. We hold the Labor government to account to actually take that action—concrete action like putting sanctions on Israel and ending the two-way arms trade—so we can actually stop and end the genocide. We know that Israel has sealed off Gaza's borders, choking off life-saving aid. The assistance being distributed comes through Israeli and US backchannels, and it is controlled by mercenaries who decide who lives and who dies in these death traps. This is not aid. This is control. This is occupation. This is murder. This is erasure.

We are facing down another Nakba. Yet there have been no red lines, no sanctions and no accountability. Israel can kill anyone it wants—journalists, doctors, nurses, children and even aid workers like Australian Zomi Frankcom. It can destroy hospitals, universities, homes and schools, with total impunity. This is not just a crisis for the people and nations being bombed by Israel; it is a crisis of humanity and it is a crisis of conscience for us all.

I hope today is the day when this chamber and this parliament wakes up to the inhumanity that has been happening. We are very proud that we, and the people out there in our democracy, have brought this chamber and this parliament and this government to this place, because this was always a moral choice; this was always a moral pathway. And this is the least that we can do.

The coalition will not be supporting this motion. Can I be clear, though: nobody wants to see the suffering of people in Gaza, and we are saddened and shocked, like everybody, at the loss of life in Gaza. Proper quantities of food and other aid must be provided to the people of Gaza. Israel needs to work with international organisations, and international organisations need to work with Israel, to increase the distribution of aid to those who need it. There is suffering across Gaza. An increase in the distribution of aid could alleviate this suffering.

The coalition have made it clear that we believe aid should freely flow into Gaza. Furthermore, it is our wish that the terrorist group Hamas surrenders and the war is ended as soon as possible. But, again, the coalition will not support this motion, because, once again, the Australian Greens are totally ignoring the role of the militant terrorist group Hamas in the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. It would be nice if, just for once, the Australian Greens would just admit that the militant terrorist group Hamas are the reason for the devastating situation in Gaza, but the Greens never seem to want to actually admit that the blame for this war lies squarely at the feet of the militant terrorist organisation Hamas.

The coalition, on the other hand, fundamentally believes that the moral responsibility for the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is squarely on the terrorist group Hamas. The war in Gaza began because of Hamas's abhorrent attack on Israeli citizens. This was initiated through their barbaric acts on 7 October 2023. These attacks were some of the worst we have seen in recent history, making the loss of Jewish life the largest in any single day since the Holocaust, with many others then taken hostage. Those barbaric attacks, let us not conveniently forget, involved rape, torture and the murder of innocent civilians, including men, women and children, babies and the elderly. These attacks led to many innocent civilians being murdered. Others remain in captivity, 21 months later.

The barbaric Hamas terrorists who committed the October 7 attacks proudly filmed their crimes and posted their murderous rampages on social media. Quite frankly, there are few groups in this global world that are worse than the militant terrorist organisation of Hamas. Hamas use their own people as human shields. It is a disgrace. They hide in hospitals. It is a disgrace. They hide in schools. What cowards they are! They murder those who try and stand up to them, and they still hold 50 hostages from Israel.

Problems with the flow of aid are largely because of Hamas's deliberate campaign against Israel. They have repeatedly diverted and stockpiled aid in Gaza meant for civilians, but you won't see the Australian Greens talking about that. Hamas have been using this aid for their own military and political advancements. They have been filmed hijacking trucks full of aid. Their stated goal—it is in their charter; they live by it each and every day—is the destruction of the State of Israel.

One of Hamas's disgusting tactics is to use their own civilians as human shields and then blame Israel when people are attacked. They are now disrupting the flow of aid into Gaza and blame Israel when their own people face hunger and starvation. It is important that the moral outrage surrounding aid and supplies is directed at the terrorist organisation Hamas. However, both the Albanese government and the Australian Greens have deliberately been silent on the devastating effects that Hamas is having on the people of Gaza. This includes Hamas blocking aid and supplies. Remember that this war could end tomorrow. Hamas could end the suffering of the people tomorrow by freeing the Israeli hostages and laying down their arms. They choose not to.

by leave—I move an amendment to the motion:

Omit all words after "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:", substitute:

That Israel's aid blockade, which risks mass death from starvation in Gaza and millions of Palestinians facing catastrophic hunger, is a breach of international law, and that it is critical the Australian Government continue intensifying its efforts including diplomatic and further action to pressure the Israeli Government to open all border crossings and allow the unimpeded flow of humanitarian aid.

From the government's perspective, we do want to set out our position in relation to the resolution that's been circulated. Australians are all distressed by the ongoing violence, including the deaths of so many innocent civilians. As the Prime Minister has said, the situation in Gaza has gone beyond the world's worst fears. The position of the Australian government is very clear: every innocent life matters. We reiterate our call for an immediate and permanent ceasefire and the release of all of the remaining hostages. The government remains unequivocal in our condemnation of Hamas and its ongoing acts of terror.

Gaza is in the grip of a humanitarian catastrophe. Israel's denial of aid and the killing of civilians, including children, seeking access to water and food is indefensible. We call on Israel to comply immediately with its obligations under international law. This includes allowing the United Nations and non-government organisations to carry out their life-saving work safely and without hindrance. On our own, Australia has few ways to move the dial in the Middle East. That's why we have been so focused on partnering with other countries that also want to end this war to deliver life-saving aid, support a two-state solution and uphold international law. It's only by being active in the international community that we can build momentum for peace.

On 29 July, Australia and 14 countries released the document called the 'New York call', demanding a ceasefire in Gaza, the immediate release of hostages and unhindered humanitarian access. The joint statement reiterates Australia's commitment to a two-state solution where Israel and Palestine live side by side in peace within secure and recognised borders, consistent with international law. Australia has consistently been part of the international call on Israel to allow a full and immediate resumption of aid to Gaza in line with the binding orders of the International Court of Justice. Together with our partners, we have condemned Israel's denial of aid and the killing of civilians seeking access to water and food. The Prime Minister has said that these actions are indefensible. As he has said, it is a breach of international law to stop food being delivered, which is the decision that Israel made in March. The denial of humanitarian aid and basic services to Palestinian civilians is a violation of international law. Israel must act in accordance with international law. And Australia has been clear that Israel must comply with the binding orders of the International Court of Justice, including to ensure the unhindered provision of basic services and humanitarian assistance at scale in Gaza.

The call released by Australia and 14 countries on 29 July expresses grave concern over the high number of civilian casualties and the humanitarian situation in Gaza. This follows the statement released by Australia and 29 other countries on 21 July which calls on Israel to immediately lift restrictions on the flow of aid and to urgently enable the UN and NGOs to do their life-saving work safely and effectively. We continue to emphasise to Israel that humanitarian aid should never be politicised. Dire UN reports about starvation of civilians, including children, underline our call. Our humanitarian partners have confirmed that they stand ready to provide immediate and life-saving assistance to the people of Gaza. We condemn the abhorrent and outrageous comments made by members of the Netanyahu government about these people in crisis.

What we are seeing in Gaza is not simply a famine. It is the result of Israel's deliberate and intentional starvation of Palestinian people. Starvation is being used as a method of mass murder and as a tactic in the ongoing ethnic cleansing, genocide and colonisation of the Palestinian people. Despite the sudden concern we are seeing from the Albanese government, the crisis didn't happen overnight. Over two long years of violence, we have witnessed horrific scenes of Israel's genocidal campaign against Palestinians—fathers crying out as they hold what is left of their dismembered children, unborn babies removed from their deceased pregnant mothers, surgeons operating in overcrowded hospitals without anaesthetic and crushed bodies retrieved from underneath the rubble.

We have seen psychological warfare as Israel has forcibly displaced Palestinian families, watching as they flee their homes for their supposed safety only to be bombed in makeshift tents. Most recently, we are watching Israel's latest genocidal tactic of starvation, with skeletal children fenced like animals in a cage, holding out pots as they beg for food and aid to simply survive another day. This government pretends it is not a major player in this genocide. This is a lie. They spread misinformation about Australia's role in funding and arming Israel, pretending that the bomb bay doors they supply for F-35 jets are non-lethal in nature. These are the doors that release the bombs that slaughter innocent civilians.

This government contributed to the starvation of Palestinians by suspending funding to UNRWA, the primary humanitarian agency providing food, water and medical aid. This government chooses to do these things and to defend Israel's war crimes, rather than to confront the moral and legal obligations they refuse to uphold. This is not, and has never been, about Israel's so-called right to self-defence. It has been over 77 years of occupation, apartheid, dispossession and ethnic cleansing of Palestine, with one clear goal to erase Palestinians and take their land. We are now seeing a sudden panic regarding the crisis in Gaza—that maybe the starvation of children is a bridge too far, not something that can be deflected as a matter of self-defence but genocide.

Despite the government and the media spending the past two years parroting Israeli propaganda to manufacture consent for genocide, we welcome the latecomers because this is a matter of Palestinian life or death. Israel continues to cross red lines; it does so with impunity. Each time this government stays silent, Israel is given the green light to carry on its genocide, knowing it can get away with it. Strongly worded emails and sharpened criticism of Israel's actions are not enough to hold Israel accountable. This government has the power to take real action and put an end to the mass murder of Palestinians.

The Palestinian population is on the brink of complete annihilation as this genocide enters its final iteration. We demand urgent action before it's too late. We demand nothing less than a full arms embargo, the sanctioning of Israel—this means economic sanctions against the state of Israel, not just against individuals—and the recognition of a Palestinian state, not as a threat against Israel but as a human right. Until then, this government is not only complicit in but also an active contributor to the genocide of Palestinians.

I would be the only senator in this chamber who has actually been to Israel, boots on the ground, shortly after October 7. I went there in December 2023, along with my colleague the member for Macnamara and the then senators Birmingham and Fawcett, who have now departed this chamber. What I saw shocked me to the core. It was like nothing I have ever experienced. I have seen plenty of death as a doctor—believe me, I have—but this was a level of atrocity and depravity that I've never experienced before and I will never forget.

I went to Kfar Aza, a kibbutz on the Gaza border. I could see the plumes of smoke. I could hear the gunships going overhead and the bombs dropping. It was frightening. Kfar Aza was a burnt-out shell, with pockmarked walls and blood splattered on the walls, mattresses and furniture, and you could smell the death. I then went to a town called Sderot, which, again, is on the southern border of Israel. That town, incidentally, has the highest level of enuresis—for those who don't know, enuresis is bedwetting—because the children in that community are constantly under attack. There are sirens going constantly, day and night, because of missiles and rockets flying overhead from Gaza.

As the member for Higgins, I had a very large Jewish community. Around 6½ thousand constituents identified as Jewish. The vast majority of my constituents were descendants of Holocaust survivors. Australia has the largest Holocaust survivor community outside of Israel. I have a deep connection with my then community and also with Israel. I identify as a friend of Israel. I am an ally of Israel. But, as an ally of Israel, I am not here to rubberstamp what the Netanyahu government is doing. I will not rubberstamp what the Netanyahu government is doing. It has distressed me to no end that I have seen very little effort going into crafting a political off-ramp to this devastating conflict. We have now had two years of a military campaign which has reshaped the Middle East. We've seen that ripple effect go out. But I have not seen sufficient effort by the Netanyahu government to actually craft a political solution.

Right now, the people of Gaza are suffering. There is a humanitarian catastrophe. There are no words left anymore in our lexicon to describe what is going on there. It is unconscionable that children should be starving. It is unconscionable that pregnant mothers cannot deliver. There is no anaesthesia or painkillers and insufficient antibiotics for the trauma and blast injuries that are being dealt with—when I know that a few kilometres away, across the border, there are supermarkets groaning with food.

Right now the Netanyahu government has not articulated to the global community what the political solution to this is. This is a problem that has spanned back 100 years. It has its roots in the Balfour Declaration in 1917. That's where this conflict started. There has never been justice for the Palestinian people. Similarly, there has been an undermining, over a long period of time, of the two-state solution. Right now, we are left with a problem which has not been managed. It's been mismanaged over a long period of time. It has never actually been resolved.

What we need to do as a global community and, indeed, as a country is not divide any further but come together and support the Netanyahu government—to nudge them in the right direction, push them in the right direction to make better choices—because not only are they bringing Israel into disrepute and further isolation; there is an unconscionable stain on this country's history, I fear, with the deaths of so many people. It's disproportionate, and I say this as an ally of Israel. My Jewish community know who I am. They know how hard I have fought for them, and I will continue to do so, but there must be a better solution to this conflict. (Time expired)

It being 5 pm, we'll go to first speeches, and then we will return to this matter.

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

I would like to start off tonight by acknowledging the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people as the traditional custodians of this great land, and I pay my deepest respects to their elders past and present. I acknowledge all First Nations people and your connection to country. No matter where we are, the land always was and always will be that of First Nations people.

I'm humbled and honoured to have been nominated by the Labor Party to serve as a senator for Lutruwita/Tasmania. Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine that I would be here, and it's probably one of the most special things about it for me. It's a testament to the great Australian Labor Party that, no matter who you are, how much money your family has, your gender, your sexuality, your race or your ethnicity, you can become someone that represents your community in a branch, in the party room or even in this incredible place.

My interest in politics started when I was a young boy. My family and I would watch the nightly news. Paul Keating was Prime Minister. Seeing him debate and advocate and the way he engaged with people inspired me to look into the Australian Labor Party. You can imagine how I felt when I found out about Gough Whitlam and Bob Hawke!

Only one thing rivals my passion for the great Australian Labor Party and all that it has achieved for working people and Australian families over the years, and that is my love for Tasmania. I'm sure senators will agree with me here today that Tasmania is the best place on earth. We have the most beautiful land and we have the freshest air, the cleanest water, the best food and wine and the most-hearty people. I've been lucky enough to call north-west Tassie home for most of my life.

Wherever you go in Tasmania, the beauty and the history are like that of no other place. No other capital in our great nation is like Nipaluna/Hobart, where we have the magnificent and mighty mountain, Kunanyi, looking over it. Nowhere else can you find the beauty of Cradle Mountain and our national parks. Nowhere else is there Sheffield, the town of murals, or Stanley, the home of the Nut. We're a beautiful island state, and I encourage all Australians to come, to stay and to experience Tasmania.

For our democracy to be at its best, people need to have faith in those who represent them, and part of that is to know their politicians—who we are, where we have come from and what we stand for. So here's a little bit about me. I was born in Devonport, and I grew up in a town called Spreyton on a nine-acre farm, where I was raised by my hardworking parents, Lynne and Mark, alongside my little brother, Luke. I couldn't have asked for a better life growing up.

My earliest memories are of my mum and dad working tremendously hard to provide for our family. We didn't have a lot of money, but what we did have was a lot of love. I remember dad coming home on a Thursday evening, and he would hand his pay packet to mum. Back in those days you had to tear off the edges to open it up and you would take out the notes and coins. This was our money to survive for the week—food, bills, medicine and the mortgage—and, when it was gone, it was gone. Dad reminds me that having a pizza night was a special occasion for us, like Father's Day.

My dad was—or is, I should say—a glazier. He's now mostly retired. I can only aspire to be as strong as this man. He worked and he worked, and, when I was growing up, I can honestly only remember once when he was ever sick for work. I recall being really worried about why Dad wasn't getting out of his bed for a couple of days. He just didn't ever not go to work. Even to this day, being semi-retired, he is always working and always pottering around the farm. He just never stops.

My mum worked two jobs and then ran our house. She kept our house organised, our stomachs full and our lunch boxes packed. She worked early hours in the morning for Tassie's local bakery, delivering bread all around the local area just in time for the shops to open. Mum would then do cleaning for her friend, who ran a couple of local cottages for accommodation. As you may be able to tell, I idolise my parents. They have given me everything, from a loving home to grow up in to every support possible. Still, to this day, they help me wherever they can. My mum loves to cook dinner for me and my partner all the time. My dad is my handyman, who still sets up things like my washing machine and does everything to do with tools that I haven't yet worked out how to use.

Twenty years ago, my mum was diagnosed with chronic kidney disease. I remember Mum being extremely sick for many days. She just kept getting worse, and a doctor told her to take Panadol. I became incredibly scared for her wellbeing and I actually phoned her doctor and demanded they see her. The next day, she was in ICU. Her kidneys were in real trouble, and Mum was very sick. I remember getting a call from Dad. I was on my lunch break and I think I went into shock, and all I could do was go back to work at the call centre, where I just operated on autopilot until my bosses told me to get to the hospital. To this day, 20 years later, Mum has fought the disease. She has never stopped. Even being on the cusp of dialysis, her strength and her ability to fight has been nothing short of remarkable.

Growing up with my brother, Luke, was pretty typical for young boys—endless fighting, of course. We were, really luckily, on nine acres. We built tree houses and we had motorbikes. Luke had a Honda 50cc, and I had an old postie bike. It was a lot of fun. We had dozens of pets, and they all had their own names, even the sheep. My brother went on to become a beef cattle farmer who works hard to provide for his beautiful eight-year-old daughter, my niece, Miss Zarli Rose, who is feeling extra special today because she is in Canberra having a couple of extra days off school.

I went to public schools—to Spreyton Primary School, Latrobe High School and to Don College. I won't say that my time at school was all roses; I suffered quite a bit of bullying from other kids and there were many times that I felt scared to walk down the halls. I knew that I was different and I was quiet, but I got through it thanks to some tremendous people who have become my lifelong friends. After college, many of us even lived together in an old country farmhouse, which I can say is owned by and very close to the business where a former PM ate an onion out of a box, skin and all. My mates and I weren't popular, but that didn't matter to us. We built the best memories and we shared a lot of firsts—first loves, first heartbreaks, first cars and first car crashes. Last year was particularly challenging for us when we lost our mate Andrew. It was the first death in our group. He died suddenly from a heart attack. He was a genuinely caring person who, to this day, we all miss very dearly. Rest easy, my friend.

I have been fortunate in my life. I can say that I have never not had a job. I started working when I was 17 and still in college, folding and stacking women's clothing and underwear at Kmart in Devonport—something that many people close to me know that it probably wasn't in my comfort zone to do, but I was keen to work and I gave it a red-hot crack. When I finished year 12, I worked full time at a couple of call centres in Devonport. These were run and owned by international companies. They both closed after taking massive subsidies from the state government, leaving a huge hole in the local economy.

Fortunately, at the Sitel call centre, I met my partner and the love of my life, Josh. Yes, I know—Josh and Josh. After over 20 years, you get used to having the same name. I'm so thankful to our nosy lesbian friends, Laura and Joya, who invited us over to dinner and set us up, as I said, 20 years ago. We haven't been apart since. We have just moved back to Latrobe with our three cats, which we adopted from a local cat rescue who I can say do truly great work to save cats and kittens from cruelty. And I can confirm that we are those people that have our phones full of cat photos and videos!

It's not lost upon me—the sense of responsibility of being Labor's first openly gay senator for Tasmania. I hope me being here today can give hope to young queer people that you, too, can come to this great place. But, more importantly, I hope you know that you're already seen, you're understood and you are represented. I acknowledge other LGBTQI+ MPs and senators and the contributions that they have made to progress for our community.

As a young person, I experienced some tough times for being who I am. There were some dangerous times when I was faced with violence and hatred. There were times when I wondered if I'd ever find someone to love and to love me back. I don't bring all this up as a sign of weakness but to give a sense of hope and a shining light to young queer people. If you are going through a tough time, if you're wondering if someone will love you, if you're wondering if things will get better, I want you to know that, yes, you can find love and that you are loved and that things will be okay. Find your safety net and latch on to what makes you happy.

I acknowledge the efforts of Tasmania's Rodney Croome, his struggles and his strength and his outstanding contribution to gay rights and equality in Tasmania. My state was the last to decriminalise homosexuality and the only state to criminalise cross-dressing. And it's hard to imagine, in this time where RuPaul's Drag Race is an international phenomenon, that such laws ever existed. Tasmania has come very far. We have the most progressive and inclusive discrimination, hate speech, relationship and gender-recognition laws, and I pay tribute to my Labor colleagues and activists who have worked so hard to change Tasmania and Australia for the better.

In 2005, I started working in the Australian Public Service at the ATO in Burnie. I spent 15 years helping small businesses comply with their tax obligations. It was a small office of around 50 or so workers, and, at that time, an APS3 job of around $50,000 was a huge deal in the north-west coast. The site grew over the years, and in 2014 a dark cloud seemed to hang over the site. There were massive attacks on the Public Service by the government of the day. Jobs were being lost, and there were multiple attempts to strip workers of their rights and the conditions that had been secured in bargaining and fought for over decades. Closure of the site was a real risk. It was at this point that Jess Munday and Jen Fitzgerald from the CPSU convinced me to become a union delegate. This turned out to be much more of a life-changing moment than I could have ever imagined.

I've always supported unions. My dad was a member of his union. And my first was the SDA at Kmart. I had never seen hands-on how much work union staff do to support their delegates and their members. My organiser, Jen, was a wealth of knowledge for just about everything and was able to support me in my new role. We instantly clicked, and we became mates. Soon after my election, I attended delegate training run by a comrade, Paul Blake. I went back to my workplace not only having the tools I needed to represent members but feeling this new sense of confidence that I could stand up to things happening and know that my union had my back. I represented members in the workplace on collective and individual matters. I took my workplace from two members to 40 per cent density in my first year as a delegate, and I was awarded the Unions Tasmania 2017 Delegate of the Year. I later became an elected section councillor for the tax section, representing members' views in broader union business.

In 2017, Josh and I moved to Hobart to take up career opportunities that weren't available in Burnie at the time. But for me this didn't last long, as in 2018 I took a 12-month sabbatical to work for the CPSU, and I never returned to the tax office. I'd found my calling. I was assigned a patch to represent all Tassie members at Centrelink, Medicare and child support, which is now Services Australia. The work was rewarding, even with long hours and calls late in the evening and on weekends. But I loved every moment of working with this group of members and delegates.

In 2018 through to 2023, the culture at DHS, now Services Australia, was rough. No matter the member or the issue that kept coming up, there was a theme that was always consistent: the employer always seemed to try to say no to a worker who wanted to access flexible arrangements, even when it was against the agreement or where it would cause hardship to the member. Some of the greatest travesties that I have worked with members on were a young mum who was denied access to flexible work arrangements when she was coming back from maternity leave, a volunteer firefighter who was being forced to use annual leave rather than paid miscellaneous leave to go and fight the bushfires that were raging on the mainland, a worker being denied part-time work to allow her to care for her disabled parent, and labour hire workers being sacked for exercising their right to participate in union activities.

Another common issue for some public sector workers was being punished or shamed for taking toilet breaks, and this started our national 'Don't rush to flush' campaign—and it still gets brought out every now and then. I'm sure my comrades will agree.

Psychosocial hazards are common in many workplaces. I had sites where members were constantly calling me about their concerns about bullying, which triggered many work health and safety rights of entry. Never in my career had I experienced workers lining up to talk to me about how horrific their workplace was because of a rogue boss. To see workers change the culture of their workplaces and hold their bosses to account through speaking up and creating a positive reporting culture was a proud organiser moment.

In 2023, I took on a new role as a work health and safety lead organiser, providing internal advice in the union on work health and safety matters. I trained union staff and I provided real-time support to CPSU health and safety reps who were exercising their powers and functions in their workplace. This became incredibly important after a Centrelink worker was stabbed in the workplace at Airport West. I commend the response of the government for implementing a wide-ranging review into safety and security for Services Australia, and I acknowledge the efforts of CPSU members working in Services Australia who have tirelessly advocated for improved safety arrangements to ensure the safety of staff and their customers in their workplace. It's vital that as a government we prioritise worker safety as an integral part of service delivery, because everyone has the right to be safe at work.

Violence and aggression have no place in any workplace, and the work health and safety organiser in me couldn't pass on the opportunity, in my first speech, to encourage people to be kind when dealing with workers doing their job, whether it's in a supermarket, a restaurant or a Centrelink office. Kindness costs nothing, and it makes such a difference to a worker who is serving their community or their customers.

Public services are important. Public servants keep our country running, and this Labor government has done a huge amount of work to rebuild the capacity of the service after a decade of cuts, outsourcing and neglect. We should never forget that public services being provided by public servants is the best and most cost-effective way to serve the community and that outsourcing does nothing but degrade services and allow shonky business to make profits off people. Imagine sitting in an office doing the same job as the person next to you for 30 per cent less pay, with no sick leave, no holidays, no job security, while knowing that your employer is making huge profits off your labour. Shame.

I'd like to applaud Senator Gallagher, as the Minister for the Public Service, for her work to bring decency and respect back to the APS. And, of course, I applaud my union, the CPSU, so capably led by National Secretary Melissa Donnelly, for putting the rebuilding of the Public Service on the agenda and keeping it there. Piece by piece, union member by union member, workplaces are being repaired and rebuilt, and the flow-on effect from better workplaces is better outcomes for veterans, for pensioners, for people with disability, for jobseekers—for all Australians.

The union movement is a family. Members are the union. They are the heart of their union, and it was an honour to serve. In Hobart, at the CPSU, I had four extremely close comrades. We helped each other every day to carry the often heavy hearts and emotions of our members and the delegates who were doing it tough, whether it was an issue affecting one person or many.

I'd like to acknowledge my friends and comrades who have travelled to be here today. Of special note are Mel Donnelly, CPSU Deputy Secretary Rebecca Fawcett, Tasmanian Regional Secretary Zac Batchelor, Jen, Sally, Leonie, Wendy, Brooke and others. It's amazing that you've come to be here with me today. I'd also like to acknowledge CPSU Governing Councillors Scott Plimpton and Paul Wray.

The CPSU and the Tassie union movement are mourning the loss of our comrade Paul Blake, who died unexpectedly on Saturday 19 July. Today would have been his 58th birthday. Paul worked incredibly hard for our movement until the moments before he died. He had a tremendous sense of wit, and I loved every moment of banter with him. There was not a person who met Paul who didn't respect him, and I'm told that even former senator Abetz was quite fond of the man! I'm sorry, Paul; I couldn't help having one last dig at you, my comrade. Paul was a mentor of mine; he was my friend, and I wouldn't be the person that I am without his guidance. The CPSU wouldn't be the union that we are, without Paul. Rest easy, comrade.

I'm so hopeful for the future and the opportunities a second-term Labor government presents for this country and the people of Tasmania. We can strengthen Medicare and public services. We can support workers with safer, secure and well-paid jobs. We can harness the opportunities from the Future Made in Australia plan and manufacture more things here. We can continue to listen to and learn from First Nations people and continue to work on closing the gap. We can support more Australians to realise the great dream of owning their own home.

For this amazing opportunity, I'm thankful to so many people, some I've already named and some I can't get to today. But I'd like to mention the following people: my friend and amazing new member for Braddon, Anne Urquhart; the CPSU; the AMWU Tasmanian State Secretary, Jacob Batt; AMWU National Secretary, Steve Murphy; Paul Erickson; the trade union movement; Senator Tim Ayres; Minister Julie Collins; Senator Carol Brown; Julian Hill MP; and, of course, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese—thank you for placing your faith in me.

I'd like to thank my fellow new Labor class of 2025 senators for your camaraderie. I'd like to thank my Labor caucus colleagues, and I'd like to thank Senator Wong for the very warm welcome. To branch members of the party, the heart of the party: thanks for all the beautiful messages of support. You know who you are. To my staff, Sharifah, Kathryn and Riley: thanks for jumping on this wild ride with me.

To the Tasmanian people: today I've given you a little insight into my story—who I am, where I've come from and what I stand for. I commit to working with the Tassie Labor team, with the Labor caucus and with you, to get outcomes and to fight battles alongside you. My door is open; my staff and I are looking forward to meeting you, to listen and to serve. Thank you.

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

It's a great honour to give my maiden speech in the Senate chamber today. My political journey here has not been a conventional one. I didn't join the Liberal Party as a Young Liberal; I joined the Liberal Party in 2019 as a 35-year-old, when I was eight months pregnant with my fourth child. Five years later, I had the privilege of being preselected for the Senate. Tonight, I'm not going to tell my life story, but I want to share some of the things that shaped me and what I want to achieve in the next six years.

I'm a New Zealand born Australian. I moved with my parents and two big brothers from Queensland to New South Wales when I was 13 years old. When I finished high school, I had no idea what I wanted to do, so I did what so many uninspired 19-year-olds do and enrolled in an arts degree. It led me to anthropology, which, as it turns out, is not the study of ants! Nonetheless, I persevered, and the anthropology of Australia, the Pacific islands and Asia became the focus and passion of the next 10 years of my life.

I loved anthropology because I could immerse myself in cultures and environments unusual to me. I took every opportunity I had to engage with Pacific island culture. I travelled to a small village in the mountains of New Caledonia to better understand peace and conflict and everyday life for the indigenous Kanak people. Back in Brisbane, I would spend my weekends hearing the beautiful songs of Samoan church services and being welcomed into the families to share the umu that followed and to learn more about their experience of life in Australia.

Later I wrote a doctoral thesis about the Karen refugee community's resettlement from Burma to Brisbane. I spent time in their churches too, hearing their beautiful music and sharing in the feasts that followed. I was invited to their homes for tea and to their weddings and funerals. I participated in their ceremonial events. I stayed in refugee camps on the Thai-Burma border to learn about the power of transnational relationships for the over 100,000 people trapped in place and time since the early 1980s. There, I met some of the most resilient and kind-hearted people I've ever come across.

As I was waiting for my thesis to be reviewed, I was approaching 30 and wanted to start a family. However, I was single at the time. So I finally agreed to go on a date with someone I had been friends with for over a decade. Then, five days later, I was offered what I thought was my dream job lecturing at the University of Fiji. I was given the day to decide. I was over the moon, and I called my mother, who was surprisingly unenthusiastic and suggested I take the weekend to think about it. And I'm glad she did because I was given a counteroffer that weekend. Just 10 days after our first date, Ben took me for a walk to my favourite church overlooking the Brisbane River and got down on one knee in the churchyard. He had asked for my parents' permission just a few days earlier.

That weekend, I was faced with a big decision that so many professional women face: career or family. I know that every woman's decision on that is deeply personal and complex. But it was an easy decision for me, and we were married five months later at All Saints' Church, having our first child 12 months after that. We had four kids in four years, none of them being twins. Spending those years at home with my children has been the most rewarding experience of my life. It was also the hardest, for the simple reason that children are hard work. So I kept my mind busy. I wrote papers for publication and studied for a master's in global development, which included an internship with the Minister for International Development and the Pacific. That short time in the minister's office shifted my passion from academic research to policy development. And so, the following year, I nominated for preselection for the division of North Sydney. That preselection didn't eventuate. So, a couple of years later, I tried again, this time for the Senate. I lost that preselection, so I tried again five months later, this time for the now defunct division of North Sydney. But I lost that one too. Three weeks later, I tried again for another Senate casual vacancy, and I lost again.

Having lost three preselections in six months, some people were quietly suggesting to me that constantly losing all the time was making me look bad. But I've always believed that it's not how you win these things; it's how you lose them. As hard as it was to face my children every time I lost, I was never going to let them see me give up. From the bottom of my heart, thank you to all the Liberal Party members who put their faith in me to represent them in the Senate today. There are too many of you to name, and I know some of them would prefer not to be named. But I do want to single out one person and thank my local member, the honourable member for Lane Cove, Anthony Roberts. You backed me from the very start and never gave up on me. I hope I can represent the people of New South Wales with the same unwavering dedication that you have. God bless you, mate.

In all those years at home with the kids, it dawned on me that successive governments have failed to establish a family policy framework that is fit for purpose. The consistently declining Australian birth rate is now at an all-time low of just 1.5 babies per woman. There are many reasons why Australian women are having fewer babies, but we must face up to the reality that a declining birth rate is evidence that Australia's family policy framework is not fit for purpose. Family policy should be the natural home for the Liberal Party. As former prime minister John Howard recognised, we believe that the family unit provides the best social welfare system ever devised. In every culture I've studied and in my own experience family is the glue to a cohesive society and the backbone of a strong nation.

So what does fit-for-purpose family policy look like? Australia has a tax system that recognises the output of individuals but fails to appreciate the contribution of the family. Parents with children should be able to aggregate their marginal tax rates and file jointly. We are a nation of families, not individuals. Income splitting should not just be a tax strategy for the wealthy; it should be a basic right of the home. And we need to encourage bigger families. We should increase the tax-free threshold for a household every time they add a child to the family. When families grow, Australia prospers, and we should be incentivising that.

We also need to accept that the childcare subsidy system is broken. Childcare subsidies are not bringing down the cost of your child care; they are just increasing the burden of your taxes. The childcare subsidy should be abandoned and replaced with a childcare tax deduction. Parents should be free to choose where that childcare tax deduction is applied, because, if parents choose in-home care over private-equity-backed childcare conglomerates, they should not be disadvantaged. We need to rebalance the childcare industry back to its natural state—where child care is a community service, not a profit-making machine.

After being a stay-at-home mum for seven years, I became a research fellow at the Lowy Institute, where I had the opportunity to develop Pacific islands policy and engage with Pacific leaders. I'd particularly like to thank Michael Fullilove, Herve Lemahieu, Amy Dobbin and Dan Flitton for their support during my time at the Lowy Institute. And I give a very special thank you to Jonathan Pryke, the ultimate legend of Pacific islands affairs, who first hired me at Lowy. You saw my time as a stay-at-home mum as a career strength, never a weakness, and, if there were more people with that kind of mindset, this country would be better off.

When Sir Frank Lowy founded the Lowy Institute in 2003, he had a vision: to help Australians better understand the global challenges shaping their lives. He wanted to take Australia to the world and bring the world to Australia. It was, in Sir Frank's words, 'an investment in ideas'. That vision is more important today than it ever was, because, while I grew up with relative peace in our region, my children are growing up in a very different geopolitical environment. In Australia, we need to have an honest conversation about what is going on in the world and what we will do to protect our place in it. As a baseline, we need a comprehensive national security strategy that articulates internal and external threats facing Australia and how we will get ahead of them. A current national security strategy will guide the political, intelligence and defence communities and inform the Australian people about the harsh realities we are facing—something that has not been done by the political leadership for over a decade—because, if Australia's political leadership were completely honest with the Australian people, the case for increasing defence spending would be a no-brainer.

In my third week of being a senator, I took part in the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program, which is led by Lieutenant Colonel Andy Martin. I was embedded in the 3rd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, known as 3RAR, or 'Old Faithful'. I joined them in Townsville as they commenced Exercise Talisman Sabre, where, in 2025, more than 30,000 military personnel from 19 nations honed their war-fighting skills. Old Faithful has a lethal reputation, and the heroes I had the honour of working alongside embodied its tradition of duty, honour, sacrifice and lethality. Over the week, we spent a few days riding in armoured personnel carriers, or APCs. I rode with commanding officer Dan Ellis and RSM Jai Cosgrove. We linked up with the soldiers across the massive training area as they prepared for an upcoming attack, and I had the immense privilege of speaking with many of these Australians who'd made the brave decision to serve their country. And it really hit home that the most powerful weapons we have are our people in uniform. While governments are willing to invest in hardware and technologies, too often they forget that people need investment too.

I was talking to one digger who has a one-year-old daughter and another on the way. He reckoned his baby girl was going to take her first steps any day now, and he knew it was unlikely that he would be there for that. Ultimately, this brave digger knew that sometimes you have to give up the things you love to protect the things you love. Even in peace time, our uniformed men and women give up so much that we easily take for granted. Sometimes it's the small things, like a shower. I didn't shower for a few days, but some of these soldiers will go for weeks, even months, without one. And sometimes it's the bigger things, like missing those first precious steps or the birth of the next child. Then there are the diggers who will pay the ultimate price for training at the highest intensity. It was a privilege to ride in the APCs with these soldiers. It was an honour just to stand next to them.

But our soldiers, sailors and airmen need more. They need weapons, not white papers. They need an industry ready to be repurposed should the need arise—an industry that's continuously building, spurred on by hard and fast rules about minimum local content. Our top-heavy Defence Force needs to be more nimble and less risk averse. Removing personnel caps will help us grow our enlisted ranks. We need to bring recruitment back in house and give units the ability to recruit directly to their ranks. AUKUS is vital to our defence strategy, but we must ensure it does not compromise the resourcing needs of our other force elements.

We need to do so much better for our veterans, who spend years battling the effects of war and service, only to be failed by a clumsy and slow bureaucracy that has been holding back support for too many years and, for some, forever. We must never forget these are real people with real stories who were prepared to give up their lives for us and our children, and too many of them ultimately did.

War is always the last resort. Well before that comes deterrence and diplomacy. Our alliances abroad are critical to our security at home, but we cannot allow dependency to breed complacency. In our region we have a unique vulnerability. Next to us we have not small island states but a large ocean continent. We need a regional security strategy with integration at its core.

The Australian Defence Force has developed deep partnerships with Pacific nations, and we need to build on that. Australia should raise a seventh regular infantry regiment—a Pacific regiment—as an entirely rotational force. While Australia based, the Pacific regiment would take every opportunity offered by its regional allies to train in the islands. Pacific Islanders from nations without a defence force could enlist if their nation has a relevant security agreement with Australia. Pacific nations that already have a defence force could rotate their soldiers through the regiment if they have a security agreement with Australia too.

The Pacific regiment would be online to respond to civil unrest, natural disasters, election integrity and law and order requests from Pacific island governments. The regiment would integrate the region, institutionalise strategic trust and strengthen cultural ties through exchange. History has taught us that Pacific islands are a potential theatre of war. The knowledge exchange and training in Pacific islands terrain for Australian and Pacific soldiers would better prepare them for any conflict that may arise

Defence integration is important, but so too is economic integration. Australia's geopolitical strategy must be coupled with a competitive geoeconomic strategy. The PALM scheme represents one of our greatest opportunities to bring these together. The PALM scheme is a temporary visa program allowing Pacific island workers to plug labour gaps in Australia's primary industries. It's a brilliant piece of foreign and domestic policy, enhancing people-to-people links across our region, bringing economic sustainability to many Pacific islands and productivity to Australia. But it's failing because of red tape.

Look at a country like Tonga. Tongan workers in Australia send more money to Tonga than the Australian government does. Remittances far outweigh aid. This is important. Remittances are not money sent to Australian contractors or big bureaucracies, like most of our aid money is. These are hard-earned wages sent by Pacific Islander workers to support their families back home. This money is putting more food on the table, helping kids to get to school, paying for the GP, financing small businesses and stimulating local economies. Unfortunately, too much of this money sent home is swallowed up by fees, which can be as high as over 15 per cent of the remittance. Bringing down the cost of remitting is vital to a strong geoeconomic strategy for the region.

I don't have the room in this speech to detail my policy solutions on bringing down the cost of remittances—it's a complex space, and I've published on it before—but I will highlight one opportunity. Australia can help Pacific Islander workers to receive a portion of their weekly pay, including their superannuation, in their home countries. This is already happening in New Zealand. Setting up superannuation portability schemes, alongside removing the superannuation withdrawal tax, would have huge impacts on the livelihoods of Pacific Islanders. This early-withdrawal tax is unfair and overly burdensome.

Our Pacific family needs labour mobility, but it needs international trade too. Much like Australia, China is their biggest trading partner, but that too can shift. Pacific countries want to move beyond the aid relationship with Australia. We need to look at where we can bring Australian investment back to the region and take our starting position from aid and dependency to trade and prosperity.

Finally, a competitive geoeconomic strategy in the region would address the alarming problem of debanking. Our declining financial relationships with the region are a critical vulnerability for us and Pacific nations and are weaponised by geopolitical competitors to undermine us. We must help our Pacific family develop a harmonised banking regulation framework that will integrate with Australia's. This will reduce the cost of compliance, lower the risk profile and encourage more Australian and American banks to do business there.

We are blessed to live in the best country in the world, but we must never take it for granted. The freedoms we enjoy today exist because of the brave men and women before us who offered their lives to uphold the rules based order. As a middle power, Australians have a moral obligation to help where we can, understanding the limitations we have. While we swiftly imposed sanctions on Russia for its illegal invasion of Ukraine, for some reason we took a wet-wipe approach to a despotic regime much closer to home. Most of the refugees I met on the border were displaced from Burma, not Myanmar. Any subsequent name change by this antidemocratic government lacks legitimacy. These persecuted people and other minority ethnicities of Burma are innocent victims of the world's longest-running civil war.

We need to expand our economic sanctions, including on Burma's central bank, the primary instrument through which the Tatmadaw, the brutal army governing Burma, finances its wicked war against its own people. This is a pathetic regime that aims for nothing more than to oppress and kill and intimidate its own people. Don't fear what the sanctions will do to the people on the ground; the state has already failed them. Their services barely exist. I've seen, firsthand, Karen soldiers smuggling books and pencils so the children could learn how to read and write. I've seen temporary huts still housing people four decades later—black plastic sheet roofs scorching in the heat of more than 40 summers—where food is scarce but hopes run high. The lucky ones who eventually found a home in Australia had a second chance at a better life.

Before I close, I'd like to thank you all for being here tonight to hear what I have to say. I am deeply humbled. Thank you, mum and dad. The values I am here to fight for are the ones that you instilled in me. My 105-year-old grandmother, Pat, is watching from Wellington in New Zealand. Nana was the 11th person to sign up to the Women's Royal New Zealand Naval Service after World War II broke out. Nan, I love you so very much. Your grace and service inspire me every day. God bless you, and thank you for always answering your mobile phone so we can stay connected, even if it does take a few rings.

To my big brothers: I am the favourite child—and it's now in the Hansard. Thank you for always looking out for me and always being there whenever I'd needed you.

And to my husband, Ben, who believes in me more than anybody else: I'm so glad that I agreed to marry you. That was the easiest and best choice I've ever made.

And to my beautiful children: you always gave me a reason to dust myself off and keep going. I will always put you first when I make my decisions. I will work hard to preserve and protect your hopes, aspirations and freedoms, because, when I fight for you, I fight for the rest of the people in the greatest country in the world. Thank you, Madam President. God bless you all, and may God bless Australia.

Today this parliament will finally acknowledge just some of the horrors of the situation the people in Gaza have faced now for more than 18 months. I'd take a moment to pause and reflect on this being an occasion where we pass a motion that does not erase the people of Palestine and the struggle for a free Palestine, as this chamber did barely 18 months ago, because now we are acknowledging, as a collective, the appalling breaches of international law by the Israeli government, including the use of mass starvation as a tool of war against children, women, civilians and the people of Gaza.

But this motion should, obviously, be the starting point for genuine action, and it is unfortunate that, on the same day that we pass this motion, the Prime Minister dismissed calls for sanctions and material action to stop the genocide in Gaza as 'slogans', to use his word. That is deeply insulting to the millions of Australians calling for the Prime Minister to move from mere words to clear action, to pressure Israel to end the bombing and the killing of Palestinians, and to let food and aid flow into Gaza. The statement signed by Australia on 21 July of this year said:

We are prepared to take further action to support an immediate ceasefire …

Yet that statement was rejected by Israel in less than 24 hours, and the government has taken no such action. As the Prime Minister himself acknowledged today, empty slogans without action will not feed starving children in Gaza.

I encourage the Prime Minister to reach out to the Australian Sanctions Office to understand how Australia is implementing its comprehensive prohibition on the two-way arms trade with Russia, as the clearest example for Israel, to end that two-way arms trade. That action, together with sanctions, is the action needed to meet this moment.

What's going on in Gaza right now is a brutal, calculated slaughter of innocent people. It is a mass murder of civilians. It is the deliberate, engineered use of hunger and starvation as a weapon of war, and people are dying in their droves. Babies are starving to death because of this slaughter and these war crimes.

This, of course, is being perpetrated by the government of Israel, but let's not kid ourselves that Australia is not complicit in these actions, because we are. We're not just complicit in those actions; we are complicit in the outcomes of those actions, in many ways. But this week we have had to listen to Senator Wong saying that weapons components that are being manufactured in Australia and exported and that are critical in the conduct of this genocide are non-lethal in nature. Give me a break. Stop trying to gaslight Australians, Prime Minister and Senator Wong. I say this to the Prime Minister: if you truly believe, as you have repeatedly stated this week, that these actions of the government of Israel are unacceptable, but you are not using every tool in your toolkit to bring about an end to these actions, then I say you are not being genuine. I say you are running a political line, because Australia should sanction the Netanyahu war cabinet at least to the same level it is sanctioning the Russian government.

There needs to be a fundamental shift in how the world views and treats Israel. Israel's genocidal intent has been clear for years, well before October 7, and it has only grown stronger and more sickening. Its leaders have called for mass extermination of Palestinians. They have praised the mass gang rape of Palestinian political prisoners, and they are now starving an entire population to the brink of death. Reports indicate that for many of those who have miraculously survived the carpet bombing of Gaza, starvation has reached a point where, even if survival is possible, long-term damage has already been done. Israel is not a credible actor nor any kind of future partner in peace. They are fundamentally disinterested in the humanity of Palestinians and in peace in the region, and they will say and do anything with no fear of consequences. They murder Palestinians, they bomb Lebanon, they bomb Iran, they bomb Yemen, they bomb Syria, and they do these things openly and advertise their genocide to the world.

One day, everyone will have been against this, and that is what we are beginning to see now. But this is bigger than Netanyahu and his war cabinet. Some people will try to paint it as the actions of a few politicians rather than as a systemic symptom of an ideology shared across government and the Knesset. Next time Israel or the US announce a truncated ceasefire or a hostage swap, or that they have allowed some aid into Gaza, don't let that be the end of the pressure, because they will turn around the next minute and they will continue the slaughter. This sudden onset of mild concern by various western governments, including Australia, must be the beginning of a campaign of maximum pressure against Israel. Words were never enough. Recognition is not enough. Israel must feel the full weight of global pressure, or else the killing will continue.

Question agreed to.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.

by leave—I ask that the opposition's opposition to that motion be recorded in the Hansard.

The Senate will now consider the proposal, under standing order 75, from Senator Dean Smith, which has been circulated and is shown on the Dynamic Red:

Rising and volatile energy prices continue to cripple Australian families and small businesses under Labor, with household power bills skyrocketing by more than 40% during the first term of the Albanese Government, and the National Electricity Market recording a 139% surge in the average spot price between May and June 2025.

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.

Energy insecurity means economic insecurity for every Australian. Affordable, reliable energy underpins our national economy and supports productivity. Manufacturing, industry, agriculture and small business sit next to emerging technologies like cyber and artificial intelligence in needing a dependable, accessible national electricity grid. However, under this Labor government, Australians are experiencing energy price increases which go to the core of driving energy insecurity.

Today's CPI data shows that, under Labor, electricity prices have risen by more than 32 per cent, exclusive of the rebates. Labor promised Australians savings of $275 on annual electricity bills, but we know that prices have soared up to $1,300 more than Labor promised. Our charities are at the coalface of meeting the energy insecurity challenges of Australian families. In its June cost-of-living index, Anglicare Australia revealed:

For the majority of the households we modelled, energy bills are simply unaffordable.

Minister Bowen and Labor have overseen back-to-back hits to household budgets. In June 2025, the national electricity market, the NEM, recorded a staggering month-on-month surge in the average spot price of 139 per cent, increasing from May's $96.28 per megawatt hour to June's average of $232 per megawatt hour. The 2025 year-to-date average now sits 10.6 per cent higher than the same period in 2024. Australian families and Australian businesses, large and small, are struggling under the energy insecurity being created by this Labor government. And under the Australian Energy Regulator's default market offer for 2025-26, which came into force this month on 1 July, residential electricity bills have increased by up to 9.7 per cent, and small-business electricity bills have increased by up to 8.5 per cent. Canstar predicts that this will increase the average power bill by approximately $228.

The Labor government just cannot be believed when it comes to the cost of their energy and emissions reduction policies. They went to the 2022 election with three promises: a $275 cut to bills by 2025, 82 per cent renewables by 2030 and a 43 per cent emissions reduction target. They have failed or are failing on all three. Australians deserve to have clear visibility of the electricity grid transition costs so they can engage in this critical debate about our nation's energy future. It is deeply concerning that the Centre for Public Integrity recently revealed the Albanese Labor government to be one of the least transparent in the modern era. This secrecy also extends and characterises the secrecy they apply to energy policies. Yesterday, the CSIRO handed down its final GenCost report but refused to reveal its modelling on Labor's renewables integration costs.

Minister Bowen is recklessly chasing renewables at any cost—a cost that is being borne by Australian families and Australian businesses, large and small, a cost that risks imperilling the competitiveness of our country, a cost that risks imperilling manufacturing businesses and a cost that risks imperilling heavy industry. Renewable infrastructure construction costs have soared, and it's time for the government to be honest about the cost of its emissions reduction plan. (Time expired)

It's a time-honoured practice from this opposition to lament problems that we have but oppose the solutions. Good energy policy in this country requires vision, evidence based policies and measures, consistency and predictability. It needs us to be able to plan as a nation how we're going to generate the energy we need, and it needs that to permit investment in the relevant infrastructure and delivery mechanisms.

The government's policy is about delivering reliable, affordable and sustainable energy to the Australian people. Senator Smith mentioned two of those things but not the third, which was sustainability, and that sits at the heart—

Give me 10 minutes, and I'll get there.

Well, I always enjoy listening to you, Senator Smith, so I would have. There was an absence of sustainability in that discussion, and there is an absence of sustainability in the Liberals' energy vision. That was perhaps best illustrated in this chamber but a few days ago, when, voting on a net zero motion, you had two members of the coalition on this side of the chamber, you had two members of the coalition on that side of the chamber, and the rest were missing in action. They wouldn't nail their colours to the mast on one of the most important issues facing Australia.

That takes me to consistency and the importance of consistency, because, when those opposite were last in government, they had more than 20 different policies across a decade. No-one knew the direction, no-one could plan and no-one could invest. And that net zero vote simply shows that those opposite haven't learned or done the work necessary to go in and have the policies to solve this issue.

Senator Smith referred to the CSIRO report, and what that said, just this week, was that renewables remain the cheapest form of energy—not coal, not gas, not nuclear. This government is a government that believes in harnessing renewables as part of Australia's energy future to drive down prices long term. We support that because it's a model that's good for the environment and good for the economy.

A decade of inaction has compromised our energy grid. The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis explains:

The existing coal fleet—

in Australia—

… is ageing, and nearing the age when Australian coal power plants have typically retired …

The reliability of coal-fired power stations typically declines as they age, due to the progressive degradation of critical plant components. Age-related wear and tear can increase the frequency of technical issues and outages as the plants need to reduce output or temporarily shut down … to undertake necessary repairs.

That drives up prices and it reduces reliability. The volatility of the power prices we're seeing at the moment is a result of a failure to invest in our system long term.

And there's a study I want to discuss today, which was published just recently, in June this year, from the Griffith University's business school, which examined the counterfactual that is still proposed by senators opposite, and that is: what would happen if we cancelled renewables and reverted to coal and natural gas? What that study found was that the result would be an increase in energy prices of between 30 per cent and 50 per cent—that's looking at it from 2025, if we went with coal and gas rather than renewables and batteries, firmed by gas. On a unit-cost basis, coal- and gas-fired generation were unambiguously the lowest cost technologies in the mid-2000s, setting aside the cost of CO2 emissions. But by 2025 the price of both coal and natural gas had increased at multiples above general rates of inflation. That study found that our 2025 counterfactual scenarios, which deploy new coal-fired and gas-fired generation with no renewables, proved to be surprisingly expensive—more expensive than the model that's been proposed by the government.

The driver of higher prices in energy in Australia is not renewable energy; it's the failure to invest long term, the failure to plan properly. And that's one of the problems when you don't have consistency and vision in energy policy, because the consequences are felt much later. We're facing the consequences now of 10 years of poor energy policy and energy indecision. What Australia needs is a government that will back in successful strategies to fix and modernise our energy market, provide security to operators and encourage investment, and help the country move on from a decade of policy failure in this area. And, luckily for our country, that's exactly what they've got in the Albanese Labor government.

Australian lives are getting more expensive every day because of net zero rorts. Power bills keep going up and the national debt keeps going up, because Australian taxpayers, renters, pensioners, small businesses and anyone who turns on a light are paying for rorts.

I use this opportunity to detail just one of these rorts—it's not illegal, yet it's completely unethical—occurring under the Capacity Investment Scheme. The Capacity Investment Scheme is a wind and solar slush fund that Minister Chris Bowen personally administers. I'm going to quote energy expert Aidan Morrison extensively, and we thank him for all of his contributions to the energy debate in this country. He said:

This is the story of how a fund chaired by former Labor PM Julia Gillard acquired a wind farm project just six days before Labor Energy Minister Chris Bowen underwrote its future revenues with taxpayer money.

Today we've learned Julia's fund is trying to flip it. For a profit.

HMC Capital's 'Energy Transition Fund' rushed to acquire the Neoen Victoria portfolio. They hadn't even raised any money in their fund. They closed with almost a billion dollars worth of borrowed money and IOU's.

Less than a week later, Chris Bowen announced Kentbruck Wind Farm to be successful in the first round of the Capacity Investment Scheme. My rough calculations suggest they will receive something like a billion dollars from taxpayers (and maybe much more) over 15 years.

Sweet deal. A billion dollars of fancy financial monopoly money one week. A billion dollars of promised taxpayer dollars the next.

…   …   …

Unlike the UK who publish a 'going rate' for technology subsidies, our renewables—

unreliables—

are subsidised through a secret tender process—

under the Capacity Investment Scheme. He went on to say:

Every project gets to ask for whatever revenue they want to proceed. @AEMO_Energy—

that's the Australian Energy Market Operator—

facilitates a secret beauty pageant, where they award points for things like indigenous participation or community engagement, alongside financial value.

And Chris Bowen makes the final call.

The bids remain secret. There's no cap to the pay-outs. Since AEMO is a private company, there is no scope for an FOI—

freedom of information—

request, and AEMO aren't not subject to parliamentary oversight through Senate Estimates.

So—

based on the public information—

no-one can ever prove an allegation that Bowen has bestowed special favour on a friend's project if that was what he did. But equally, he can never prove that he selected strictly according to merit. We are just expected to trust the black-box of Bowen's subsidies.

Mr Morrison continues in a reply to his post:

Originally it always appeared to me that @DCCEEW—

the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water—

would administer the scheme.

But Bowen is determined they don't administer it. In fact, going so far as to change the National Electricity Law to make it possible for AEMO Services to do it, and making an interim request to AEMO.

…   …   …

He could have just used the department, but that would make the process more transparent and accountable to parliament. He's basically cutting corners to cut out any chance of oversight.

In Mr Morrison's original post, he says:

Every dollar of profit in this industry—

the so-called solar and wind industry—

is really a cheque signed by a politician, with Chris Bowen signing all the biggest cheques, worth untold billions, in the next three years.

It's all legal. It's all official. And it's absolutely obscene.

The most concerning part of the Capacity Investment Scheme is that we have no idea how big it is. Right now, tens of billions of dollars may be getting handed out in lock-in contracts lasting for the next 15 years. Labor created the Capacity Investment Scheme in 2023. It's since proven extremely popular with solar and wind developers. I wonder why. Now, Minister Bowen wants to expand the program 15 per cent to 40 gigawatts. How many billions of dollars will all this cost taxpayers? We will likely never know. How much are overseas foreign companies ripping out of Australian taxpayers' pockets under the Capacity Investment Scheme? We will never know. With this level of secrecy, rorts are almost guaranteed—and for what?

The biased, discredited CSIRO GenCostreport on the cost of electricity was released just this week. You only have to skim the Centre for Independent Studies' energy publications to understand how, yet even CSIRO had to admit that the lower estimate for coal-fired power is cheaper than wind and solar. Now they admit it, after their fraudulent GenCost report. That's despite a secret model the CSIRO refuses to release to the public and a number of assumptions purpose-designed to make coal look worse than reality—fraud. Fundamentally, Australians have been lied to repeatedly by government agencies. Ditch the economic nonsense from net zero. Ditch the net zero nonsense, in fact. End the corruption. Put Australians first.

Today I rise to speak about the challenge confronting every household, every business and every community in Australia: the rising cost of power, which skyrocketed more than 40 per cent during the first term of the Albanese government. Net zero is driving a rapid and uncompromising shift to renewable energy. It's reshaping our economy, our communities and our way of life. It is a shift that demands honesty about who pays, who benefits and who bears the burden. Those opposite must be honest with the Australian people, with farmers, with small-business owners and with families. They must admit that this energy transition is not free, it is not magical and it is not painless. It is sending manufacturing offshore, driving agriculturalists off their land, sending businesses broke and driving families and businesses to the brink. On top of this, it is being funded by the taxpayer, which, make no mistake, means your money. Whether it's through higher inflation and taxes, steeper power bills or lost economic opportunity, the cost is real and the burden is growing.

Inflation is largely being driven by the energy transition. Labor cannot be believed when it comes to the cost of their energy and emissions reduction policies. They went to the 2022 election with three promises: a $275 cut to power bills, which I, like many other Australians, am still waiting for; an 82 per cent renewables target by 2030; and a 43 per cent emissions reduction. So far, we are yet to achieve any of those targets, and it is fair to say that the renewables target won't be reached. Every extra dollar spent on ever-rising energy bills is a dollar less for groceries, for child care and for mortgage repayments. It's not just about households feeling the pinch. Businesses large and small are grappling with unpredictable costs, shrinking margins and mounting pressure to absorb new compliance requirements. Subsidies for solar panels and electric vehicles, while appealing on paper, often benefit wealthier households, leaving working families behind. The good intentions behind the energy transition do not pay the bills; families do, and many of them are already stretched beyond their limits. Those opposite speak of equity and inclusion, but the reality is that families on the minimum wage, those working two jobs just to make ends meet, are not the ones installing rooftop solar or buying Teslas. They are the ones who pay more at the checkout, more on their rent and more on their power bills.

This transition, as it stands, is deepening inequality. Our farmers, the lifeblood of Australia's food security, under the net zero agenda, face strict limits being imposed on their land use and their livestock emissions. That means slashing herd sizes to cut methane, gutting income and driving up beef prices for everyday Australians. Green farming sounds good in a press release, but for the farmer on the ground it can mean tens of thousands of dollars in costs with no guarantee of return. And the bureaucracy! Complex carbon farming schemes, consultants, forms and red tape. We're asking our farmers to be environmental auditors just to stay afloat. It's absurd. Worse still, prime agricultural land, land that feeds us all, is being swallowed up by wind turbines and solar farms. Farmers are losing the very ground they depend on, all to meet a target funded by their own taxes. And when our local producers go under, we will all pay more. The impact on small business is equally stark. Switching from gas to electric, swapping diesel vehicles for electric or installing new compliant equipment all comes with an upfront cost many small operators simply cannot afford.

The subsidies propping up this transition are staggering, and emissions under Labor are actually rising. This is not a call to abandon environmental responsibility. Every Australian wants a sustainable future, clean air, preserved landscapes and a healthy environment for generations to come, but sustainability must be more than environmental. It must also be economic and social, and it must be fair. We need practical solutions, and we need to invest in base-load power, not just intermittent sources. We need to reduce regulatory burdens on small businesses, and we need to ensure that farmers, families and communities are partners in this transition, not casualties of it.

It's always interesting when the coalition talk about energy in this place, particularly now they're in opposition. Maybe if they'd taken the topic more seriously when they were in government, they might not have any reason to complain about cost of energy today. After nearly a decade in government, they had no fewer than 23 energy policies—I think it's still counting—all of which were abandoned, leaving the Albanese government to pick up the pieces of the mess they left behind. In fact, under the coalition government, Australians suffered some of the highest price increases among industrialised economies around the world, and electricity prices increased by four times the OECD average in Australia. It would be nice if they could resolve where they actually sit on energy policy. As I said, there were 23 energy policies and it looks like they are still going. I'm trying to keep track of it. I picked up the Australian today to see if I could work out where they're at. There was an interesting column by the Australian's editor-at-large, Paul Kelly, titled 'Rejecting net zero will condemn Liberals to electoral oblivion'. The column starts:

The Liberal Party faces a moment of truth. Does it still aspire to be a governing party for Australia or is its future as a right-wing echo chamber for conservatives raging against progressive dominance on climate change?

It's a great question. I would recommend the column to anybody who hasn't read it.

By contrast, our government has listened to the experts and we've backed reliable, affordable and clean energy. Those are the three pillars. You can't just do one and you can't do two. You've got to meet all three pillars if you're serious about energy policy in this country. Importantly, we've provided the certainty to get investment flowing, to secure the jobs we need now and into the future. I am proud to say that Australia is producing a record amount of renewable electricity and our emissions now are lower than when our government took office.

While we've been focused on rolling out cleaner and more reliable energy to power our nation, it seems the coalition—at least some of them—remain committed to the most expensive form of energy: nuclear. So what do the experts say on this? We've heard a lot about the GenCost report from the CSIRO and AEMO—the Energy Market Operator. I will quote from the statement accompanying the release of that report:

… renewables remain the lowest-cost new-build electricity generation technology, while nuclear small modular reactors … are the most costly.

This is confirmation that the government's plan for a fairer, cleaner and more reliable energy system is the right plan for Australian households. The report found that, even accounting for the cost of firming and storage, renewable energy continues to be the lowest-cost new-build technology, underscored further by the falling cost of batteries.

We aren't just focused on renewables and storage. We are taking strong action to provide energy bill relief to Australian households and businesses. People complain that they are waiting for their discount on their power bill, but, unfortunately, the coalition has decided to oppose relief at every step of the way. It's quite ironic when you consider how much they've complained about energy prices. They had a chance to do something about it, but they have found a reason to oppose cost-of-living relief again and again. Despite this, we've provided three rounds of energy bill relief to homes and businesses to ease the burden of bills while doing the well-overdue work of reforming our economy to transition to a renewables led economy.

I would also encourage households to check what other resources there are to make sure they are getting the cheapest energy plan. The ACCC has reported that some 80 per cent of households could be paying less if they switched to a better deal. The government is determined to drive competition in the market, and there are some great resources out there. Energy.gov.au and the AER's Energy Made Easy website can help billpayers find the cheapest plan.

Another way we're helping households is through the Cheaper Home Batteries Program. Barely a month in, this program has seen 16,000 households take advantage of it and add storage to their homes as more Australians embrace renewable energy. The government's Cheaper Home Batteries Program will bring down the cost of a typical battery by around 30 per cent and will save households with existing rooftop solar up to $1,100 off their power bill every year.

To finish, I want to go back to the choice we face here, because we are debating Australia's energy future. Again, I think Paul Kelly summed it up nicely for the Liberal Party:

Does it still aspire to be a governing party for Australia or is its future as a right-wing echo chamber for conservatives raging against progressive dominance on climate change?

…   …   …

What do they want? Government-financed new coal-fired power stations, the sure road to electoral oblivion?

I could not agree more.

I rise to speak on Senator Dean Smith's MPI today because it is indeed a matter of public importance. The most inconvenient truth that the Labor Party will not acknowledge is that affordable and reliable energy has underpinned our country's prosperity for decades, and that is particularly the case in my home state of Victoria. But the reality that's facing households, small businesses and industries today is stark, because under this government Australians are experiencing an energy price crisis. Not only are record numbers of people struggling to pay their energy bills; we're seeing more frequent threats of blackouts in our grid.

As so often is the case with Labor, they seem to ignore those truths. They're quite happy to have the spin, but there is no substance behind the promises they make. Let me remind you of some of those promises. The most obvious one, made prior to the 2022 election—and it was said over 90 times—was that they would reduce energy prices by $275. Well, we are still waiting. There has been no reduction in energy prices. In fact, it's been quite the opposite. Three years on, that cut is nowhere in sight. Instead, over the first term of an Albanese government, household power bills skyrocketed by more than 40 per cent. Power prices are now up $1,300 more than was promised by this government. Now, that's extraordinary. It's eye-watering.

Almost every business that I walked into over the past three years has listed energy bills as their No. 1 cost pressure. It didn't matter whether it was a butcher, or a cafe or a hairdresser that we were visiting, these small businesses were talking about bills and how they had not increased by small amounts but by an extraordinary amount—thousands of dollars.

The only thing that Labor has delivered is back-to-back hits to household budgets. In fact, between May and June this year, just two months after the election, the national electricity market recorded a 139 per cent surge in the average spot price. Let me say it again: a 139 per cent surge in the average spot price in just two months since the election. The 2025 year-to-date average now sits at 10.6 per cent higher than it did in the same period in 2024. Under the Australian Energy Regulator's default market offer for this year, 2025-26, which came into force on 1 July, residential electricity bills have increased by up to 9.7 per cent, and electricity bills for small businesses are up by 8.5 per cent. That's nowhere near the $275 cut that was promised.

Not only did they promise that prices would come down; they also promised there would be 82 per cent renewables by 2030 and that emissions would be reduced by 43 per cent. Once again, Labor's promise was nothing more than hollow. They are very small on delivery. In fact, the government is nowhere near its 82 per cent target, as experts are forecasting. The most optimistic scenario is that it may reach 65 per cent. But at what cost? Even Labor's own longtime adviser Professor Ross Garnaut has claimed the government will miss its target by 'a big margin'. They are his words, not mine.

When it comes to the 43 per cent emissions reduction target, the Climate Change Authority has calculated we'll need a 15-megatonne reduction annually. Instead, emissions are increasing under Labor. In fact, last year they were around six million tonnes higher than they were under the coalition government. Emissions have gone up under Labor. Don't believe what they're telling you. They have gone up. So it's costing you more and you're getting less for what you are paying.

Labor is recklessly chasing a renewables-at-any-cost price at the expense of the grid, at the expense of families, and at the expense of businesses. It's not working to reduce your emissions. It isn't working for households and businesses who are paying those bills. We need to do more. We need to reduce emissions, don't get me wrong. I believe that, fundamentally. But this is a pathway to destruction. It's not a pathway to prosperity.

I want to finish by reading you a text that I got in the chamber from my mother, who is on a set income. She said: 'I need your help, if not this weekend then soon. I'm sorry to interrupt you while you're in Canberra. In the past my electricity bills have been around the $500 mark. I just got one for $1,500. I am panicked. I don't know what to do. They talk about negotiating around a reasonable price'—I think she means "shopping around"—'but I have no idea how to do that. Can you please help me?' When I said, 'Yes, of course, I'll come home and I will help you this weekend,' she said: 'Thanks. That wretched little twerp Bowen. This is paying for his nonsense and lies.'

That's one customer. Heaven help Australians that are suffering under Labor's energy price crisis.

The time for the debate on the MPI has expired.

by leave—I nominate myself as whip for the purposes of the Selection of Bills Committee, to replace Senator Cadell.

Pursuant to the order agreed yesterday, the Senate will now consider the Early Childhood Education and Care (Strengthening Regulation of Early Education) Bill 2025.

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—

In the last few weeks Australians right across the country have been shocked and sickened by the news in Victoria.

A person arrested and charged with multiple heinous offences against children.

Offences allegedly committed in child care centres.

The mums and dads of thousands of children are now dealing with the fear that their children could be hurt or sick, and the trauma of getting them tested.

This matter remains before the courts.

But I have been pretty blunt in the last few weeks.

People have been arrested and convicted for offences like those alleged before.

And governments of different colours, State and Federal have taken action.

But not enough.

And not fast enough.

That's the truth.

We have to do everything we can to ensure the safety of our children when they walk—or are carried—through the doors of an early childhood education and care service.

At centres big and small. But not just there. In family day care, and in-home care and at outside school hours care.

And this Bill is part of that.

In short, it will give us the power to cut off funding to child care centres that aren't up to scratch when it comes to safety and quality.

Services that don't meet the standard when it comes to safety and quality, or where they are in breach of the law or are acting in a way that puts the safety of children at risk.

This power will apply to all forms of early education and care that are eligible for the Child Care Subsidy.

Centre-based day care.

Family Day Care.

In Home Care.

And Outside School Hours care too.

Funding is the big weapon that the Australian Government has to wield here.

Australian taxpayers are the biggest funders of child care centres.

We do that through the Child Care Subsidy.

$16 Billion a year.

Centres can't operate without it.

It covers about 70 per cent of the cost of running the average centre.

It pays for things like wages and rent and electricity.

This legislation gives us the power to suspend or cancel that funding if a centre is not meeting the quality, safety and other compliance requirements that are put in place by our national system of early childhood regulation.

This is how that system works.

The Education and Care Services National Law sets the standards we expect child care centres to meet.

State Government Regulators are responsible for rating centres and enforcing the standards.

Most centres meet the standards now, but not all.

If State Regulators think there is a real and imminent threat to safety they can shut a centre on the spot.

And they do.

Sometimes though they will identify problems in centres that can and need to be fixed.

And sometimes those problems remain unfixed.

That's where this legislation comes in.

The real purpose of this legislation isn't to shut centres down but to raise standards up.

To make sure that the safety and quality in child care centres is what parents expect and children deserve.

This is how it will work.

It will give the Secretary of my Department the power to take into account a provider's quality, safety and compliance history when considering whether a provider should be approved to administer the Child Care Subsidy, whether they should continue to be approved, or if they should be approved to operate a new service.

That has never been part of the Child Care Subsidy system since it commenced in 2018. It will be now.

This change will tie a centre's eligibility to administer the Child Care Subsidy directly to their record on quality, safety and compliance.

And it will allow the Secretary of my Department to cut off access to the Child Care Subsidy where standards are not being met.

That might mean cutting funding to an existing provider or service, or denying a provider the ability to expand until they have met the required standards.

Under these changes, the Secretary will be able to impose conditions on a provider's approval, or to move immediately to a process to suspend or cancel that approval on the basis of safety and quality concerns.

Where conditions are imposed, a provider must meet those conditions within a specified timeframe if they want to maintain their approval.

This could include a condition that the provider comply with directions from their state regulator. It might require them to follow a quality improvement plan or hire a quality and safety expert to help them lift their standards.

As I said a moment, the Secretary of my Department cab also move immediately to a process to suspend or cancel a provider on the basis of quality and safety concerns. That involves issuing a formal notice to the provider requiring a response within 28 days.

If the provider doesn't give a good explanation in that period, the Secretary can cancel or suspend their approval.

It's a process that permits providers an opportunity to engage with my Department where they have a genuine commitment to improve.

These powers will be used in close collaboration with states and territories, backing in their core role regulating quality and safety.

It means the Commonwealth can use the power of the Child Care Subsidy funding to lift the standards of providers not doing the right thing—and ensure those that aren't up to scratch don't get access to Commonwealth funding.

This Bill also expands the Commonwealth's powers to publish information about providers that are sanctioned for non-compliance.

The Secretary of my Department already has the power to publicise actions such as suspending or cancelling a provider's approval for the Child Care Subsidy.

The information is available in the Enforcement Action Register on the Department of Education website, along with other information such as how the department issues infringement notices and imposes conditions on approvals.

This Bill expands that power to include the power to publicise when a provider is refused approval for a new service.

The Bill also gives the Secretary of my Department the power to publish other compliance action taken against providers, such as when conditions are applied—including the details of those conditions.

Or where an infringement notice has been issued, including the details of the notice, such as the alleged contravention and the fine amount.

Conditions and infringements are very important, because they point to specific things a provider must do or fix to stay eligible for the Child Care Subsidy.

Parents should know when a centre their child attends, or one they are thinking of using, is subject to a condition or has received an infringement.

When this legislation is passed, the Secretary of my Department will expand the breadth of the Enforcement Action Register to include those things I have just outlined.

I have asked the Secretary of my Department to ensure the Enforcement Action Register provides parents and other organisations with as much information as possible, given the circumstances of each matter.

Providing more detailed information on compliance actions and refusals of new services is important to ensure parents have the information they need to make one of the most important decisions in their child's early years.

About who they want to put their trust in to care for their child.

It will also ensure transparency for company directors and board members, who may not be directly responsible for the daily management of the provider, but who play an important role in ensuring their organisations are taking the steps needed to keep children safe in early education and care.

The Bill also gives the Commonwealth's authorised officers more powers to do their job. It allows them to perform spot-checks and enter premises without consent during operating hours to detect non-compliance across the sector.

It means that the Commonwealth's officers don't need to get a warrant or other pre-authorisation to inspect a centre, an outside schools hours care service, or family day care service.

These Commonwealth powers largely mirror arrangements in place for state and territory regulators of early child and education care under the National Law and Regulations.

The primary purpose of these compliance officers is to monitor compliance with the family assistance law. This is a serious issue in early education and care.

Over the last three years, this Government has allocated $221 million to detect and prevent Child Care Subsidy fraud, and this has helped claw back around $318 million for the taxpayer.

These new powers are an important part of this.

If while the compliance officers are there, they identify safety and quality concerns, they will also be able to share that information with State Government regulators to take action.

A person who does not co-operate with an authorised person seeking access commits a criminal offence—and is liable to a civil penalty.

The Bill also includes a number of other integrity measures.

It will allow the Secretary of my Department to delegate the power to apply for a monitoring warrant to an appropriately qualified Executive Level officer.

Monitoring warrants are an effective tool in conducting Child Care Subsidy fraud and compliance investigations. These changes will streamline processes allowing warrants to be requested and issued more quickly.

The Bill also makes amendments to allow the Secretary of my Department to delegate their existing power to appoint an appropriately qualified and experienced expert to conduct audits of large child care providers.

This power is expanded to allow delegation to a Senior Executive Service employee. This will further streamline the process for appointing auditors, an important tool in ensuring integrity and compliance in the sector.

The Bill also makes important changes to how gap fees are collected from families who use Family Day Care and In Home Care.

The Bill makes an amendment to require all Family Day Care and In Home Care Providers to collect Child Care Subsidy gap fees directly from families. This will reduce the administrative burden on individual educators so they can focus on providing education and care to children. It will also improve transparency and integrity of Child Care Subsidy funding.

Mr Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is not to shut child care centres down.

It's to raise standards up.

This is not about leaving parents stranded without care for their children because of fixable or minor short-comings at their service.

But this legislation is also not an idle threat.

Services, whether they are centre-based day care, or family day care, or in-home care, or outside school hours care, know what they have to do to consistently meet national quality standards.

Providers that can improve their services to meet the standard will get the chance to do that.

Services that don't, can't, or won't will lose their access to funding.

I think that's fair. And I think most Australian parents will too.

Mr Speaker, this Bill isn't the only thing we have to do to improve safety in child care centres.

There is a lot more.

After Ashley Paul Griffith was arrested and charged in Queensland with multiple child sex offences, Education Ministers across the country commissioned the Australian Children's Education and Care Quality Authority—ACECQA—to conduct a Child Safety Review.

Education Ministers have agreed in principle to the key recommendations of that review.

Some have been implemented. But there is more work that needs to be done.

That includes establishing a National Educator Register to help track workers from centre to centre. And from state to state.

It also means mandatory child safety training to support the 99.9 per cent of educators who care for our children every single day and do a fantastic job, to help them to recognise people who are up to no good.

After 4 Corners exposed appalling examples of abuse and neglect on 17 March this year, the New South Wales Government commissioned Chris Wheeler, a former Deputy New South Wales Ombudsman, to undertake an independent review of the New South Wales Early Childhood Education and Care Regulatory Authority.

The Wheeler Review recommends increasing penalties on services for offences that are largely factual or procedural, and for which prosecution is currently the only avenue available.

It also recommends services be required to display their compliance history alongside their quality ratings to help families make informed choices about child care.

The Wheeler Review also recommends allowing the regulator to require that a provider install CCTV when they identify a potential risk to the health and safety of children at a service, or when the service has failed to meet quality standards for an unreasonable period of time.

These recommendations and more will be considered by Education Ministers when we meet next month.

The other area where serious work is needed is to improve the operation of Working with Children Checks.

Problems here were identified a long time ago.

The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse recommended the Commonwealth Government facilitate a national model for Working with Children Checks.

At the moment the systems in different states work differently.

In some States the Working with Children Check is valid for five years. In others it's two or three years.

In some States only people over eighteen working with children require a Check. In others this is required from the age of fourteen or fifteen.

Jurisdictions also differ in how they assess both criminal and non-conviction information, as well as patterns of behaviour.

There are also issues with getting real time updates to Working with Children Checks and information sharing between jurisdictions.

This system isn't run by Education Ministers. In some States it is run by the Attorney General. In others it is Ministers with responsibility for Child Protection, Human Services, or Families and Communities.

Next month the Commonwealth Attorney General will also bring her state and territory counterparts together to address these serious issues.

Mr Speaker, there is no more serious work than this.

I want to thank my friend and colleague, Senator Jess Walsh, the Minister for Early Childhood Education and Youth, for her leadership on quality and safety in early learning and her work in bringing this Bill to the Parliament.

And I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Minister for Education and their teams for the serious and professional and bipartisan way they have engaged with us on this legislation.

To make sure we get it right.

It's what mums and dads across the country want of us. And expect of us.

They are not interested in excuses.

They expect action.

They expect all levels of Government to work together and the people that run child care services to join in as well.

We all know, no party, no government, State or Federal, has done everything we need to do here.

That's obvious.

But I think everyone here is determined to do what needs to be done to rebuild confidence in a system that parents need to have confidence in.

A system that more than a million mums and dads rely on to care for and educate the most important people in their world—their children.

This legislation is an important part of that.

It's not everything.

The truth is this work will never end.

But this is an important step.

And I commend this Bill to the House.

I am pleased to make a contribution to the debate on the Early Childhood Education and Care (Strengthening Regulation of Early Education) Bill 2025. At the outset, I want to indicate that the opposition, of course, will be supporting the legislation that the government has brought forward, because this is an important issue that needs urgent resolution. It's something that, as has been said several times in this debate, is above politics—support for families and their children, the users of the childcare system; ensuring that the system is operating at the best standard; and that protections are available are matters that are everyone's responsibility. To that end, as has been publicly reported, Sussan Ley, the Leader of the Opposition, wrote to the Prime Minister some time ago to offer bipartisan support in ensuring that this legislation is dealt with urgently.

I want to pay tribute to Jason Clare, the Minister for Education, who has been nothing short of professional and forthcoming with information and providing briefings. Every time we've had a request or a question, he has been immediate in his response. It is that sort of professional engagement that, I have to say, restores my faith in our ability as a parliament to do good things for our community. I pay tribute to him for what he did in bringing us to this conclusion.

I also want to say that, while we will canvass difficult issues—we will be dealing with a range of horrendous events that have brought us to the need to legislate to protect Australian children in childcare settings—99.9 per cent of childcare workers in our country are good people motivated by a desire to do the right thing, to care for our children, to educate our young and to ensure that the best outcomes are available for them. They go to work every day with a desire to love and care for those children. I want to thank them for what they do. This is a difficult time for those workers as well, given everything that has been reported, the added pressure and the concerns no doubt being expressed by parents as a result of much media reporting. This should go some way to assisting them in knowing that we have their back too.

The legislation that we have before us, which the government brought in as a matter of urgency—and, as I've indicated, the opposition will support it—achieves three objectives. It prioritises quality and safety considerations when assessing whether providers can receive the Commonwealth's childcare subsidy. It expands the powers for the Secretary of the Department of Education to publicise actions taken against providers who are in breach of those standards. Finally, it enables authorised officers of the department to conduct unannounced service visits and spot checks. All of these measures are important. Perhaps it is odd that, at the moment, quality and safety aren't considerations for the department. I suppose part of the reason for that is that state and territory governments, which have a very important role to play here, are the primary form of regulation, or the regulatory authority, when it comes to the operation of childcare centres and their services across the country.

It is important that we don't end up with a duplicate of the services or the regulation provided by either level of government. That is not what this is about. But adding those two considerations in to the department's consideration is a very important addition when it comes to the suite of tools that should be available to governments—plural—to deal with centres that are not achieving the standards that we, as a country, on behalf of parents, believe should be reached by centres.

If centres are not providing a quality service, a safe service, then we should be able to withdraw from them taxpayer funds that are provided to them to offer the service to the community. I think it will be quite an incentive to ensure that standards are met, to have that withdrawal made if a centre continues to breach standards.

Being able to be transparent about what is happening in a centre is also important—informing parents about conditions or breaches or any sanction that has been put in place in relation to a centre. This new power the secretary will have is, similarly, very important. As a parent of three boys myself, if I were putting them into an institution, a childcare centre, I would want to know if there were certain conditions—or, indeed, any sanctions—being placed on that centre.

The ability for authorised officers to enter a childcare service without warning, without the need for a warrant or the need to be accompanied by the AFP, is also important. We have heard stories where, when an authorised officer pre-organises to go and visit a centre at a set point in time in the future, childcare workers will, at their employer's request, commence a working bee, perhaps over a weekend, to bring things up to standard so that, when the authorised officers turn up on site, all of the problems have miraculously disappeared. I think that has made a mockery of our ability to make sure that standards are being met, and I don't think there's a parent out there that has a child in care that would think this measure is in any way too draconian.

But the reality is that, while these laws and the proposal we have before us are good and things we endorse and support, they go only so far. The reality is that Commonwealth powers, when it comes to the childcare sector, start and end, in effect, with the administration of the National Quality Standard and, of course, of the childcare support payment. That is the limited power we have, as a Commonwealth, to deal with these issues.

The rest of the responsibility lies with state and territory governments. Once these laws do ultimately pass this parliament—and I'm pleased that they will pass without any issue—it will then be for state and territory ministers to deal with some of the issues they are now confronted with. There are issues that cannot be canvassed or covered by federal legislation that we do need to ensure are taken care of. We've heard talk of a range of matters which cover portfolios of education and child protection, but also state and territory attorneys-general. And, while it's difficult to bring all of those things together, I think it is essential. So it is incumbent upon this government, the Commonwealth government, to bring those state and territory ministers, and the various portfolios they exist in, together, to urgently progress the reforms that are needed to address all of the gaps, the cracks and the problems we have remaining in our childcare sector, to ensure that we never again see the proliferation of child exploitation activity—of harm coming to children in our childcare sector. It is, as I say, urgent that they get on with that.

Some of those measures will include addressing matters related to the working-with-children check. The fact that we have a fragmented working-with-children-check system in this country, state by state or territory by territory, where there is no communication between the jurisdictions' databases, is, I think, a major failing. Indeed, it is something that was picked up in the royal commission, many years ago—a decade ago. And that was a time when we were in government. I've made it very clear on the public record a number of times now that this is not a political issue, this is not a blame game and this is not about looking back and seeing who stuffed up when. We have a problem now that needs resolving now, which is why the opposition offered bipartisan support to resolve these matters urgently. Again, that offer of bipartisanship will be extended to ensuring that state and territory ministers are brought together to deal with all of the remaining issues that need to be dealt with.

Additionally, on working with children checks, the fact is that these forms of information really only become valuable or kick into gear when someone commits a crime and is convicted as a result of an investigation. Then that person loses their working with children authorisation. As we know, with some of the events that occurred in Victoria—the allegations that have been aired and the charges that have been laid—the individual concerned in this situation had a working with children check, because the criminal investigation side of things was not enacted. There was not a series of events that would have led to these things being picked up through the system that we currently have deployed in this country.

Similarly—and I acknowledge that the government does intend to ensure that this is progressed through cooperation between Commonwealth and state and territory governments—we need a system of registration for childcare workers across the country. I hope we will see the deployment of real-time information about workers and the history they have in their former places of employment available to future employers. If someone leaves Queensland and goes to take up a position of employment in Tasmania or Victoria or wherever it might be, I think it should be more than possible for that employee to have information available about them so that an employer knows who it is they are employing, what type of employee they are, whether complaints were made, whether complaints were substantiated and what action was taken. Those things are an important part of any available history, especially in an industry which is highly regulated for good reason. Clearly, this information-sharing gap has led to problems.

Similarly, the deployment of CCTV in childcare centres is something that needs addressing. I know there are community concerns out there around privacy both for workers and, importantly, for children. I think there are ways of being able to safeguard systems that provide security and safety for children in childcare settings but that enable the deployment of this important measure around CCTV. I was surprised to learn that it wasn't mandatory. In my own personal experience, more than a decade ago, I saw childcare centres with CCTV systems and just assumed it was mandatory. But to learn that across the country there are different arrangements in place highlights how, sadly, perpetrators of some of these horrendous acts unto our most vulnerable have been able to get away with what they have got away with.

There is a lot of work to do, and we cannot, with the passage of this legislation, say 'job done'. I know the government does not think that. We certainly do not as an opposition. We are now saying that, once these laws pass, it is absolutely essential that the Commonwealth bring together state and territory ministers to finish the job and to do what needs to be done. There have been too many incidents that have caused too much harm to young people and their families—some of the heartbreaking stories I've read in recent days about events in centres. These are events that will change the lives of those young people and their families forever. Collectively, it is a failure on our part—all of us, over time, who have not done what needs to be done to ensure that we stop these bad people from doing what they have done.

I commend the government for acting so quickly to get this done. I again thank the minister for the briefings and the departmental officials who've worked so hard to put in place what we're now seeking to pass through this place. But, again, it is only a small part of the solution required, and I do hope that state and territory ministers, in the various portfolios that will have responsibilities here, get their skates on and do what needs to be done. It is up to the Commonwealth to ensure that these reforms progress, and it's something we will be keeping a close eye on. But we do that, again, in the spirit of bipartisanship, because it is essential that we get this right. If we're talking about these sorts of things happening again—in a year's time or in six months time or whenever it might be—then we have failed, and we cannot afford to do that.

For the young people whose lives have been absolutely devastated by this, and their families—my heart goes out to them. We owe it to them, so I commend this bill to the Senate and thank the government for their work.

I'm pleased to rise to speak on the Early Childhood Education and Care (Strengthening Regulation of Early Education) Bill 2025. This is an important piece of legislation. Every parent should feel confident that, when they drop their child off at an early learning centre, they are leaving them in a place that is safe, high quality and well run. I know that, when my children went to early learning centres, that's what I assumed I was dropping them off to—a place that was safe, high quality and well run.

Sadly, recent events—horrendous acts—have shaken that confidence. In Victoria, families have been left traumatised after the arrest of an individual facing serious charges involving children at multiple early learning centres. Thousands of parents are now dealing with the fear that their child may be harmed in a place that was meant to protect them.

This bill is part of our government's response. It strengthens the Commonwealth's role in ensuring safety and quality in early childhood education and care. Most early learning providers across Australia, as we've heard the shadow minister say in his contribution, do the right thing. They work hard every day to give children the best start in life. But we've seen what happens when a small number of services repeatedly fail to meet the standard. This bill gives the Commonwealth power to act when services fall short—not just after harm is done, but before it happens. It's about using the biggest lever we have, the childcare subsidy, to lift standards, not just respond to problems.

At its core, the bill does four key things. First, it puts quality and safety at the centre of provider approvals. If a provider has a poor track record, they can be refused approval or stopped from expanding. Second, it strengthens the department's compliance powers, including the power to suspend or cancel approvals where standards aren't met. Third, it increases transparency, allowing the department to publish more information about enforcement actions. And, finally, it gives Commonwealth officers the power to carry out unannounced spot checks, just like state regulators already do.

These are commonsense reforms, and they are needed. The Commonwealth does not license or regulate childcare centres—that's a job for the states and territories—but we do fund the system. The Commonwealth provides around $16 billion a year in childcare subsidy payments. That funding covers about 70 per cent of the cost of running a typical service. That gives us a powerful responsibility to ensure public funding is tied to high standards.

This legislation gives the secretary of the department the ability to consider a provider's full record—including serious incidents, complaints and prior compliance breaches—when deciding whether they should receive public funding. It also allows for notices to be issued, for conditions placed on approvals and, in serious cases, for approval to be withdrawn altogether. Providers will still have the chance to respond. This is not about unfairly penalising services; it is about setting a clear expectation. If you don't provide safe, high-quality care, you can't expect public support.

The bill also expands the enforcement register. This means parents will be able to see if a provider has been refused a new service, issued an infringement notice or had conditions placed on their operations. That transparency matters. Choosing a childcare service is one of the most important decisions a family makes. Parents deserve access to clear, timely information. These reforms also extend to family daycare centres and in-home care, where oversight can be more difficult. From January, providers in these settings will be required to collect gap fees directly from families. This will reduce fraud and simplify administration.

The bill also streamlines how compliance officers operate, especially in regional and remote areas, and allows quicker auditing of large providers when concerns arise. We are also working on a stronger national oversight, including better tracking of educators' histories across the services. We are supporting improvements to working-with-children checks and continuing to invest in educator training and professional development. There is no single solution to keeping children safe in early learning, but this bill is a major step forward, and doing nothing is not an option. For the good providers already doing the right thing, this bill creates a more level playing field. For families, it helps to restore trust that early learning is safe and properly monitored.

This reform has been developed in consultation with the sector. The government has worked closely with state and territory regulators and with key stakeholders, including Family Day Care Australia and the Australian Home Childcare Association. Their feedback helped shape the bill and ensure the measures are practical and supported. This work continues Labor's longstanding commitment to early childhood education. Every child deserves the best start, and every parent deserves confidence in the system. We are also working with state and territory governments on a strong and significant package of reforms. As was acknowledged by Senator Duniam in his contribution, the Commonwealth has limited powers. State and territory governments also need to deal with the issues that we are being confronted with. We need to work together.

As the education minister has said, the goal is to give every educator and provider the tools to help keep children safe and to give parents peace of mind. These are the next steps in building a stronger, safer early education system, and this bill is the foundation.

I rise to speak in support of the Early Childhood Education and Care (Strengthening Regulation of Early Education) Bill 2025. Every child deserves a safe, high-quality early education. Wherever public money is spent, we must have strong, transparent mechanisms to ensure accountability. This bill introduces measures the Greens support, but, let's be clear, it will not fix a system where too many children and families are being let down.

We have all seen the tragic reports in recent months of stories that are hard to read and harder to forget—allegations of abuse, neglect and malpractice in early learning settings, including horrifying reports just this week in Queensland and last month in my home state of Victoria. We have seen the bravery of whistleblowers and journalists, the tireless work of educators and the grief and anger of families who trusted a system that failed them. The truth, as we all know, is that these are not isolated incidents. They expose deeper, systemic failures. They confirm what many in the sector and many parents already know, that our current model is ill equipped to ensure consistently high-quality, safe early education for our children. That's an indictment on all of us. It should never take tragedy to trigger reform.

So, yes, we do support this bill, but let's be honest: it is not a silver bullet. It's a small step in the right direction, but it is far from sufficient. Tinkering with the subsidy system won't keep children safe. Right now, around 11 per cent of long day care centres are rated as working towards national quality standards, so they haven't met them. That's over 1,000 services operating and receiving taxpayer subsidies despite not meeting basic benchmarks in education, health, safety and wellbeing. That's not good enough. Australia has world-class national quality standards on paper, but standards alone mean little without enforcement. They need to be backed properly by funded regulators, clear accountability and real consequences when things go wrong. Instead, we rely on underresourced state and territory regulators to do the heavy lifting. These agencies are stretched thin. One in 10 services still don't even have a quality rating. Complaints go unresolved. Children's safety is repeatedly put at risk.

Independent analysis of this bill's measures highlights that underfunded regulators, combined with long delays in quality assessments, may limit the bill's effectiveness. While this bill strengthens enforcement powers, it doesn't guarantee improved safety or quality. It does not lift standards across the board. That's because the deeper issues lie in the funding model itself, a model that treats early education as an industry to profiteer off, not a human right. We have a system where the childcare subsidy actively incentivises putting profit over quality care, while failing to guarantee safety or high standards, failing to guarantee access, failing to guarantee inclusion and failing to guarantee fair conditions for educators. Just last week, we drove past a for-profit centre called Little Assets. Can you get more blatant than that?

The childcare subsidy funnels billions in public money—$16 billion this year—into a sector dominated by for-profit providers, including multinational ASX listed corporations. In the past decade, 95 per cent of new providers entering the system have been for profit, and this is our children's early education we're speaking about. As a result, money meant for children's education and care is leaking out of the system into shareholder profits, including offshore. To quote Catherine Liddle, CEO of SNAICC, the national voice for First Nations children:

… we can't ensure that safety until the underlying systemic issues impacting Australia's early learning and care sector are properly addressed.

Australia's current Child Care Subsidy funding model has contributed to a profit-driven environment, where some providers are able to put financial gain ahead of the wellbeing of children.

Unless we fundamentally shift the way early education is funded and supported, we will continue to see safety and quality issues arise.

The data backs her up. For-profit providers consistently underperform on quality. Just 13 per cent exceed the national quality standards, compared to 28 per cent of not-for-profit services.

As the Greens spokesperson for early childhood education and care and as a mum of a two-year-old, I hear time and time again from families about the deep trust they place in their local community or not-for-profit centres. I'm fortunate to send my daughter to a fabulous council run service. But access to high-quality, safe, not-for-profit early education shouldn't be a privilege; it's a right. One constituent was brought to tears by the mere possibility that their beloved community centre would be taken over by a private provider. These centres become part of the village to help raise our children. They are trusted, they are embedded and they are irreplaceable. Yet we're seeing these services frozen out and pushed aside by a system that favours profit over people.

That's why I've proudly stood with families in Victoria to defend community run centres: in Windsor, to save the incredible Windsor Community Children's Centre, and in Footscray, to celebrate the Bulldogs Community Children's Centre remaining in community hands, where it belongs. These services show what's possible when care comes first, when there's no incentive to cut corners and no shareholders—only educators, family and children.

But quality and safety aren't the only challenges we face. To build a world-class early learning system, we must address the workforce crisis, fix access and make genuinely affordable care a priority. Educators, the absolute backbone of the system, are being pushed to breaking point. Research shows that they work on average an additional nine hours of unpaid labour every single week, on top of already low wages, high turnover and chronic understaffing. We ask these professionals to perform the most important work possible, yet we don't pay them properly, we don't value them and we don't resource them, and it's no wonder that they are leaving this sector in droves and, of course, that quality is slipping. Families are also under pressure. Over 35 per cent of Australians live in childcare deserts, areas where fewer than one place is available for every three children requiring care. These disproportionately affect rural and regional areas, First Nations communities and lower income families. For many families, costs remain a huge barrier, and families are spending on average $140 a week out of pocket on early childhood education and care, and this is often much higher. For single parents, families with multiple children or those grappling with housing, these costs can be prohibitive to their children having those crucial early-years education. Parents are forced to make impossible choices about whether they return to work, take up training opportunities or put their careers on hold. For those who want to make the decision to stay home with their kids, that's great. But some women, parents and families don't want that; they would like the choice and they deserve the choice.

This isn't just a family issue; it's an economic one. The Australia Institute estimates that fixing early education could deliver a whopping $168 billion back to our economy. Most importantly, this is about our children. Missing out on early learning means missing out on vital social, emotional and cognitive development that lays the foundation for everything that follows. Ninety per cent of the brain develops before a child turns five years old. We guarantee access to primary school; why not guarantee access to those crucial early-years education, especially now when experts warn that NAPLAN results show one-third of students aren't meeting expectations in literacy or numeracy? Labor's three-day guarantee act was a step forward in recognising early learning as more than child minding. It's education. It's a human right. But let's be clear; we do not yet have a functioning early learning system, and tinkering at the edges simply won't fix it.

The Greens believe it's time to rethink early education and care from the ground up. At the last election, we proposed a bold plan for universal, high-quality education and care just like primary and secondary school. Our plan would replace the broken CCS with direct public funding. It would give government more control over quality and access. It would guarantee funding for Aboriginal community controlled organisations, better support for children with additional needs and fair pay for our educators. Crucially, it would establish a new early childhood education and care commission. This commission would act as a national watchdog. It would have real powers to oversee quality, safety, access, workforce conditions and funding. It would ensure that public money is well spent and that services are accountable, not just punished after the fact, as this bill proposes. It would provide the leadership that this sector so desperately needs, because right now that leadership does not exist in this place. State regulators are under strain, and peak bodies and advocates are filling the gaps, but there is no central independent steward for one of our most essential public services. Passing the buck between the states and feds is failing our children. This commission would be the brain and backbone of the early learning system. It would coordinate reform, enhance standards and hold providers accountable for public money.

The Parenthood, a powerful voice for families, has endorsed this proposal. So too has Royal Far West and national charities supporting rural and remote children's health and wellbeing. Now, the ball is in the government's court. Are they willing to work with us on real reform and oversight of our federal early education system, or will they keep papering over the cracks of a broken system? How we treat our youngest generation says everything about who we are. If we can't prioritise their safety or guarantee their right to learn in these formative years, then what are we here for? Early learning can be the great equaliser, but only if it's truly accessible, high quality and truly universal, only if we stop treating it like a commodity and start treating it as a public good, and only if we put children and educators ahead of profit.

So, yes, we support this bill. No service that consistently fails quality standards should continue to receive public funds, but that should be the absolute baseline. This bill is a bandaid. It's not a plan, and it's not a vision. We need more than reactive tools to act after harm occurs. We need leadership to prevent harm from occurring in the first place. The Prime Minister has said—and we welcome this—that he wants the universal provision of affordable child care to be the political achievement that he's most remembered for. Well, is he ready to deliver that legacy?

The Greens are ready to work constructively with the government. Between us, we have the numbers to get stuff done. There's nothing standing in the way other than political will. And we don't underestimate the task at hand. We know it's a big job, but we're up to it. We have to be for our children's sake. It's because of this that I'll be moving the Greens second reading amendment standing in my name to note the need for broader reform to make early childhood education and care universal and high quality. And we will call on the government to establish an independent early childhood education and care commission that has regulatory powers to monitor and enforce compliance with the national quality standards. It's tasked with leading national coordination and driving sector-wide reform, and it's responsible for overseeing the long-term transition to a free, universal and high-quality early learning system.

Our children deserve better than patchwork solutions. They deserve a system built around their needs, not for corporate profits. Let's build something better, something lasting, because our kids and the communities that are raising them are depending on us to act. As Georgie Dent from the Parenthood so powerfully said, 'This is a moment to act, not just to react.' Let this be the moment we choose action, the moment we commit to building a system that puts children first, values educators and restores trust for every family in every community across this country.

I move:

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

(a) notes the need for broader reform to make early childhood education and care universal and high-quality; and

(b) calls on the Government to establish an independent national Early Childhood Education and Care Commission, which should:

(i) have regulatory powers to monitor and enforce compliance with the National Quality Standards,

(ii) be tasked with leading national coordination and sector-wide reform, and

(iii) drive the long-term transition to a free, universal, and high-quality early education system".

I too would like to echo the sentiments of my colleague Senator Duniam. The coalition will be supporting the Early Childhood Education and Care (Strengthening Regulation of Early Education) Bill 2025. And I think it's fair to say that this chamber is united in wanting to make sure that we are protecting the rights of children within our country. The horrifying reports of the alleged widespread abuse in the Australian childcare centres have rightly shocked the nation. As a mother, my heart absolutely goes out to all of the families that have been impacted. We are unwavering in our support for changes which better protect children in care settings and give confidence to the millions of families that rely on child care. For any parent, the safety and wellbeing of their children are paramount. When that trust is broken, the consequences are devastating for families and corrosive to society's confidence in institutions that are meant to protect and care for our most vulnerable.

In the wake of such revelations, it is natural to hear calls for more government action, more regulation, more oversight and more checks, but too often government responses are designed to demonstrate activity rather than deliver genuine solutions. When government solves one problem, it often creates two more in its place. Proposals such as mandating child welfare officers in every centre or expanding already burdensome background checks may sound reassuring, but they risk piling more bureaucracy on an already strained system, driving up the cost of child care and making it even harder for families to access affordable services, though I understand in this case there is a need for action.

The main levers to improve the safety of early learning centres for children are actually outside of the Commonwealth's legislative powers. They fall predominantly to the states and territories, who are responsible for the regulation of these services, and, as identified in the New South Wales Wheeler report, there is much more that state and territory regulators can and should do.

I would like to see measures to ensure centres aren't bogged down with paperwork and paralysed by compliance. I think it's important to note that, in this, we need to ensure that good people—passionate people dedicated to the care of our children—are still attracted to work in this vital industry. They are the very people we need, to keep our children safe.

We shouldn't be complacent and pretend that more federal, state or territory regulation somehow makes criminal behaviour less likely. We already have laws; every state and territory government has the legislative power to pursue and prosecute criminal conduct in early childhood settings. There is no one simple solution to keeping children safe, but I think it is fair to note that no amount of red tape can stop someone who is determined to do harm. We saw that in Queensland, in New South Wales and, most recently, in Victoria.

In December 2023, the Australian Children's Education and Care Quality Authority published a review of child safety arrangements under the National Quality Framework. The government has had the regulator's review of child safety arrangements for more than 18 months. The Albanese government has been slow to act on the 16 recommendations. It has taken almost two years for the government to enact the simple change to the reporting requirements for physical and sexual abuse, from seven days to 24 hours, and it will come into force on 1 September this year. As Jason Clare said, those changes should have been implemented yesterday.

But you can't regulate morality, you can't legislate decency, and you certainly can't bureaucrat your way out of evil. The priority here is, absolutely, foremost, keeping our children safe. But I think it is time to think beyond the immediate fix. It's time to empower families. We should be supporting parents in making the choice that works best for them, whether that means returning to work and using a childcare centre or staying at home to care for their own children. It might even be using a relative or loved one to care for their children.

We should stop forcing families into rigid, one-size-fits-all systems and recognise the value of informal care, particularly that of grandparents, aunties, uncles, neighbours and members of the community—the people who already love and know these children. It is incumbent on all of us here to build a system that gives parents the financial freedom and the flexibility to choose what is right for their children and their families. For many families, especially in culturally diverse communities, informal family based care isn't a fallback; it's the norm. And our system should support, not penalise, that choice. If we truly want to keep our children safe—and I believe that everyone in this place does—then let's focus on strengthening families, not just growing government. Let's give families the tools, the trust and the freedom to raise their children in a way that suits them best.

This bill is well intentioned, but intention is not the same as impact. The coalition supports this bill, but real safety, real reform and real support for Australian families will not come from this bill alone. It will come when we stop reaching for more regulation and start reaching for common sense and policies that empower and give families the freedom to choose what works best for them.

Next month, like thousands of Australian families, I will take my young son to child care for the first time. I do so with a mix of excitement, for the wonderful child development opportunities that await my young son, and of deep sadness, over the horrific child abuse allegations that we have seen uncovered across Australia. I know in my heart that these perpetrators of abuse are not representative of the thousands of incredible educators who commit their lives to loving and guiding our littlest people through their most important years.

I also want to acknowledge that our educators are hurting too. My heart goes out to the early education sector, which is filled with good, decent and loving educators. They are upset and they are angry, just like us. But tonight we take action. On behalf of more than one million Australians with children in child care, I say thank you to the Prime Minister for his swift action. I also say thank you to the Minister for Education, Jason Clare, and the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Senator Jess Walsh. Ministers Clare and Walsh have stepped up to this moment without hesitation. They have confronted this moment without excuses and sought to fast-track these amendments as urgently as Australian parents would expect them to.

This bill, the Early Childhood Education and Care (Strengthening Regulation of Early Education) Bill 2025, provides levers to drive real and meaningful change. Seventy per cent of the running costs for early education centres are provided for from the Commonwealth childcare subsidy. This bill gives the Commonwealth the power to immediately cut off the childcare subsidy for centres falling below the standard, or even for one single safety breach. The states and territories remain the regulators for centres, responsible for regulating safety and quality across centres in their jurisdiction.

This bill also expands powers for on-the-spot inspections without warrants or police accompaniment to investigate fraud, misconduct and noncompliance. A national register for childcare workers will be established to track the employment history of workers, to prevent them moving between centres undetected, looking for red flags and taking swift action.

I wish to acknowledge that there is further policy work underway, including mandatory child safety training for all workers to identify potential grooming behaviour and the abuse of children. I also acknowledge that there are trials underway on the use of CCTV, to carefully consider the use of this technology to deter offenders but, most importantly, to protect privacy.

I support this bill, and I call on all states and territories to continue to work with the Commonwealth to take strong action to enhance safety and quality in our early education centres.

The coalition will support the Early Childhood Education and Care (Strengthening Regulation of Early Education) Bill 2025. As the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Sussan Ley, has said, child safety is above politics. We are unwavering in our support for changes which better protect children in childcare settings and that give confidence to the one million families that rely on child care. The early learning workforce is a critical and valued workforce, and we acknowledge the work that they do. This bill only goes so far, and we are calling on the Albanese government to exercise leadership with states and territories to progress other measures swiftly. They need to engage the states and territories to do the things that they need to do to ensure that changes are made.

The bill amends the family assistance law to do three things. Firstly, it allows the secretary to financially penalise providers through suspension or cancellation of the childcare subsidy. Secondly, it effectively allows stronger name-and-shame powers, especially on the Starting Blocks website, by expanding the secretary's powers to publicise details about providers. Thirdly, it enables authorised officers to conduct unannounced visits to services, noting this duplicates existing powers of state and territory regulators.

But this bill goes only so far to shifting the dial when it comes to making childcare centres safer. The main levers to improve the safety of early learning centres for children are outside of the Commonwealth's legislative powers; they sit with the states and territories, who are responsible for the regulation of these services. As identified in the New South Wales Wheeler report, there is much more that state and territory regulators can and should do. This is their remit. It is their responsibility to do this, and the Commonwealth should compel them to do so, but that doesn't absolve the Commonwealth of its responsibilities.

This is why we call on the government to work with the states and territories to do three things urgently: firstly, implement a national approach to working-with-children checks; secondly, implement a national register of workers; and, thirdly, implement a mobile phone ban. The National Model Code for Taking Images or Videos of Children while Providing Early Childhood Education and Care developed by the national regulator is currently voluntary. We also support stronger targets for regulator activity and joint efforts to implement appropriate use of CCTV, which the Wheeler report recommended should be mandatory for new childcare services in the first instance.

Devastatingly, the recent allegations in Victoria are not the first of their kind in childcare settings. In August 2023, as a result of Operation Tenterfield, a Queensland man was charged and later convicted of 1,623 child abuse offences against 91 children in Brisbane, Sydney and overseas between 2007 and 2022. We have failed our children. The fact that this has happened and continues to happen clearly states that we have failed our children.

In December 2023, the Australian Children's Education and Care Quality Authority published their Review of Child Safety Arrangements under the National Quality Framework. The government has had the regulator's review of child safety arrangements for more than 18 months. The Albanese government has been slow to act on the 16 recommendations. It has taken almost two years for the government to simply enact the change in reporting physical and sexual abuse from seven days to 24 hours. That shouldn't take that long. It really shouldn't take that long. But that change will only come into effect on 1 September 2025. As Jason Clare said, those changes should have been implemented yesterday. We shouldn't have been so slow to act.

After accepting in principle the key recommendations from the review of child safety arrangements in February 2022, education ministers did not meet for a year between June 2024 and June 2025. For an entire year from when recommendations were provided, there was no meeting of education ministers. It begs the question of why that was the case. That is far too long, given the gravity of the problem at hand and the risk to our children. We acknowledge that governments of all stripes have not fully enacted all recommendations from reports, including the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, fast enough.

That includes the harmonisation of the working-with-children check system. This has long been something that governments have pursued but never achieved, and this is long overdue. The current system is deficient and does not meet the standards that Australians expect. It does not meet the standards that parents expect, and it does not meet the standards that our children deserve. There is no standardisation. Each state and territory has its own scheme. The check should be set at the most stringent in our country—absolutely the most stringent. Some inherent risk remains. This is because it only relies on an individual's criminal history as a check to see if a worker may be a risk to children. This is obviously not good enough, as people that do pose risks may not yet have been convicted.

Debate interrupted.

I rise tonight, honoured and humbled, to pay tribute to a remarkable man. He was a man who was a member of Victoria's legal profession, he was a dedicated supporter of the Vietnamese community, and he was a dear friend. His name was Mr Ramon Frederico. His passing on 12 May this year coincided, poignantly, with the 50th anniversary of Vietnamese settlement in Australia, an occasion that reminds us of all of those who played a pivotal role in supporting refugees and shaping our multicultural society.

Ramon's connection with the Vietnamese community began in the late 1970s, just shortly after the first wave of Vietnamese refugees arrived in Australia under Liberal prime minister Malcolm Fraser—a very brave policy decision that that Liberal prime minister took at the time. These refugees faced immense challenges, including language barriers, cultural differences, uncertainty about housing and employment, and the very real fear, of all refugees, of starting over in a new land and an unfamiliar place. Local communities, too, understandably had concerns about this sudden influx of new arrivals, and it was the work of people just like Ramon Frederico that helped ease those tensions and foster understandings between communities.

He was a lawyer. He was practising in Richmond in Victoria at the time. He was uniquely placed then to provide legal support and advice to many of those early Vietnamese refugees who had limited English proficiency and very few resources. His efforts were complemented by collaborations with dedicated bilingual community leaders and professionals. Together they laid the foundation for vital support networks that would assist thousands of Vietnamese refugees in Victoria.

But Ramon's work extended beyond simple legal advice. He advocated. He advocated tirelessly with government agencies on behalf of refugees and their families, and he often helped arrange family sponsorships for those who were waiting in refugee camps across South Asia, ensuring that many were eventually reunited with their loved ones here in Australia. He also worked with the Victorian government to secure important concessions that allowed Vietnamese traders to operate on weekends. Now, this seemingly small change had a profound impact on the community's economic stability. It enabled many families to thrive while accommodating their work schedules.

Ramon Frederico's commitment to community went beyond that legal support and beyond that economic support. He also played a vital role in cultural preservation and community cohesion. He was instrumental in organising the first outdoor Lunar New Year, or Tet festival. He held it at Burnley Oval in Richmond—an event that's now a cherished annual celebration of Vietnamese culture in Australia. He supported youth programs and drop-in centres for unsupervised Vietnamese teenagers, and this cultural landmark also transformed into the Vietnamese restaurant on Victoria Street, Richmond, generating funds to support youth initiatives.

Despite this—and you probably guessed from his name—Ramon Frederico was not of Vietnamese background himself, but he was one of the few non-Vietnamese individuals to serve on the executive committee of the Vietnamese community. His advocacy and involvement bridged cultures. He created understandings and friendships between the Vietnamese community and the broader Australian society. I personally have met so many people in the Vietnamese community in Melbourne, in Victoria, just through knowing Ramon, because he made such deep and lasting and abiding friendships there.

His commitment to justice extended internationally. He did try to represent a Vietnamese human rights activist who was imprisoned for political reasons. His visa application was rejected by the Vietnamese government, but it symbolised his unwavering dedication to human rights and justice for all. Throughout his life, he encouraged the Vietnamese community to engage with mainstream political processes.

He was an extraordinary man. Beyond his professional life, he was known for his generosity and kindness to his family and friends and for his steadfast support for local businesses, particularly in Richmond and Footscray, and so many benefited from his wise counsel and encouragement. His approach to politics was marked by pragmatism, inclusiveness and a focus on serving his community. His legacy is one of bridging divides between cultures, generations and political views. He will be sorely missed. Vale, Ramon Frederico.

Senate adjourned at 19:35