If there is no objection, the meetings are authorised.

The Senate will now consider a motion to be moved by Senator Thorpe. Before you move your motion, Senator Thorpe, may I remind you that it's fine to have a message stick in the Senate, but the procedure is that you advise me and the Deputy Clerk of your intention to bring a message stick into the chamber. Thank you.

Thank you, President. I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that on 27 May 2025, 24-year-old disabled Warlpiri-Luritja man Kumanjayi White died a tragic death under police restraint inside a supermarket in Mparntwe/Alice Springs;

(b) extends its deepest sympathies to the family of Kumanjayi White and the Yuendumu community;

(c) notes that 17 First Nations people have died in custody this year and extends its deepest sympathies to the families of these people;

(d) resolves that all parliamentarians will work constructively together to address the over-incarceration of First Nations people and deaths in custody; and

(e) calls on the Government to:

(i) support Kumanjayi White's family, and note their request for:

(A) the re-establishment of community-control and self-determination in the Northern Territory, and

(B) the reversal of interventionist policies introduced under the NT Intervention and subsequent Stronger Futures legislation 18 years ago;

(ii) ensure there is appropriate support for the impacted family, for sorry business and during the coronial inquest, and necessary legal support,

(iii) continue to work with states and territories to:

(A) implement recommendations from the 1991 Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, and

(B) ensure appropriate conduct of investigations into First Nations deaths in custody and monitor progress of recommendations made to the Government relating to deaths in custody.

I have put forward this motion with the intention of bringing this chamber together on something that is very important to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and it should be very important for this nation. This isn't about politics or pointscoring; it's about compassion. It's about our shared duty as parliamentarians to ensure that justice and dignity are extended to all people on this continent.

On 27 May this year, during Reconciliation Week, 24-year-old Warlpiri man Kumanjayi White died under police restraint in a Coles supermarket. He was a young man with a disability. He was deeply loved. His death was preventable. This motion extends the Senate's deepest sympathies to his family, to the Yuendumu community, to the families of the 17 First Peoples who've died in custody this year and to the families of all those who have died since the 1991 royal commission. These are not just statistics; they are sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, cousins, siblings and grandchildren lost to a system that continues to harm our people.

Ned Hargraves, a senior Warlpiri elder and the grandfather of Kumanjayi White, spoke for many when he said: 'We are devastated by this death. My jaja was vulnerable and needed support, not to be criminalised because of his disability.' Ned has called for answers, respect and justice, not just for his family but for all families still waiting for change and for those who live in fear that their loved ones will be next.

This motion calls on the government to ensure the family is supported over the coming months, with assistance for sorry business, the coronial inquest and legal support. That is the very least we can do. But it also asks this parliament to do something bigger: to work together to end the crisis of deaths in custody and the overincarceration of First Peoples in this country. This is not a partisan issue or one for states and territories alone. It is a national responsibility—a moral one. The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody in 1991 made clear what needs to be done, yet, decades later, those recommendations remain largely unimplemented and ignored. Meanwhile, families continue to bury their loved ones.

This motion is about committing to practical, overdue action, supported by evidence and backed by First Peoples. It calls for federal leadership that works with states and territories to ensure that every death in custody is properly investigated, that recommendations are tracked and implemented and that families are treated with respect and dignity.

I speak not only as a senator but as someone who has lived through this pain. My cousin Josh Kerr died in custody in 2022. I grew up with his mum, Donnis. She's family to me. She told me about saying, 'I love you,' for the last time while Josh was in shackles, about their last hug and about how the system took him from her, just like it had taken her from her own parents—a cycle of grief that has never been broken. This is our reality.

This motion is about preventing the pain from continuing. It's about doing what we can here and now to ensure that Kumanjayi's death is not just another entry in a long and shameful list. It must be a turning point. I urge all senators and those in the other place to support this motion. Let us stand together. Choose justice and honour. Honour Kumanjayi White's memory by committing to real change.

When I first came into the Senate, I did bring in this message stick with 441 markings to mark 441 deaths in custody. Today we have 602 deaths in custody, after a royal commission. When will this end? This is our message to this parliament: stop killing us. Stop killing us.

On behalf of the government I offer my condolences to the family of Kumanjayi White, who died in police custody in Alice Springs on 27 May this year. I acknowledge the distress felt by the community of Yuendumu, who know too well the loss of a young person in police custody. This continues to be a difficult time for many. I know that the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator Malarndirri McCarthy, was in contact with the families of Yuendumu immediately after the tragedy. Her deep connection to remote communities in the Territory ensures their voices are carried not just into this chamber but to the cabinet table.

In the two months since the event, we have seen vigils held all over the country. Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians alike have stood together to demand better from all levels of government. In June, the minister took these calls to the Joint Council on Closing the Gap, where First Nations peak organisations and all Australian governments are represented. She's also working closely with the Attorney-General for plans to raise the issue at the Standing Council of Attorneys-General in August.

It is simply unacceptable that 602 First Nations people have died in custody since the 1991 Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. The royal commission was clear that the best way to reduce First Nations deaths in custody is to reduce the high incarceration rate of First Nations people, including through social and economic responses, which the evidence shows can reduce crime, change the course of lives and avoid people coming into contact with the police or justice system in the first place.

This is what the Commonwealth government is focusing on, including through the National Agreement on Closing the Gap. We are investing in First Nations led justice reinvestment initiatives nationally. In the Northern Territory we're already seeing results. On Groote Eylandt there has been a huge decline in offending, with crime rates now at an all-time low. There were 130 offences recorded in the last 12 months, compared to more than 1,000 in 2019. We are supporting the Justice Policy Partnership to bring together all levels of government and peak organisations to improve justice outcomes for First Nations people. We are increasing investment under the National Access to Justice Partnership 2025-30 to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples receive proper legal assistance. We need more action by states and territories to keep First Nations people out of justice systems and ensure they are safe when in custody; this is their responsibility in the federation. The Commonwealth will continue to use forums such as the Standing Council of Attorneys-General and the Police Ministers Council to work on reform.

The Australian government is investing in the areas that we know will help keep Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people out of the justice system, like housing, jobs, education and health. Closing the gap in these key areas, along with economic empowerment, is key to breaking cycles of incarceration and reincarceration. In the Northern Territory, over 220 houses were built in remote communities last year, and 206 houses were built in the previous year. On jobs, we are delivering the Remote Jobs and Economic Development program by creating 3,000 jobs in remote communities. We are training the next generation of First Nations health workers to create jobs, expand access to local services and deliver on our commitment to train 500 First Nations health workers. The Australian government is also doubling its investment in Northern Territory public schools over the next five years, meaning that all Northern Territory schools will be fully and fairly funded by 2029.

These investments are building the foundation that will help prevent people from coming into contact with the justice system in the first place. The government is working to keep people out of the justice system and ensure they are safe when in custody. But, when there are steps backwards, we need to call them out and listen to those calling for change. Minister McCarthy has encouraged the Northern Territory government to carefully review Coroner Armitage's recent report into the death of another young man in Yuendumu and to consider the coroner's recommendations in full. These independent processes are key to identifying and fixing the causes of these unacceptable deaths in custody. Recent deaths in custody have compounded the collective grief and trauma felt by many First Nations families.

Finally, I return to Kumanjayi White, a young man who has tragically died. On behalf of the government, I again extend my deepest condolences to his family and the community of Yuendumu, who have suffered too much.

Well, every death, of course, is a tragedy. There is much to explain about how Kumanjayi White became another statistic to be investigated as a death in custody, but that focus is not for us in here. Kumanjayi's grieving family deserve answers. I acknowledge their immense grief. Australians too deserve answers.

The recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, released in 1991, outlined what needed to be done. Indigenous Australians were disproportionately incarcerated, and they were also overrepresented in the numbers of deaths in custody. The royal commission report was a blueprint for change. Change then was necessary. Thirty-four years later, the job is still not done. The Australian Institute of Criminology says there have been 60 deaths in custody so far this year, including 17 of Indigenous people.

In the Northern Territory, legislation and police procedure dictate how deaths in custody are investigated. This includes oversight by the police Professional Standards Command, along with separate police and coronial investigations, and there is potential for further independent inquiry through an ombudsman and/or the NT ICAC.

In June, the Prime Minister said he needed to be convinced that people in Canberra know better than people in the Northern Territory about how to deal with these issues. As is appropriate, I will wait for those processes to conclude, but, in my role as shadow minister for Indigenous Australians, I will reflect on the protective factors—some of which are provided by good policy and programs—that clearly failed Kumanjayi White and, in so many ways, so many others.

Late last night, the most recent Closing the Gap report was publicly released. It is 157 pages of data, statistics and commentary, but behind all of those statistics and all of that data are real people living and struggling with issues that many of us in here don't live every day. The Productivity Commission reports annually on progress to enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and governments to work together to achieve life outcomes equality for Indigenous Australians. The terrible truth is that gap is not closing the way that was expected. There are 19 targets, and only four are on track. Another four are going in the wrong direction.

The report is yet another sobering reminder of how little progress is being made. It is a picture of missed opportunity, low expectations and tangible failure for delivering results, for which all parliaments and all parties have a responsibility. But the reality is too that it's everyone's responsibility. For every year progress is not made, existing disadvantage is entrenched, suffering is prolonged and confidence in government is undermined. And, worse still, another new generation starts with an even bigger struggle than the previous one.

For the government, four key targets that were already going backwards continue to worsen: adult incarceration, children commencing school developmentally on track, children in out-of-home care and suicide. Law and order, addressing family violence, and hope are central to securing better outcomes. That comes with focus on one of the most important protective factors—family. But family can't do it alone.

When I was shadow minister for child protection and the prevention of family violence, it was clear that addressing violence and the known drivers of it would go a long way towards change. That requires tough decisions in here and by governments. It requires doing things that do good over things that make us feel good. We watched alcohol restrictions in the Northern Territory lapse in 2022, making central Australia less safe for everyone. It was also catastrophic in its impact on all of the social determinants of health. In the month that followed, domestic violence assaults in Alice Springs leapt 77 per cent, leaving lasting consequences for those who live locally. We saw the NAAJA, the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency, in freefall because of poor governance, and, without early intervention, people were left unrepresented. As parliamentarians, a greater focus of our work must be on prevention and early intervention. There is so much focus on justice and incarceration, but, if individuals have come into contact with the justice system, the reality is we've already failed them. When they are captured by the cycle of release and return, then we fail them again. To deliver change, you need to do the hard stuff. That's why the gap is not closing. (Time expired)

The Greens strongly support this motion. On Tuesday 27 May, a 24-year-old Warlpiri man from Yuendumu, Kumanjayi White, died in custody after being restrained by plain-clothes NT police members inside the Coles supermarket in Mparntwe/Alice Springs. He was a young man living with a disability, and he was in town accessing care and services. Our hearts go out to Mr White's family, friends and community. I cannot imagine the grief and loss that they're experiencing at this time. The Australian Greens offer our deepest condolences and wish them the space and the time for grief and mourning. We stand in solidarity with the Yuendumu and Warlpiri communities. We join their calls for justice, and we echo the family's demands for an independent investigation, for the officers involved to be stood down, for the release of CCTV and body camera footage and for the Northern Territory police to apologise for and cease publicly criminalising Kumanjayi White in their statements.

This week, we learned, according to the Australian Institute of Criminology's live dashboard, that there have been 602 First Nations deaths in custody since the royal commission concluded in 1991. It is a shameful indictment on us all that so many of the recommendations from that royal commission remain unfulfilled. This government and this parliament must be leaders who push our states and territories to do more until we implement those recommendations in full and address the structural racism that exists in the justice system.

Kumanjayi White's death occurred as the final coronial report on the 2019 death in custody of another Warlpiri man, Kumanjayi Walker, was due to be published. That inquest exposed deep failures of justice and found the Northern Territory police to be 'an organisation with hallmarks of institutional racism'. In the NT, 84 per cent of incarcerated adults are Aboriginal, despite Aboriginal adults only making up 25.9 per cent of the NT adult population. One hundred per cent of young people imprisoned in the Northern Territory are Aboriginal. Many of those adults and young people are on remand, yet to be convicted. These alarming trends represent a longstanding failure of the justice system to address underlying causes of harm and violence. Funding needs to shift from policing and prisons to community focused solutions led by First Nations people.

The family of Kumanjayi Walker and the Yuendumu community, alongside 23 Aboriginal community family violence and legal organisations, published an open letter earlier this week, calling on the Finocchiaro Northern Territory government to publicly commit to the findings and recommendations of Coroner Armitage in the coronial inquest into the death of Kumanjayi Walker and to engage with First Nations communities and the legal sector. It said, in part:

Aboriginal people have the solutions and now is the time to work with us to ensure that our people thrive and our children grow up safe and supported. Change is not only possible, but also well overdue.

…   …   …

Warlpiri people and all Aboriginal people want lasting change that uplifts our people and ensures a strong, healthy future for generations to come. We do not need to be "fixed" by others—now is the time to genuinely listen, to clear the path for our autonomy, and to provide the resources and support that will enable us to shape our own future. This is what will bring lasting solutions and restore trust. These are not only the right things to do, they are essential steps to prevent needless loss of life and build a better future for all. We are ready to work together for profound, lasting change. We urge you to act now and to act boldly.

The Greens strongly support their calls for an independent and robust mechanism for police accountability in the Northern Territory—and everywhere, frankly—and for greater investment in community-controlled services.

A genuine investment in community rather than policing has never been more urgent, as the NT has reduced the age of criminal responsibility to the age of 10 and they're now shamefully moving to reintroduce spit hoods, which are a recognised form of torture. And we're only on track to meet four of the 19 Closing the Gap targets. It is shameful.

We acknowledge the profound grief and anger felt by Kumanjayi Walker's family, the Warlpiri and Yuendumu communities and First Nations people across the country. We express our sorrow over his death and for the racism, violence and systemic over-incarceration of First Nations people that's led to 602 losses of life. The time to act is now. (Time expired)

I rise to speak in support of Senator Thorpe's motion. I would like to thank her for her tireless work on this issue and for trying to get elected representatives, our Senate and our parliament to take this more seriously after decades and decades of inaction. This is something that affects all states and territories. If you look here in the nation's capital, in the ACT, two Indigenous men died in custody within four days at Canberra's only prison in mid-February this year. We've had three deaths in custody at AMC since August 2024.

These deaths have rightly prompted demands from families and people in Indigenous communities for leaders to actually get on with long-overdue reform. In May 2025, the ACT government committed to establishing an independent inquiry into systemic issues concerning Indigenous detainees. This is clearly part of a bigger crisis, and I don't understand why we haven't seen more appetite from the major parties to really deal with this. Again, I thank Senator Thorpe for her work.

Here, in the ACT, we've seen Thomas Emerson MLA doing some great work in the legislative assembly to push the Labor government here and to actually align their actions with their rhetoric and sort this out. I'd also like to mention Julie Tongs from Winnunga. She has been a fierce voice in this debate and is constantly pushing for change, as well as people like Joe Hedger and many others who, I think, have finally got the ACT government to start to take this seriously.

I want to thank Senator Thorpe for bringing this motion to the chamber, and I start by joining with my party leader, my colleague Senator Waters, in expressing our deep and sincere condolences and our sympathy to the family of Kumanjayi White. Kumanjayi was a 24-year-old Warlpiri man living with disability. He went into Alice Springs to seek care and services. While he was there seeking care and services—a story that happens so often around this country—being a First Nations man in a shopping centre on a public street, he found himself 'restrained'—I think that's the language the Northern Territory police used—by two Northern Territory police in the confectionery aisle of Coles, and, as so often happens in interactions between First Nations peoples and police forces across this country, the interaction was lethal and Kumanjayi was killed as a result of the police actions, the restraint that he suffered. Did I mention that he was a 24-year-old man, a young man going to Alice to seek access to care and services? What he got was death by police in the confectionery aisle of a Coles supermarket.

Our thoughts and our hearts are with his family and the community. There is just so much sorry business in this country, and so much of it happens at the hands of the criminal justice system—or, as First Nations people will tell you, the 'criminal injustice system'—that this country has. There have been more than 600 deaths of First Nations people at the hands of the criminal justice system since the royal commission, and there are hundreds and thousands of deaths that predate that. In my home state of New South Wales, tragically, I've worked with so many families who have had their boys, their husbands, their sisters, their aunties or their cousins killed at the hands of police. I still remember the appalling way in which David Dungay was treated. He was killed by police restraint in Long Bay prison in Sydney. In the video that you see of David, who was restrained by police because he was eating a packet of biscuits, he's crying, 'I can't breathe; I can't breathe; I can't breathe; I can't breathe,' and a mob of corrections officers are forcing him down—he can't breathe; he can't breathe—until they killed him. To see that history being repeated in the NT, in the confectionery aisle of Coles, is obscene. Tane Chatfield, Dwayne Johnstone, Tammy Shipley, TJ Hickey, Veronica Saunders—these names. Families, aunties—the pain of this sorry business at the hands of the criminal justice system reaches across this country into First Nations families.

And, while we have been in this parliament for the last two weeks, the racist criminal justice system in the Northern Territory has ratcheted up. The Northern Territory government, instead of responding with compassion and empathy and care, are refusing to institute an independent inquiry into Kumanjayi's death. Police investigating police—we know where that will end. Instead of meeting with the Commonwealth government and seeking the funding so support can go into First Nations led community services, diversion services and culture services—which all the evidence says will keep communities safe, keep young First Nations kids safe and instil pride and spirit—what has the Northern Territory government done this week? They have rammed through legislation to reintroduce spit hoods on kids, which the UN has said is torture. They've rammed through legislation to remove 'jail as the last resort' and to encourage magistrates and judges to put kids in jail. As Senator Waters made clear, the statistics say that tonight pretty much every kid in a Northern Territory jail will be a First Nations kid.

What has the Commonwealth done? Nada; zip; nothing. The Commonwealth government funds the Northern Territory government, by and large, to torture kids in jail. The Commonwealth government funds the Northern Territory government to not put in place independent investigations of deaths in custody. Action, Commonwealth action, using funding and legislative powers to try and do what we can to keep First Nations people safe—that's what's needed.

Question agreed to.

I seek leave to table a document, which is a list from the Israeli government's official record of Israeli civilians murdered by Hamas on and since 7 October 2023.

Leave granted.

I table the document.

The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Hodgins-May be agreed to.

Minister, this legislation hasn't taken into account the unique operations and circumstances of Aboriginal community controlled services—not just child care but holistic family supports and cultural strengths. What consideration was given to the impact of legislation on ACCO centres that offer more than child care and are often community and service hubs?

Thank you very much, Senator Hodgins-May. And thank you, as the Greens spokesperson on early childhood education and care, for your support for and interest in this legislation and for your significant engagement with my office and, more broadly, with stakeholders on this really important piece of legislation.

This bill is incredibly important. We said that child safety was our top priority when it comes to early childhood education and care. We said we would introduce a bill in the first sitting of this parliament to make sure that we have a new power as the Commonwealth to withdraw Commonwealth childcare subsidy from those providers who don't put children first. That is exactly what we are here to do today—to pass this legislation, to be united as one parliament to do that and to make sure that we can keep children safer in early learning. We know that the Commonwealth childcare subsidy is a big lever that we have to pull, and it is a lever that we intend to use. Our message to providers who are not doing the right thing is that we want you to lift your game. Our priority is to work with those providers and work with our state regulators to do exactly that. We're really proud of this bill. We know that it will go a long way to sending a really strong message to providers across the board that they must invest in quality and safety in early childhood education.

We are a strong supporter of Aboriginal community-controlled early childhood education. We know that early education is an absolute game changer for children. It is particularly a game changer for children from disadvantaged backgrounds, including First Nations backgrounds. We know, even from recent Closing the Gap data, just how much of a game changer early childhood education is in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, and we know that culturally safe early childhood education is the key to good outcomes for young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We will continue to work with and support the ACCO sector, including in relation to this bill.

A third of National Quality Standard quality assessments are out of date, more than three years old. We have heard that this backlog will make it difficult for the government to rely on quality assessments and ultimately will reduce the effectiveness of the legislation. Minister, how will the government address this issue and ensure that national quality standard assessments are brought up to date? Will you adequately fund the state and territory governments to ensure that they properly assess quality in a timely manner?

This bill gives the Commonwealth the power, and gives the secretary of the department the ability, to apply sanctions to providers who are not doing a good enough job of keeping our children safe, and that includes suspending or cancelling funding for existing services that they may have if safety standards are not being met. It also includes giving the secretary the ability to ensure that any future services of those providers who are not putting children first will not be approved, so it the prevents their expansion. There's a number of criteria that the secretary will consider when making those decisions, and one of those is a criteria that you've mentioned, which is a failure to meet our National Quality Standards, particularly as it pertains to safety and quality.

The secretary also has the capacity to look at serious incidents and the nature and frequency of those serious incidents. Also the secretary has the capacity to look at providers' legal compliance on a range of related safety legislation, look at complaints and also look at the work with the state regulators, including conditions that they may have already imposed on early childhood providers. So there's a range of criteria that the secretary can look at when considering whether to use this powerful lever. Meanwhile, we continue to work, shoulder to shoulder, with the states and territories. We have a strong and significant package of reform that we're working through with the states and territories. We'll have more to say about that after we hold our urgent, standalone early childhood education ministers meeting in a couple of weeks.

I don't feel any more reassured about the backlog and the significant delays on those national quality standards after that answer, but I urge you to provide more information as you get it following those consultations with states. What is the threshold in the National Quality Standard assessment that would prevent a provider from opening a new CCS-approved service if they are already operating existing centres? I'm keen to understand a bit more about the threshold.

The criteria are set out in the bill. I've just run through the criteria that the secretary can consider when—in this case with the current secretary of the department—he is considering either removing funding from providers who already have established services, or when he is considering preventing providers from opening additional services.

What we want to see, of course, is all providers meeting the national quality standards. Those standards don't need to be specified in this bill because they already exist and they stand outside of the bill in the National Quality Framework. We want to see providers meet the National Quality Standard. It's really important, in this bill, that we avoid being too prescriptive about the exact thresholds at which sanctions apply. The secretary is looking at a range of measures, including the national quality standards and how providers are going at meeting those standards. They're also looking at serious incidents. They're looking at other legal compliance with other state laws. They're looking at complaints. They're looking at conditions that may have been provided. They're also—and this is clear in the legislation—looking at whether any significant efforts have been made to improve compliance and improve safety. So it's important that the secretary has some flexibility, and, of course, in the meantime we expect every provider to meet the national quality standards.

What framework will guide decisions about whether to publish information— for example, why centres aren't being allowed to open a new centre or are having their subsidy blocked, or decisions along that way? Speaking to the concern from parents that this process might not be as transparent as they hoped, will parents be informed when information is withheld and why? In my home state of Victoria, we're having real issues in getting the government to release documentation about breaches that have occurred in centres. So I would like to provide some assurance to parents.

I think the first assurance that we should provide parents is that the vast majority of our early childhood education and care providers do meet and exceed our national quality standards, but there is a small group of providers who persistently and consistently breach those standards. Where we have significant concerns, transparency for parents is really important, and it is provided for in the bill. We have greater publication powers with this bill than we've had before. The secretary is able to publish on our enforcement action register when CCS approval is being dealt with under this legislation. The secretary will also have a wider range of powers to publicise the broader range of compliance actions that are being taken in relation to CCS.

To understand that a little more clearly, what framework will guide whether they decide to list those events or those actions?

Importantly, the bill gives the secretary powers that they haven't had before to make actions taken under the legislation public. The disposition will be to publish. We think parents have a right to know about compliance action in relation to the services that their children are in. There is also a broader body of work in relation to that transparency going on with the education minister's process that we've been talking about.

Of course, we need to manage parents' understanding of what's going on in their services and make sure that they're confident. If publication would cause any harm to a service, and, really, to the families in that service, then that needs to be taken into consideration. It's probably also important to note that, if there's any imminent risk to children in an early learning service, the state regulators have the power to close those services down, and they can and do use those powers.

Thank you, Minister. It sounds like at the moment there aren't clear guidelines but it's at the discretion of the secretary to decide, but I'm hearing that they'll err on the side of disclosure. Is that accurate?

Yes.

I circle back to my previous question in relation to the threshold in the National Quality Standard assessments that would prevent a provider from opening a new centre if they're already operating centres. Is there some sort of standard by which you're looking at it? If half of the centres, for example, aren't meeting national quality standards, or 90 per cent of services aren't—can you provide any more detail on what that standard will look like and what is being considered in the decision to permit a new centre to open or not?

I refer you to my previous answer, in the sense that the secretary has the capacity to look at a number of criteria at once, and it's important to do that. For example, if a service is not meeting a quality and safety standard in the National Quality Framework but is making significant efforts at improvement, that needs to be taken into account. The criteria that will be used by the secretary are provided for in the bill.

Minister, how will the requirements under this legislation be applied, if at all, to centres that don't come under the National Quality Standard?

The bill covers providers that receive the Commonwealth childcare subsidy. I think you're referring to another dreadful case that came to light, where there are a small number of providers outside the National Quality Framework. If they're in receipt of the Commonwealth childcare subsidy, the bill applies to them.

Minister, what consideration has been given to the impact on the early childhood education workforce incentive with the new requirements?

This bill is incredibly important. We know that there have been really distressing allegations of abuse in our early learning services. Every child needs to be safe, and every parent needs to have confidence that they are. This bill will go a long way to ensuring that, and it's really important that we have this lever—that we're able to withdraw Commonwealth funding from those providers who are not putting child safety first.

I think you know, Senator Hodgins-May, that you don't have to tell me how incredibly important the workforce is in keeping children safe and providing quality early education because I proudly represented the early childhood educators in their union before coming to parliament. One of the really significant things that we've done to invest in quality and safety outside of this particular legislation is invest $3.6 billion in a really long overdue pay rise for our early childhood educators. That is absolutely critical to quality and safety, because what it's done is help deal with the workforce crisis that had existed over the previous decade when there was a very high turnover of early childhood educators. We know that the safest and best-quality services are services that have long-term, stable, committed, dedicated early childhood educators who know the children, the families and each other and who are committed to a child-safe culture.

Since we started to implement the pay rise, we've had a reduction in job vacancies being advertised by 26 per cent, which is huge and was unheard of over the last several years. That's happened at the same time as we've grown the workforce. So it's a really significant stabilisation of the workforce. It's a stabilisation that respects them, values them and invests in them and their ability to have a child-safe culture and provide that security to children and families.

I move:

That the committee report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Question agreed to.

Progress reported.

Ordered that the committee have leave to sit again at a later hour.

I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 3369:

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

Schedule 4 — Maximum student contribution amounts for places

Part 1 — Amendments

Higher Education Support Act 2003

1 Section 93-10

Omit "The maximum student contribution amount for a place", substitute "(1) Subject to subsection (2), the maximum student contribution amount for a place".

2 At the end of section 93-10

Add:

(2) The table in subsection (1) has effect in relation to a place in a unit of study included in the Society and Culture part of the *first funding cluster as if the amount specified for that part of the cluster in respect of both a non-grandfathered student and a grandfathered student was instead the amount specified for that place in the unit of study immediately before the amendments made by Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Higher Education Support Amendment (Job Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Act 2020 commenced.

Part 2 — Application provision

3 Application

The amendments made by Part 1 of this Schedule apply in relation to a unit of study that has a *census date that is on or after the commencement of that Part (whether the unit of study is part of a course of study commenced before, on or after the commencement of that Part).

This amendment reverses the Job-ready Graduates fee hikes. The Albanese government talks a big game about their cost-of-living credentials, but the reality is that, under their watch, fees for degrees have skyrocketed, with students now paying in excess of $50,000 for an arts degree.

When the Morrison government introduced their disastrous, punitive, Job-ready Graduates Package, Labor was strong in opposition, but they have now had over three years in power and have done nothing about it. Even their own Universities Accord process found that the fee hikes required urgent remediation. Just this week, over a hundred well-known Australians signed an open letter urging the Albanese government to abolish Job-ready Graduates and implement a system that does not punish students who choose to study humanities and social sciences.

So Labor crowing about their one-off debt cut does nothing for the students who are starting university this year and facing ballooning fees. It also does nothing for the high-school graduates that are deciding not to go to university because they can't afford to. If the government was serious about relief for students, the Job-ready Graduate fee hikes would have been reversed back in 2022, but, unfortunately, this was not the case.

Labor still has an opportunity to support this amendment and make $50,000 arts degrees a thing of the past. So I commend the amendment to the Senate and urge others to support it, because we need to urgently repeal this punitive package.

I thank Senator Faruqi for her amendment. The government is not in a position to support this amendment at this time.

The government is currently responding to a range of recommendations from the Universities Accord. We have implemented or are in the process of implementing 31 of the 47 recommendations of the accord in full or in part. This includes making the indexation of HELP debts fairer, cost-of-living relief for students, support for people from the outer suburbs and regions to go to university, and structural reforms to our tertiary education system.

Last year the government wiped $3 billion of HELP debt for three million Australians and fixed indexation on HELP debt so that it will never increase faster than wages. For an individual with an average HELP debt of $26,500, around $1,200 has been wiped from their outstanding student loan.

Commonwealth prac payments started on 1 July 2025 for the first time. These will support about 68,000 eligible teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work students while they are completing their compulsory practical training at university.

From 1 January 2025, the government massively expanded fee-free uni-ready courses to help more students from disadvantaged backgrounds get a chance to access university. We've also established the interim Australian Tertiary Education Commission, ATEC, from 1 July 2025. The Minister for Education has said we'll keep working through the accord's recommendations and we'll take advice from the Australian Tertiary Education Commission.

This bill cuts student debt by 20 per cent and delivers important structural reforms to repayments, which will benefit generations to come. This is the commitment the Australian people supported at the last election.

The question before the chair is that Greens amendment (1) on sheet 3369, moved by Senator Faruqi, be agreed to.

I move:

That the report from the committee be adopted.

I note that former senator Janet Rice is in the chamber—welcome back! The question is that the report from the committee be adopted.

I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

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

President, I'd just like to draw attention to the state of the opposition benches for the last 15 minutes. They seem to have been invisible, missing, on the important issue of student debt—

Senator Hanson-Young, this is not a time for a statement. It's not appropriate for a quorum because there are senators in here. The practice in this place is that we don't comment on whether senators are in the chamber or not, and I expect all senators to respect that.

I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows—

CUSTOMS AMENDMENT (AUSTRALIA-UNITED ARAB EMIRATES COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION) BILL 2025

The Customs Amendment (Australia-United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2025 amends the Customs Act 1901 to implement the Free Trade Agreement known as the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement between Australia and the United Arab Emirates.

The Agreement will bring both commercial and strategic benefits. The UAE is Australia's largest trade and investment partner in the Middle East. In 2024, total trade between UAE and Australia was worth $12.3 billion. UAE investment into Australia rose to $14.7 billion in 2024 while our investment in the UAE rose to $9.0 billion resulting in two-way trade of $23.7 billion.

The Agreement will give a competitive advantage to Australian exporters by eliminating tariffs on over 99 per cent of Australian exports, by value; to the UAE.

It is estimated that this will result in tariff savings of up to $135 million on Australian goods exported to the UAE in the first year, rising to $160 million as tariffs are progressively eliminated over five years.

The Agreement locks in access to services markets, and provides a framework to facilitate investment to support Australia's energy transition and Future Made in Australia ambitions. It will also improve certainty for exporters and importers, service suppliers and investors across the whole economy.

The Agreement will support a strong and diversified economy that will enhance the resilience of Australia's trade and investment to future crises. It will also enhance Australia's economic engagement with the UAE through strengthened trade rules that will help build upon our already healthy trading relationship.

The amendments contained in this Bill will establish, in the Customs Act, the rules of origin and document retention requirements called for by the Agreement. Those amendments determine when imported goods from the United Arab Emirates in accordance with the Agreement may be considered to have originating status, called UAE originating goods, and be eligible for preferential rates of customs duty.

Complementary amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 are also required to provide for these preferential rates of customs duty applicable to UAE originating goods.

The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties reviewed both the Agreement and related supplementary Investment Agreement, and recommended that they be ratified.

I commend this Bill to the Chamber.

CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT (AUSTRALIA-UNITED ARAB EMIRATES COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION) BILL 2025

The Customs Tariff Amendment (Australia-United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2025 will amend the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to implement the preferential rates of customs duty for UAE Originating Goods to implement the Free Trade Agreement known as the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement between Australia and the United Arab Emirates.

These amendments, together with the amendments by the Customs Amendment (Australia United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2025, will ensure that Australia fulfils its obligations as a signatory to the Agreement and is prepared for the Agreement to enter into force for Australia.

This Bill will insert a new Schedule of duty rates into the Customs Tariff Act. Schedule 16 will contain the preferential rates of customs duty for imported goods that satisfy the rules of origin set out in the Agreement. UAE Originating Goods not set out in Schedule 16 will have a 'Free' rate of duty.

Australia has committed to reducing the rate of customs duty on most UAE Originating Goods to 'Free', either at entry into force or over several years following entry into force of the Agreement.

Excise-equivalent goods—which are certain fuel, alcohol, tobacco and petroleum products—that are UAE Originating Goods will continue to have excise equivalent duties of customs applied, so they receive the same treatment as domestically produced equivalents.

Finally, this Bill also amends certain tariff concessions to maintain their scope and ensure that commitments made under the Agreement are honoured.

The amendments in this Bill complement the amendments in the Customs Amendment (Australia-United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2025.

I commend this Bill to the Chamber.

On behalf of the opposition, I'll make a contribution to these bills, the Customs Amendment (Australia-United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2025 and Customs Tariff Amendment (Australia-United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2025. It was the former coalition government who initiated the Australia-UAE agreement via announcement with the UAE in March of 2022.

When the former coalition agreement was elected in 2013, our goods and services covered by a free trade agreement were at 25 per cent, and by 2022 it had gone to 80 per cent, including the agreements with the UK and India. The former coalition government ratified the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, the world's largest free trade agreement, and signed FTAs with Korea, Japan, China, Hong Kong, Peru and Indonesia, as well as regional agreements across the Indo-Pacific, including the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations, PACER, and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Live sheep are a key commodity for the UAE, who import for religious, cultural and social reasons. This deal with the UAE could have supported the industry for years to come. Instead, those opposite have turned their backs on our farmers and left them out in the cold by ending the live sheep trade domestically.

Of course, there are some benefits to this agreement. The agreement is Australia's first free trade agreement with a nation of the Middle East. The UAE is Australia's largest trade and investment partner in the Middle East. Australian exporters will benefit from the elimination of tariffs on over 99 per cent of Australian goods exports to the UAE by value. Once fully implemented, it is estimated to increase Australian exports by around $678 million per annum. When fully implemented, CEPA will eliminate tariffs over 99 per cent of Australia's exports to the UAE by value, with most tariffs eliminated on entry into force or locked in at zero, and others eliminated over three or five stages.

Removal of the UAE's import tariffs will create commercially significant benefits for Australian exporters, which opens opportunities for Australian exporters to diversify into this important Middle East market and provides greater certainty on the tariff treatment they will receive. CEPA will also benefit exporters of products such as automotive parts, gold, nickel, coal and diamonds. Farmers and food and beverage producers stand to gain from our preferential access to the UAE's growing market for premium food and agricultural products with the elimination of tariffs on products such as frozen beef, sheepmeat, canola seeds, dry legumes and dairy.

With $9.43 billion in two-way goods and services trade in 2023—over $10 billion, of course, in the pre-COVID era—the UAE is Australia's 21st-largest trading partner globally. Goods and services exports to the UAE were worth $5.2 billion in 2023 and were dominated by alumina, meat and oil seeds. Australian goods and services imports from the UAE were worth $4.7 billion in 2023 and mainly consisted of petroleum products and urea. Australian exporters will benefit from the elimination of tariffs on over 99 per cent of Australian goods exports to the UAE, by value. Once fully implemented, it's estimated to increase Australian exports by around $678 million per year.

I want to put on record how important it is for pieces of legislation like these, the Customs Amendment (Australia-United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2025 and Customs Tariff Amendment (Australia-United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2025, to pass this parliament. We are a trading nation, and there will be much commentary over the coming months and years as countries like Australia respond to the United States' new tariff policy. Historically, it's not unusual for the United States to adopt a form of protectionism, nor is it unusual for Europeans and others to adopt a form of protectionism. But there are a couple of important lessons for Australia which must be mainstays of our trade policy going forward.

I note that the opposition's trade spokesman, Kevin Hogan, has been doing a great job here in presenting a very cogent analysis as we have been responding to the United States' tariff policies, which you would have to say are quite volatile policies at the best of times. One of those lessons is that the subsidisation of industry should be avoided at all costs. The nation went through a very difficult period in the eighties and nineties, when the Hawke government did the right thing and started to bring down the tariff wall and ended the policy of industry subsidisation. That is an important lesson for today, because initiatives to subsidise industry where government is picking winners—as we have seen from this Future Made in Australia policy—are destined to fail. It's throwing money—taxpayers' funds—at businesses and, frankly, misses the point of the role of government. The role of government is to ensure that a country can be competitive and can then concentrate on its comparative advantages. We need to have some sophistication as we respond to these huge policy ructions from the United States, and the subsidisation of industry must be avoided at all costs.

The other thing we must do—and this has been put on record by Mr Hogan—is find more avenues to diversify our trade. We will always be a trading nation and we have a relatively small domestic population, which relies on trade very heavily. In fact, any attempt to try and compare the economic positions of the United States and Australia really does miss this key point, I've noticed. The United States is a very large domestic market, sure, but it's also a trading nation. But it can get away with a lot of crazy ideas which we would be killed by. So we have to show fidelity to free trade. We must, as these bills propose to do, find ways to liberalise and open up new markets. We should always look to eliminate barriers to trade beyond the border and we must, at all costs, avoid the subsidisation of industry.

This is a disastrous policy, and, for a government that is a Labor government, it needs to go back and look very carefully at the policies of the Hawke government, which were the reverse of a lot of this government's industry subsidisation policies we see today. Mr Chalmers is a great devotee of the Hawke government. I think he's done some sort of doctoral thesis on the Hawke government. He might need to dig up this thesis. If he does so, he will find that the Hawke government eliminated the subsidisation of industry and brought down the tariff war, which is the reverse of what the Future Made in Australia policies will be doing in part.

I am very conscious that a lot of false comparisons between Australia and America are made in the public domain. Of course, we are culturally very alike, and America is one of our most important friends, but we are fundamentally different economies, and we cannot entertain any form of protectionism, nor should we ever entertain any form of industry subsidisation as we have seen canvassed in these past few months.

I also rise to speak on the Customs Amendment (Australia-United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2025 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Australia-United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2025. The government is committed to seeking the entry into force of the Australia-UAE Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement as soon as possible to enable the realisation of its many benefits.

The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties of the previous parliament scrutinised this trade agreement and recommended that binding treaty action be taken to implement the agreement. I wish to express my sincere thanks to all members of the committee, of which I was one, but, most importantly, special thanks go to the former and current chair, Ms Lisa Chesters MP. There was an enormous amount of work involved in progressing that report as quickly as possible so that we could be in the position to consider that bill today.

This trade agreement includes ambitious outcomes to benefit both Australia and the UAE. These include eliminating tariffs on over 99 per cent of Australian goods exported to the UAE, valued at $160 million when fully implemented; valuable First Nations outcomes covering trade and investment; and acknowledging the importance of women's economic empowerment, as well as the importance of the environment and the transition to net zero. The UAE is Australia's largest trade and investment partner in the Middle East, with total trade between the UAE and Australia worth $12.3 billion in 2024. This trade agreement will give Australian exporters to the UAE a significant commercial edge over other international competitors.

Finally, the government's approach to trade recognises that Australia's economic resilience depends on open global trade relations underpinned by robust rules. 'More trade, not less' is a key part of how we will build the economic future we want in Australia, with secure, high-paying jobs and an open, internationally competitive economy powered by clean energy. This trade agreement with the UAE will assist Australia to reach its full economic potential. I'd like to thank my fellow members for supporting the legislation that will ratify this important trade agreement, and I'd like to put on record my thanks to the minister and his team for their very hard work in negotiating, achieving and, hopefully today, ratifying this important trade agreement.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a second time.

No amendments have been circulated. Does any senator require a Committee of the Whole stage? There being none, I call the minister to move the third reading.

I move:

That these bills be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a third time.

I note this is not my first speech. No student should be forced to choose between their education and their safety. For years now, the evidence has been clear and deeply troubling with respect to gender based violence in higher education communities, and specifically I refer to sexual assault and harassment. In earlier stages of this debate we heard a lot about statistics and figures, but I will repeat one of them from the National Student Safety Survey of 2021: one in 20 students reported sexual assault. Of these, only five per cent made a formal complaint. What does that mean? It means that, in a cohort of a thousand students, 50 have been assaulted, yet fewer than three of those assaults were formally reported. These are distressing figures. Just think about it: in any lecture theatre across the country, about five out of every hundred students in the room have experienced sexual assault since starting university. These figures are, of course, worse for females and even worse for students that identify as gender diverse and for students with a disability. Sadly, most have been left to carry that burden in silence, without knowing how to get the support they need and deserve. Starting university is supposed to be one of the most exciting periods of your life; it turns into one of the most terrifying.

Violence impacts a victim-survivor's mental and physical health and wellbeing. It can and does also negatively affect students' educational outcomes. They may be less able to attend or participate in classes, and in some cases they will withdraw from their studies altogether. I note the STOP Campaign submission to the Universities Accord panel, which found:

Multiple respondents detailed that they now live with mental health impacts, such as PTSD, anxiety, depression, suicide attempts, disordered eating and panic attacks as a result of their experiences. Many respondents also noted they were unable to go to class or attend campus in general due to fear of running into their perpetrator. Some were also forced to continue living in the same accommodation as their perpetrator, constantly living in a state of fear. Socially, victim-survivors often chose to not engage in social events as they felt unsafe. Some respondents also noted the destruction of past relationships and difficulty creating new relationships as a result of their experience of violence and harm.

That is a pretty disturbing submission from the STOP Campaign. Staff are also victims of gender based violence, and it can obviously result in reduced performance, absenteeism and more turnover of staff. These impacts directly challenge the core mission of universities and the education they provide.

It's our responsibility in this place to ensure proper governance, transparent reporting and accountability, to make sure that harm is prevented and that, when harm does occur, it is properly responded to—that is, a response that ensures people are heard and have access to the trauma informed support they need to order to successfully achieve their educational outcomes. That's precisely what the Universities Accord (National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence) Bill 2025 and the Universities Accord (National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2025 set out to do. These bills are a key outcome of the Action Plan Addressing Gender-based Violence in Higher Education, which all education ministers across the federation signed up to. Once passed, these bills will hold higher education providers to consistently high standards to proactively prevent and respond to gender based violence.

The Universities Accord (National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence) Bill 2025 introduces a National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence. It will ensure our universities and other higher education providers put safety first. It strengthens prevention, improves responses when harm happens and holds providers accountable for how they perform, right down to student accommodation. The Minister for Education will be able to set a national code that lays down best practice standards, and every provider will need to meet those standards.

To monitor and enforce the code, a new specialist gender based violence unit will be established within the Department of Education. Vice-chancellors and CEOs will be directly responsible for making sure their institutions comply, and they'll have to report every six months to their governing bodies. Compliance won't be a tick-and-flick exercise. It will require regular reporting on incident data and steps being taken to prevent and respond to gender based violence.

Let us recall that the 2017 Human Rights Commission recommended that every university establish advisory committees to address sexual violence. That recommendation was in 2017. Yet, as reporting by the ABC in February last year showed, a third of universities still did not have such committees. And too many fall short on transparency. This bill brings the transparency and oversight necessary—regular annual reporting through the minister and to parliament—and enhances accountability. By driving whole-of-institution cultural and regulatory reform in the higher education system, with over 1.5 million students and 130,000 staff, the bill will also help lead social change.

Another measure from the Action Plan Addressing Gender-based Violence in Higher Education is the introduction of the National Student Ombudsman, who commenced in February this year. The Student Ombudsman enables higher education students to escalate complaints about the actions of their higher education provider, including gender based violence complaints. What I'm most pleased about with this bill is that the code will also include an enforceable requirement that providers implement the recommendations of the National Student Ombudsman. As Minister Clare noted in the other place, this gives the findings and recommendations of the ombudsman real teeth and will make sure they are put in place to improve our universities and other providers.

I will finish with some STOP Campaign submission quotes. Again, these are direct quotes from students. They are quite distressing, but I think it's really important to record why we are having this discussion now. The first quote is from a young student who said:

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

It's pretty damning. Secondly, another student said:

I withdrew socially after I was assaulted, and struggled to scrape through my final year of university. I ended up deferring my Honours and not going back to university … because I couldn't deal with walking around places where I knew I might see my perpetrators, or be reminded of them.

And finally, another said: 'I had panic attacks before class because I knew the perpetrator was in the class with me.' These are statements directly from students. That's why we're here debating this bill now, and it's more than overdue. The students should never have had these experiences. Horrifically, they did. It's incredibly brave that they did speak up. Because of their bravery, we can now take action. I'd like to read a final quote from the campaign submission which simply states:

Please listen to the voices of students and survivors as these are the opinions that matter.

For too long, students have been let down by their universities and by inaction by previous governments. That changes today. Students should be able to learn at universities and live on campus free from harassment or assault. We should do everything we can to reduce harm experienced within university settings. Let's be clear: passing this bill is not the end of the work. It's the foundation. No student should be forced to choose between their education and their safety. It's that simple.

I wish I was not having to speak on this issue. I long for the day when we, as a parliament—indeed, as a community—do not know the meaning of gender based violence because it's no longer part of our lexicon. But, sadly, that is not the case. That is not the world we live in, even in 2025. Students and staff in any workplace need to feel safe. That is especially so in our educational spaces—in our schools, as well as in our higher education settings. For too long, this problem of gender based violence has really been swept under the carpet.

There has been a testimonial injustice dealt out to the many students who have raised concerns, over at least a decade, with the powers that be in our universities. We all know, but take for granted, that safety is a prerequisite to participation—in any setting, whether it be work or study, or in training centres, sporting teams and so on. But if you do believe, as I do, that education is the most powerful lever we have to climb up that ladder of social mobility, then not addressing gender based violence or any other type of barrier to participation is a denial of this country's wealth. It's denying our country the kind of wealth that it should realise because it holds people back. It holds people back and it results in worse social and educational outcomes ultimately.

We know the statistics around gender based violence—something like one in 12 students in the past 12 months have experienced sexual harassment and one in six since starting university. That's very common. That's highly common. With regards to sexual assault, most extreme type of violence, it is one in 90 in the last 12 months and one in 20 since starting university.

These are almost certainly going to be underreported compared to the reality because most people do not disclose these types of events because the response, frankly, from the universities has been pretty poor. It's been completely substandard. We also know that, in terms of formal complaints made to the university, one in 30 students who were sexually harassed made a formal complaint. That's only three per cent. There is gross underreporting, and it is the same with sexual assault—only 5.6 per cent have reported and made formal complaints to the university. The question must be asked as to why that is so.

In terms of the most prevalent settings within a higher education context, these incidents tend to occur in clubs and societies followed by student accommodation—student accommodation, where people basically try and find sanctuary after a busy day at university or in class, wouldn't have been on my radar—and, of course, then in private homes and residences. It is simply not good enough.

But the statistics belie the real burden, and that's only conveyed through qualitative data. I'll read out a few quotes here. This is from a student who experienced unsolicited sexual advances—common; I certainly experienced it when I was a junior doctor—'Despite clearly mentioning that I was not interested, my colleague approached me. It was an invasion of personal space, and we were in my room preparing for an exam. He tried to kiss me, and I pulled back in shock. He said, "But you were talking so openly about wanting romantic and sexual freedom."' In what universe is that even acceptable? Apparently, this is the norm in our universities.

Then there are, of course, the catcalls. Is there any woman or girl around who has not ever been subjected to catcalls—yelling, whistling, honking of cars and, worst case, stalking, which we know is even more prevalent now thanks to our online virtual worlds. This from a student: 'I was at college event at the bar ordering drinks, and this guy came up to me clearly drunk. He tried to look under my dress. I felt very self-conscious and walked away as fast as I could.' There are many women, girls and young women out there who have experienced this, and we all know what that feels like. You tend to freeze. You are so self-conscious and threatened that you revert to your primal response, which is fight or flight, and if it's flight, it's a sense of paralysis.

Then of course there are the invasive questions, the inappropriate language and the inappropriate jokes. 'Going to university, I dealt with men stalking me online, following my class timetable at uni to know where I was, and I tried to avoid them.' There was one quote that particularly jumped out at me from a student who used the bus at night-time to get about university. As you know, universities instituted these transport services at night in order to actually help students, particularly women, feel safe. But this is what one student disclosed: 'I was asked extremely private, personal and uncomfortable questions about my sex life by a uni bus driver when he used to drive me around the campus late at night.' You're essentially a captive audience in that kind of setting. It's just awful to read.

We also know that there are certain faculties and subjects at university which are male-dominated, and these areas are fraught, particularly for women students. These domains of study desperately need more gender balance in order to drive the kind of cultural change that is essential at university level. But this is what women encounter: 'I am a young woman who has studied in a massively male-dominated field. I often face comments from fellow students and lecturers about my physical appearance, ranging from unnecessary compliments to sexual and degrading comments. At times, when I have rejected the romantic advances from other students, I have been threatened to have my name slandered, which has the potential to greatly harm my academic career. I have also had men engage in intimidating behaviours after my rejection of them. I constantly fear being too nice.' That is the experience of millions of Australian women currently, as well as that of women in the past, and it's really as a nod to them that we are bringing forward this legislation.

As you know, Acting Deputy President O'Sullivan, in February of this year the National Student Ombudsman opened its doors for the first time. This is essentially a watchdog for the university sector. It is a watchdog with teeth. It has all the powers of a royal commission. It's designed to hold universities to account and increase transparency. It also has an educative role. So, if students are not getting the kinds of results that they need to get from universities, they can escalate to the ombudsman on all kinds of matters: discrimination, racism, Islamophobia, antisemitism, gender based violence—you name it. But that's not enough; we have to go further, and that is why we've introduced this legislation.

This legislation will essentially bring forward a more robust framework to address gender based violence in universities, and it builds upon the ombudsman work. It essentially puts the onus on higher education providers to introduce preventive strategies, and it will have a much stronger compliance function with penalties attached. It imposes a positive duty on universities to lift their game. It will have a national code which will set best practice standards, which will be informed by the experts, and it will attempt to address the drivers that lead to this kind of behaviour. It will certainly prioritise prevention. It will hold the boards and the chairs, who are the vice-chancellors, the CEOs, of universities to account, and I think that's really important. If you really want to drive cultural change, you have to start at the top—you have to hold the top dogs accountable—and this is what this legislation will do. It will have an educative function and it will be transparent. It will report to the parliament. There will be regular reporting of incident data in these institutions.

The legislation will also—and I think this is important—establish a specialised unit, focused on gender based violence, in the Department of Education. Again, this unit will be designed to educate but also to enforce, and there will be public reporting, not only in this parliament—I hope to see it on a website, for example, which will be accessible to all Australians, because there's nothing like shining a spotlight on poor behaviour. So it will have a naming and shaming function.

I will conclude by saying that this has been a long time coming, and I pay tribute to the many, many activists and advocates over a long period of time—some, over 10 years—who have worked towards this outcome. It is through your advocacy, your voices, your hard work, blood, sweat and tears, that we have delivered this. I'm proud that it has been a Labor government—which, by the way, is female dominant, 56 per cent women, with cabinet agenda parity—that has listened and is now taking substantive action to address this problem. But, as with all types of cultural problems, it takes time. It's not just frameworks, legislative bodies, agencies and watchdogs that do it. It takes a whole-of-society effort to expunge this kind of behaviour.

These bills provide for the establishment and enforcement of a national higher education code to prevent and respond to gender based violence. They are an important step in making students and staff safer on our campuses. I thank senators across the chamber for their contributions to this debate.

I note the second reading amendment from Senator Duniam. The government takes the issue of antisemitism at universities very seriously. Antisemitism, Islamophobia or any other form of racism, harassment, discrimination or intimidation must not be allowed to threaten the safety of students and staff on Australian university campuses or anywhere else. The Minister for Education has been clear that universities must enforce their codes of conduct and meet their legislative obligations, which include having policies around freedom of speech, fostering a safe environment and ensuring student and staff wellbeing.

Since 1 February this year, the independent National Student Ombudsman has been open for students. The ombudsman is a national first. It is available to handle complaints from students about experiences of antisemitism on university campuses. The ombudsman is required to report to government at the end of each financial year about the nature and number of complaints it has received.

The government is also anticipating the final report from the Race Discrimination Commissioner into racism, including antisemitism, at Australian universities. We have also received the Special Envoy's Plan to Combat Antisemitism from Ms Jillian Segal and will soon receive a report from the Special Envoy to Combat Islamophobia in Australia, Aftab Malik. The government will consider these reports carefully and respond accordingly. We want these independent bodies to have a chance to do their work rather than pre-empt any recommendations they might make. The government will not be supporting the second reading amendment as proposed at this time.

We are taking this action now as it forms a key commitment under the Action Plan Addressing Gender-based Violence in Higher Education, following more than a decade of dedicated advocacy on behalf of victims-survivors of sexual assault and sexual harassment on campus. I commend these bills to the chamber.

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

No amendments have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I shall call the minister to move the third reading.

I move:

That these bills be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a third time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I present the fourth report of 2025 of the Selection of Bills Committee, and I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

Selection of Bills Committee

REPORT NO. 4 OF 2025

31 July 2025

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

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

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

Senator Ralph Babet Senator Leah Blyth

Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm Senator Jessica Collins

Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher Senator Susan McDonald Senator Fatima Payman

Senator David Pocock

Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 4 OF 2025

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 30 July 2025 at 7.18pm.

2. The committee recommends that—

(a) the provisions of the Aged Care (Accommodation Payment Security) Levy Amendment Bill 2025 and the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 21 August 2025 (see appendix 1 for statements of reasons for referral);

(b) the provisions of the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 21 August 2025; and

(c) the provisions of the Pacific Banking Guarantee Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 21 August 2025 (see appendix 2 for statements of reasons for referral).

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

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

5. The committee considered the following bills but was unable to reach agreement:

(Tony Sheldon)

Chair 31 July 2025

Appendix 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Aged Care (Accommodation Payment Security) Levy Amendment Bill 2025

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To scrutinise this legislation

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Interested parties and stakeholders

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Community Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

August

Possible reporting date:

21 August 2025

(signed)

Senator Wendy Askew

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To scrutinise this legislation

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Interested parties and stakeholders

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Community Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

August

Possible reporting date:

21 August 2025

(signed)

Senator Wendy Askew

Appendix 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Pacific Banking Guarantee Bill 2025

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To scrutinise this legislation

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Interested parties and stakeholders

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Economics Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

August

Possible reporting date:

21 August 2025

(signed)

Senator Wendy Askew

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Pacific Banking Guarantee Bill 2025

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

to provide relevant stakeholders with an opportunity to provide feedback on the Bill.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

South Pacific and Australian banks.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Economics Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

hearing on the papers

Possible reporting date:

21 August 2025

(signed)

Senator Nick McKim

I move:

That the report be adopted.

I move:

At the end of the motion, add: "and the following bills not be referred to a committee:

(a) Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2025;

(b) Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025

(c) Strengthening Oversight of the National Intelligence Community Bill 2025; and

(d) Defence Housing Australia Amendment Bill 2025.

At the request of Senator McKim, I move the following amendment to Labor's amendment in the terms circulated in the chamber:

Omit paragraphs (c) and (d), substitute "and:

(c) the provisions of the Defence Housing Australia Amendment Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 28 October 2025; and

(d) the provisions of the Strengthening Oversight of the National Intelligence Community Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 28 October 2025".

The amendment that we are moving provides that the Defence Housing Australia Amendment Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 28 October. We're also seeking that the Orwellian named Strengthening Oversight of the National Intelligence Community Bill 2025 not go to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, the Labor-coalition stitch-up, but instead go to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. We'd really like to take at least one of those secret security bills out of that dark, smoke-filled room of the war parties and instead put it to a public inquiry—particularly this bill, which is proposing to give the PJCIS even more powers for their secret review of intelligence.

But I really want to dwell on the Defence Housing Australia Amendment Bill 2025. You can't make some stuff up in politics, but what about this? In the last parliament, we saw Labor coming up with a million reasons they couldn't do anything on public housing. They couldn't help people out on rents, they couldn't build public housing, and they kept saying it was all the Greens' fault for not supporting their crap bills. Then, in this parliament, they start with a public housing bill. Well done, Labor! You bring a public housing bill into the chamber. You push it through the lower house. And do you know what public housing they're building? They're building public housing for US troops under AUKUS. That's their public housing bill.

Right now, they want to build 700 public housing units over in WA—not for Australians who haven't got a place to live and not for renters who can't afford to buy a home. They're building public housing for US troops because Uncle Donald asked them to. Surely they read this bill, didn't they? Didn't somebody in the Labor caucus say, 'Our first public housing bill in the new parliament can't be to build housing for US troops under AUKUS'? Surely someone did a reality check. But no. That's their bill. And do you know what? They can't even say how many hundreds of millions of public dollars will be used to build public housing for US troops under the bill.

Even the coalition were asking some questions about it. The coalition normally wave through anything to do with AUKUS. If it's anything to do with the US alliance, they'll wave it through. But even the coalition downstairs asked some little, quiet, tentative questions like: 'Please, sir, can you tell us how much money we're going to be paying to build the US troops public housing? Please, minister, you haven't explained in the bill how much this is going to cost; is it going to come from the Defence budget or some other budget?' When the coalition got no answers, they crawled back into their shell and went quiet on it. And that's so typical of this non-opposition opposition—

Senator Scarr?

A point of order on the language being used by Senator Shoebridge. Senator Shoebridge can do better than using language like 'crawl'. Yesterday, we had 'crunch' from the other side.

Thank you, Senator Scarr. That's quite enough on your point of order. It's not unparliamentary language, but I would suggest that all senators and Senator Shoebridge can do better.

Thank you, President. Maybe the problem is the 'Uncle Donald' reference. Maybe it's that the coalition and Labor are embarrassed about the fact that they're teaming up today to help the Senate ram through legislation to build public housing for US troops under AUKUS. It is a bloody disgrace.

Senator Shoebridge—

I withdraw that.

Thank you.

There are already 2½ thousand US marines cycling in and out of Darwin. Are we building housing for the 2½ thousand marines cycling in and out of Darwin? There are already plans to put 700 US troops into the surrounds of Garden Island, off Fremantle, with all their families. How many houses are we building for US troops in Fremantle under this bill? There's already a housing crisis over there.

We say to both the coalition and Labor: if you're going to do another stitch-up on AUKUS, at least have the guts to do it in public. At least have the guts to take this bill to an inquiry so we can find out how many hundreds of millions in Australian taxpayers' dollars are going towards building housing for US troops under the plan from the war parties, Labor and the coalition. AUKUS is already bleeding us dry, with billions of dollars going to Donald Trump and billions more going to Rolls-Royce in the UK. And now, in the first housing bill that Labor brings into this new parliament, they decide to put an unknown number of millions of dollars into building houses—not for people in Australia who can't afford them, but for Labor's mates in the US and for US troops. It's a disgrace. Send it to inquiry.

The question is that the Greens amendment as moved by Senator Shoebridge, and standing in the name of Senator McKim, to the amendment moved by Senator Walsh be agreed to.

The question now is that the amendment to the motion that the Selection of Bills Committee report be adopted, moved by Senator Walsh, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.

I move:

That general business notice of motion No. 73 standing in the name of Senator Ruston, relating to Medicare, be considered during general business today.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to the following senators for today:

(a) Senator McCarthy, on account of ministerial business; and

(b) Senator Sterle, on account of parliamentary business.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

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

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Canavan, I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 October 2025:

The Australian Government's decision to allow United States of America beef derived from bovines born and raised in North and Central America to be imported into Australia, with particular reference to:

(a) the possible impending threat of importing beef products from cattle herds in North and Central America which have been, or may be, exposed to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) or other serious cattle borne diseases;

(b) the processes undertaken by the Australian Government in determining biosecurity risk to consumers and industry, and the adequacy of such processes;

(c) the adequacy of the biosecurity import risk assessment, associated processes and advice from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in relation to importing beef and beef products from the United States of America (USA);

(d) the implication of future possible BSE and FMD outbreaks in the USA or other relevant countries on biosecurity assurances in Australia;

(e) the protocols that would apply to beef products imported from the USA and equivalency in standards;

(f) the Inspector-General of Biosecurity's review of the management and application of the import risk analysis process and recommendations;

(g) the possible implications of allowing imports from the USA for Australia's international and domestic reputation as the world's safest producer of beef; and

(h) any other related matters.

The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1, standing in the name of Senator Canavan, be agreed to.

I move:

(1) That the following matter be re-referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 25 June 2026:

Greenwashing, with particular reference to:

(a) the environmental and sustainability claims made by companies in industries including energy, vehicles, household products and appliances, food and drink packaging, cosmetics, clothing and footwear;

(b) the impact of misleading environmental and sustainability claims on consumers;

(c) domestic and international examples of regulating companies' environmental and sustainability claims;

(d) advertising standards in relation to environmental and sustainability claims;

(e) legislative options to protect consumers from greenwashing in Australia; and

(f) any other related matters.

(2) That the committee have the power to consider and use the records of the Environment and Communications References Committee appointed in the previous parliament.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Given what happened in relation to the last motion, where Labor and the Greens combined to crunch the coalition and deprive the committee of considering a matter of great importance to the Australian people, the coalition will be taking a stand on this motion and opposing it. We believe that the dealings between the Greens and the Labor Party are compromising the running of this institution to consider matters of great concern to the Australian people, including in relation to the announcement made regarding the importation of beef from the United States, which has its source in both Canada and Mexico. So we will resist Labor and the Greens seeking to crunch the coalition, and seeking to thereby crunch the operation of this institution, and we will oppose.

The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 3, standing in the name of Senator Hanson-Young, be agreed to.

I move:

(1) That the following matters be re-referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 25 June 2026:

(a) the National Cultural Policy released on 30 January 2023; and

(b) any other related matters.

(2) That the committee have the power to consider and use the records of the Environment and Communications References Committee appointed in the previous parliament.

Question agreed to.

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

That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 31 October 2025:

The Internet Search Engine Services Online Safety Code (Class 1C and Class 2 Material), with particular reference to:

(a) the heads of authority provided by the Online Safety Act 2021 (the Act) for each provision of the code;

(b) the scope and accountability of the e-Safety Commissioner in administering the Act including the development of industry codes and standards;

(c) ensuring there are appropriate parliamentary oversight and scrutiny mechanisms for industry codes and standards;

(d) the operation of similar legislation in the United Kingdom and Europe as it relates to freedom of speech and freedom of the press; and

(e) any other related matters.

The question is that general business of the Senate notice of motion No. 5, standing in the names of Senators Babet and Roberts, be agreed to.

I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed works be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable:

Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts—Proposed fit-out of new leased premises at 7 London Circuit, Canberra City.

Airservices Australia—PFAS remediation of the former fire training ground at Rockhampton Airport, Queensland.

Airservices Australia—Aviation rescue fire fighting services NexGen project for the end-of-life facilities upgrades—Phase 1A (Queensland and Victoria).

I table statements in relation to the works.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on Productivity in Australia, be established to inquire into and report on:

(a) the history of productivity growth in Australia in both multifactor and labour terms;

(b) the current position and opportunities to gain productivity growth;

(c) conflicts of interest and structural barriers to sustainable growth;

(d) the efficacy of federal competition law;

(e) opportunities for the states and territories to drive growth;

(f) the impact of regulatory tax burdens on productivity growth;

(g) the impact and opportunity of technology;

(h) priority opportunities in the market and non-market sectors for productivity growth;

(i) Australia's competitiveness and benchmarking against similar nations; and

(j) any other related matters.

(2) That the committee present its final report by 23 July 2027.

(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; and

(c) two nominated by minority party or independent senators.

(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 Opposition in the Senate and, as deputy chair, a member nominated by 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, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.

(11) 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.

(12) 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.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

It's an unfortunate irony that an inquiry into productivity is asking for such an extended timeline to deliver findings—two years. One Nation would happily support an inquiry into productivity on a much shorter, more productive timeline—six months. We note that all inquiries are entitled to seek extensions of time from the Senate if needed, and this is common.

This government is murdering productivity, particularly with skyrocketing energy prices and regulations crippling productivity. With more to come, it makes productivity improvement urgent. Productivity determines standard of living, national prosperity and security, and can drive real wage growth. One Nation will oppose this motion, and we repeat through you, President, to Senator Bragg that we welcome him returning with a motion for an inquiry of six months duration.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 15 standing in the name of Senator Bragg and moved by Senator Askew be agreed to.

I move general business notices of motion Nos 53 to 55 together:

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 53

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General by no later than 5 pm on Thursday, 21 August 2025:

(a) the complete text of any legal advice obtained or prepared concerning Australia's compliance with its obligations under international law relating to:

(i) genocide and the prevention of genocide, and/or

(ii) the occupied Palestinian territories, including decisions of United Nations bodies and the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion, dated 19 July 2024;

(b) the facts that went into preparing any legal advice;

(c) identification of the individual or entity who prepared the legal advice;

(d) dates on which the advice was commissioned, prepared and finalised;

(e) a list of all government officials and departments to whom the advice has been provided; and/or

(f) all written or digital correspondence (including all attachments to any written or digital correspondence), briefing materials, file notes, meeting notices or minutes or other records concerning any such legal advice.

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 54

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Foreign Affairs by no later than 5 pm on Thursday, 21 August 2025:

(a) the complete text of any legal advice obtained or prepared concerning Australia's compliance with its obligations under international law relating to:

(i) genocide and the prevention of genocide, and/or

(ii) the occupied Palestinian territories, including decisions of United Nations bodies and the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion, dated 19 July 2024;

(b) the facts that went into preparing any legal advice;

(c) identification of the individual or entity who prepared the legal advice;

(d) dates on which the advice was commissioned, prepared and finalised; and/or

(e) a list of all government officials and departments to whom the advice has been provided; and/or

(f) all written or digital correspondence (including all attachments to any written or digital correspondence), briefing materials, file notes, meeting notices or minutes or other records concerning any such legal advice.

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 55

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, by no later than 5 pm on Thursday, 21 August 2025:

(a) the complete text of any legal advice obtained or prepared concerning Australia's compliance with its obligations under international law relating to:

(i) genocide and the prevention of genocide, and/or

(ii) the occupied Palestinian territories, including decisions of United Nations bodies and the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion, dated 19 July 2024;

(b) the facts that went into preparing any such legal advice;

(c) identification of the individual or entity who prepared the legal advice;

(d) dates on which the advice was commissioned, prepared and finalised;

(e) a list of all government officials and departments to whom the advice has been provided; and/or

(f) all written or digital correspondence (including all attachments to any written or digital correspondence), briefing materials, file notes, meeting notices or minutes or other records concerning any such legal advice.

I seek leave to make a short statement in relation to general business notices of motion Nos 53, 54 and 55.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government will be opposing these motions. Australia acts in accordance with our obligations under international law. Throughout the war in Gaza, the government has been consistent in our demand that all parties must abide by international humanitarian law. Australia has long been part of an international call on Israel to comply with its international obligations in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We have repeatedly called on Israel to comply with the binding orders of the International Court of Justice, including its provisional orders in South Africa's case against Israel. We work with partners to assert our position through sanctions, statements and resolutions, as well as diplomatic interventions and more than $110 million in humanitarian assistance for civilians devastated by the conflict. Consistent with the longstanding practice of successive Australian governments, the government does not disclose the details of any legal advice sought or received.

The question is that general business notices of motion Nos 53 to 55 be agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Indigenous Australians, by 5 pm on 12 August 2025:

(a) the text of any legal advice obtained or prepared by the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA), the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) or the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PMC) regarding the compliance of the Remote Australia Employment Service (RAES), previously referred to as the New Remote Employment Services Program (N-RES), or any related other remote employment services scheme with the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (the Act), or the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) as referred to in the response to question on notice no. 322 from the 2024-25 Supplementary Budget estimates cross-portfolio Indigenous matters hearings of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, including:

(i) the dates on which the advice was commissioned, prepared and finalised, and

(ii) a list of all government officials, departments or agencies to whom the advice has been provided;

(b) any written communications, including emails, briefings or internal correspondence, between NIAA, PMC, DEWR or any other Commonwealth agency concerning the program's compliance with the Act or ICERD;

(c) the most up to date version of any grant opportunity guidelines, implementation instructions or internal decision-making rules relating to the design or rollout of the RAES, N-RES or related schemes, where such documents reflect or were informed by legal advice on compliance with the RDA or ICERD; and

(d) all documents and communications described above that were created, commissioned or circulated since 1 January 2023.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Ruston, I move:

That—

(a) the Senate notes that on 29 July 2025 the Senate agreed that it does not consider that orders for the production of documents nos 229, 253 and 315 relating to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Financial Sustainability Framework have been satisfactorily complied with; and

(b) until the Senate resolves that the orders have been satisfactorily complied with, the Minister representing the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme be required to attend the Senate at the start of proceedings on the first day of each sitting week to provide an explanation of the failure to comply with the orders, and that:

(i) any senator may move to take note of the explanation, and

(ii) any such motion may be debated for no longer than 30 minutes, shall have precedence over all other business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 67, standing in the name of Senator Ruston and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.

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

That the following bill be introduced:

A Bill for an Act to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, 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.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

While the Senate has the opportunity to reject a bill at the first reading stage, in practice, the first reading is almost always passed without opposition and is regarded as a purely formal stage. The coalition support these normal procedures as we have with many Greens, Labor or crossbench bills that we strongly opposed. The normal process enables bills to be fairly considered and debated by the Senate before a substantive decision is taken. It should only be deviated from in the most extreme of circumstances, lest we deny the right of senators to even have matters debated. As in all cases, a vote on the first reading should not be taken as a position on the substantive legislation, especially where a bill has not had the opportunity to be the subject of normal internal processes.

I seek leave to make a one-minute statement.

Leave granted.

I thank the Senate. We know exactly what Senators Antic and Canavan are up to here. They are introducing a bill that they want to use to provide a platform for transphobic people in our community to punch down on transgender Australians and, in particular, on trans kids. That's what's going on here—they are trying to provide a platform, using parliamentary privilege, to punch down on some of the most vulnerable people in our community. Well, as far as the Australian Greens are concerned, we are never, never going to vote in this place to allow you to create that platform. Trans rights are human rights! Trans people and trans kids deserve our love and support. They deserve us to stand up and defend their right to exist, and the Australian Greens will always do that.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

I understand the arguments that Senator Scarr has put and agree that it is normal custom and practice in this place to allow for bills to be introduced. However, in the last term the government did take a stand on another similar bill. We took the position that we were dealing with it at the first reading stage because of the harm that could be caused by creating a platform for parliamentary debate over it and its impact on individuals—particularly young Australians. That is the position we took in the last parliament. It is the position we are taking now. We do not agree with the Senate being a place where individual harm can be done to young people across this country. That is what would have happened had we allowed this bill to proceed in the normal course, and we won't stand for it. Trans children deserve better from this chamber.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

What we're seeing here is an example of control, and, always, beneath control there is fear. Of what are the Greens and their coalition partner, Labor, afraid?

The question is that general business notion of motion No. 68 standing in the name of Senators Antic and Canavan be agreed to.

I ask that general business notice of motion No. 69 be taken as a formal notion.

Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?

Yes, there is.

There is an objection.

Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in the name of Senator Waters, I move that so much of standing orders—

We've now hit the hard marker, Senator McKim.

With the indulgence of the Senate, I am going to deal with committee memberships before we get to the address-in-reply. I have received letters nominating senators to be members of committees.

by leave—I move:

That senators be appointed to committees as follows:

Appropriations, Staffing and Security — Standing Committee —

Appointed—Senators Duniam, McKenzie and Waters

Electoral Matters — Joint Standing Committee—

Appointed—Participating members [for the purposes of the committee's inquiry into the 2025 election]: Senators Allman-Payne, Faruqi, Hanson-Young, McKim, Barbara Pocock, Shoebridge, Steele-John, Waters and Whish-Wilson

Implementation of the National Redress Scheme — Joint Standing Committee—

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

Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy — Select Committee —

Appointed—

Senators Canavan, McLachlan, David Pocock and Whish-Wilson

Participating members: Senators Allman-Payne, Antic, Askew, Blyth, Bragg, Brockman, Cadell, Cash, Chandler, Colbeck, Collins, Duniam, Faruqi, Hanson-Young, Henderson, Hodgins-May, Hume, Kovacic, Liddle, McDonald, McGrath, McKenzie, McKim, Nampijinpa Price, O'Sullivan, Paterson, Barbara Pocock, Ruston, Scarr, Sharma, Shoebridge, Dean Smith, Steele-John and Waters

Parliamentary Joint Committee on Parliamentary Standards —

Appointed—Senator McKim

PFAS — Select Committee —

Appointed—

Senator Whish-Wilson

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

Question agreed to.

Current world events and the destabilisation of our geopolitical climate demonstrate that Australia, despite our challenges, is a resilient and strong democracy. This should never be taken for granted. Having the opportunity to stand in this place today and make this speech after a seamless transition post election proves that we are indeed the greatest country on earth.

Entering my second term in the Senate, I've been reflecting on what the past six years threw at us. Obviously, for those that were also in the class of 2019, we didn't have very long in this place until, suddenly, life was far from normal. COVID entered the scene in early 2020, and we were trying to work out what it meant for Australia. Parliament was cancelled, and we spent all that time in isolation. We Western Australians spent a few too many days cooped up in hotel rooms—or, as it was for me, in a caravan—after parliamentary sittings. Then came the economic shocks, the supply chain challenges—we all remember the rush on toilet paper—the rising inflation, the growing uncertainty in global affairs and the creeping sense that things would never be the same. And we've faced compounding pressures on families, small businesses, budgets and national morale. Yet here we are.

I'd like to take this opportunity to acknowledge some of my colleagues who have finished their service in this place and the other place. Firstly, I acknowledge our leader last term, Peter Dutton. Peter was a great support to me, and I'm incredibly grateful to him and his family. The election result was disappointing, but Peter deserves recognition and respect for his almost 25 years as a member of parliament, including as a cabinet minister and, most recently, the Leader of the Opposition.

Secondly, I acknowledge my fellow Western Australian, former senator Linda Reynolds. Linda has been such a strong advocate for Western Australian and the coalition. Linda, you can be proud of your contribution and what you achieved in our nation's parliament.

I would also like to acknowledge my other colleagues Hollie Hughes, Perin Davey and David Fawcett. Thank you for being such great colleagues and supporters and for all the work that you did in this place. I wish you the very best for what comes next.

It is through these reflections that you realise the immense privilege that it is to serve in the Australian parliament. I never want a day to go by without that feeling of great pride. We should never feel entitled or be comfortable in this job, for it is for Western Australians and it is with Western Australians, who have placed their trust in me to represent them and deliver for them.

This is a sobering time for the Liberal Party. The results of the past two elections highlight that much has gone wrong. It is easy to rush to judgement, despair or fear and think that it will always be, but there are important lessons for me and indeed for the whole coalition. This moment that we're in right now presents a new opportunity, and we must seize it. The great Sir Robert Menzies once reminded us that 'the greatest enemy to present joy and high hopes is the cultivation of retrospective bitterness'. Drawing on past grievances won't help us rebuild, but honest reflection, clarity of purpose and renewed commitment to our longstanding beliefs will.

Like it or not, voters always get it right. You may not like the decision, but in a democracy they are the better judge. It's clear Australians did not think that the coalition was ready to govern. With the benefit of hindsight, I suspect they were right. In my view, we failed to express some of our most important beliefs, the very same beliefs for which we've seen the coalition elected many times before. How can we be the party of lower taxes and sound economic management if we oppose tax cuts and fail to deliver and outline a clear vision for tax reform? With bracket creep coming into sharper focus, we cannot afford to sit on the sidelines and allow it to happen. Put simply, it's robbing hardworking Australians of money that should be in their back pockets and not in the Treasury.

Speaking of robbery, this is what the current Treasurer is doing with the proposed tax on superannuation for those with a balance of $3 million or more. You know it's a bad idea when the father of superannuation, former prime minister Paul Keating, is saying that this is unconscionable. He knows, like everyone else, that it needs to be indexed; otherwise, the very workers that he sought to protect by creating this superannuation guarantee will be the ones most affected by Treasurer Chalmers's foolish ideas.

With millions of Australians paying billions in tax each year, the electorate is crying out for taxation reform. With productivity continuing to decline, reforming the tax system is one pathway to restoring it. We face a very simple choice: should governments find more ways to tax Australians, or should we collectively work together to get Australia's budget back into a sustainable position? As Liberals, it should definitely be the latter. It is in our DNA. But we need to find the collective will and courage to fight for this. I firmly believe that, if we contest the next election with a vision of economic strength and a plan for tax reform, Australians will see the coalition as the alternative government that they've been looking for. We must cast a vision for Australia, something more than just good policy.

Under the leadership of the Hon. Sussan Ley, I've been privileged to serve in her shadow ministry as the shadow minister for infrastructure, fisheries and forestry. These sectors are critical to the Australian economy. Infrastructure impacts Australians every day. Through efficient and safe infrastructure, we enable businesses to boost productivity and transport goods. We enable people to get to work safely, parents to do the school run, public transport to operate and so on. In this portfolio, I'll be primarily investigating the need to improve road safety. Last year, 1,300 lives were lost on our roads, the highest in a decade. That is one less person at family dinners or at Christmas gatherings. We must ensure that funds are allocated correctly to make our roads safer, and I'd add to that we must ensure that projects are delivered on time and on budget for that to occur.

I'll also champion the infrastructure needs of my home state, Western Australia. Infrastructure fuels economic growth, yet WA seems to be missing out, despite being the engine room of this country, as I'm sure you'd agree, Acting Deputy President Cox. A 2019 Australian infrastructure audit estimated that congestion in Perth would cost $3.1 billion annually by 2031. Winding roads and freeways are sensible, but often we react to congestion rather than proactively plan and build before it becomes an issue. We also need to rethink commuting options. Perth has one of the lowest rates of walking and cycling trips nationwide. According to Infrastructure Australia, there are 4.2 million private car trips daily, with 2.8 million under five kilometres.

The other major element of my portfolio is fisheries and forestry, two industries under constant attack by the Australian Labor Party and the Greens. Along with Senator Cadell, I work constructively to ensure government policies support these industries and enable sustainable operation for future generations. Bizarrely, the Left seems hell-bent on squeezing these industries until they collapse. In WA, the Cook Labor government has banned native logging, with little regard for the regional towns that relied on it and offering limited alternative economic opportunities. Let me be clear: while the coalition agrees that these industries must operate sustainably, we also believe in the people and the towns that rely on them and the vibrant economy that they contribute to. My family hails from Manjimup, a beautiful part of the world. I love native forests, but everything must be balanced, and a total ban is not the answer.

As many of you know, I also love the great outdoors. During recent school holidays, only a few weeks ago, my family and I drove the Great Central Road to the Red Centre. This is the road that cuts straight through from Laverton all the way to Uluru. It's Australia's longest road route and it's an incredible shortcut. In fact, it's known as the great shortcut. It saves you about 1,200 kilometres if you take that direct route rather than going through Port Augusta and across the Nullarbor. The journey along the Great Central Road is an epic odyssey. There remains a 736-kilometre unsealed section on the Western Australian side. Having experienced it firsthand, I will advocate for this part to be fully sealed. I want to give a special shout-out to the Mayor of Laverton, Patrick Hill. He has led this cause for over 25 years. He is someone who deserves great recognition.

A heads-up to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee budget estimates process: I will be coming to that committee with many questions on why this road has not been sealed already. The funding is there. My initial investigations suggest that the delays are linked to native title issues. The Morrison government allocated $400 million to this project. The money's sitting there. But the state Labor government has sat on it for over three years. My understanding is that the conflicted areas cover only a small part of the route, so why is the Albanese government allowing it to stall?

This is a vital infrastructure project for Western Australia and, indeed, the nation. A third transport link into WA is critical. Two years ago, there was a fire down on the Nullarbor and a flood up in the Kimberley. The flood destroyed the Fitzroy Crossing bridge, and, of course, the transcontinental railway and the Eyre Highway were blocked by the fire. Freight had to be shipped from either Melbourne or Adelaide to get across to Perth. That included groceries. The case for sealing this route is clear, and the inaction shows that WA is being taken for granted. I'll have more to say about this in coming months.

In closing, much work remains for my party to return to government. It's obvious the Australian people didn't think that we were ready to govern on 3 May. The Liberal Party has a lot of rebuilding to do. But, when faced with adversity, we should meet those challenges head-on. Restoring trust with the electorate, delivering policies that bring meaningful change and building a stronger Australia for families should be our guiding goal. Building a stronger Australia starts with stronger families. Policies like income splitting for families with young children are more than good ideas—and a special shout-out to you, Senator Collins, for your great first speech last night and for raising this important topic. They recognise that the great sacrifices of stay-at-home parents are important. These mothers and fathers do vital work raising the next generation and deserve a fair tax system that honours their choices rather than punishing them.

On education, we need to get back to basics. Every Australian child deserves a solid foundation in literacy and numeracy within a calm and orderly classroom. This involves backing evidence based teaching methods and raising standards, not lowering them. On energy and climate, Tony Blair, in his foreword to the paper The climate paradox: why we need to reset action on climate change, makes it clear: we cannot meet our climate goals with ideological divides that continue to hold us back. Australia needs realism and support for technologies that can deliver clean, reliable, affordable power. Nuclear energy should be on the table, not as a last resort but as part of our energy mix. I want to be part of a process that makes these changes happen, not one that stalls progress—a process that seeks to improve rather than stifle good ideas.

There are many challenges facing us as a nation. One of them, of course, will be the advancement of artificial intelligence. We're less than 18 months away from having artificial general intelligence. That is going to profoundly change the way we go about life. It will happen within this term of parliament. Within this term of parliament, we will see dramatic changes in the way that our lives are impacted. In fact, it's going to impact upon government, and it's going to impact upon revenue. There are many challenges that we are going to have to face in this parliament.

In the Liberal Party, we've faced lows before. We're at an all-time low right now, but we can deal with it. We've been written off before. We've been written off as out of touch before. We've been written off, but we will rise again. As the 40th president of the United States, who endured a period in the political wilderness himself, once said:

From times of hardship, we've always emerged with a renewed sense of confidence and a determination to meet and to conquer whatever challenges lie ahead.

I'm delighted to speak to this address-in-reply today. I want to thank the Governor-General for her generosity to us in recent weeks—in particular, to us new parliamentarians. Her Excellency welcomed new senators and members to Government House while we were at school earlier this month and then opened Government House to our families ahead of the first sitting last week. I also thank her for her address to senators and members in this place, setting out the government's agenda for the term.

On 3 May, the Australian people made their voices heard. Australians re-elected the Albanese Labor government for a second term with an increased majority—and an historic majority at that. It's a very clear endorsement of the work that the Prime Minister and the Labor government did in the first term and of the plan we presented to build a better future for our country—a plan to deliver cost-of-living relief, to strengthen Medicare, to get more people into their first home, to create a more accessible universal early childhood education and care system and to build a future made in Australia. It's a clear mandate to deliver on that plan. In my home state of Western Australia, it's a mandate to continue to keep WA's economy strong, to make more things in WA and to keep helping Western Australian families. That is exactly what we will do. Western Australians know that it is only under a Labor government that they will see action on the things that matter most to them.

This government has been really clear. Tackling the cost of living is our No. 1 priority. We want Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn, and we've made good progress. The Albanese government has got wages up and brought inflation down, but we know that cost-of-living challenges are still being felt by many Australians. That's why we will do more. Following the recent federal budget, the government legislated tax cuts that took effect on the first of this month. These changes will deliver real tax relief to every Australian taxpayer, helping ease cost-of-living pressures and tackling bracket creep head-on. It's a meaningful step to put more money back into the pockets of Australians.

We're not stopping there. Further rounds of tax cuts will be locked in for 2026 and 2027—fair and simple relief for low- and middle-income earners. On 1 July this year, award and minimum wage workers, including those in hospitality, retail and community services, received a 3.5 per cent pay rise—a real pay rise, above inflation. It's something Labor fought for. Just this week, we've been legislating to cut HECS debt, to make medicines cheaper and to protect penalty rates. We're also delivering more support for parents—extending paid parental leave to six months so that families can spend more time together at home in those early months when they most need to be with their new babies. And for the first time, superannuation will be included on government paid parental leave, a crucial step in ensuring women are better off in their retirement and in closing the gap that so often emerges over the course of many women's lives when they take time off to have a family.

We are also delivering another round of power bill credits—another $150 credit for every household—to help bring down household costs. Treasury estimates that this will directly reduce headline inflation by around half a percentage point in 2025 and reduce household bills by 7½ per cent, on average, compared to bills without the extension. In WA, along with the power bill credits delivered by the Cook Labor government in recent years, these credits have meant Western Australians have received significant bill relief at the time they needed it most.

Australians are proud of our world-class healthcare system, and Labor is proud to have created it. Medicare was established by the Hawke government over 50 years ago, and the Albanese Labor government will honour that legacy by making the single largest investment in Medicare ever. In the last term, the government opened 87 Medicare urgent care clinics right across the country, with plans to establish a further 50 this term. This will mean that four in five Australians will live within a 20-minute drive of a Medicare urgent care clinic, within a 20-minute drive of free walk-in care. The government will establish 1800MEDICARE, a 24-hour free health advice service that will help save Australians from unnecessary trips to the emergency department. And we will roll out our plan to make more GP visits free, because we know you shouldn't need your credit card to get the health care you need. Only Labor can be trusted to strengthen Medicare, because we created it and we will always protect it.

We know that many Australians are working hard, doing all the right things, but are still struggling to buy a home or afford—or even find—a rental, and that's why housing is a key priority for this government. We are making it easier for first home buyers to buy a home, with a plan to support five per cent deposits, in every town, every city and every region across our country. And we'll build 100,000 new homes to be set aside specifically for first home buyers so that they're not competing with investors just to get a foot in the door. These measures will shave years off the time it takes to save for a deposit and will open the door to a new generation of homeownership. We're also making renting fairer, having already worked with a number of states around the country to ban no-grounds evictions, cap rent increases and set minimum rental standards. We've increased rental assistance by 45 per cent, helping more than a million households keep a roof over their heads.

Ultimately, though, we know the best way to make housing more affordable is to simply build more of them. That's why this government will deliver the biggest housing construction program in our nation's history—1.2 million new homes, including 55,000 social and affordable homes, through the Housing Australia Future Fund and other initiatives. We're investing in the infrastructure to support that growth, cutting red tape and backing the tradies who'll build them, because housing should be within reach, whether you're looking to buy, renting or just looking for a safe roof over your head.

The Albanese government knows that early learning sets the foundation for everything that follows. It helps kids start school ready to learn and it helps parents get back to or stay in work. That's why we will guarantee three days a week of subsidised early learning education for children who need it, beginning on 1 January next year. This will make a real difference for more than 100,000 working families. Those earning between $50,000 and $100,000 will save, on average, $1,460 per year. That's real cost-of-living relief.

Making early education and care the best it can be, the best possible quality, is a key priority for our government. That's why we are also supporting new and expanded centres where they're needed most with our Building Early Education Fund. It's a billion dollars to make sure all families, no matter where they live, can access quality education and care centres for their children. It will support early education and care in our outer suburbs, in regional towns and in our fastest-growing communities—the areas most in need of more funding. It will help not-for-profit providers grow, will support co-located services on school grounds and will look at ways we can directly invest in centres. All of this is part of the government's plan to make early education and care more affordable, more available and more universal, ensuring every child, no matter where they live or what their background is, can thrive from their earliest years. The Prime Minister has been clear. He wants to build a universal education and care system where every child can access high-quality early education that is simple, affordable and accessible, and that is what we are doing.

We are also building a future made in Australia in our cities, our regions and our communities that power our economy. The government will continue to drive that investment in local manufacturing, because our ambition doesn't end at digging things out of the ground. We want to process, manufacture and value-add right here at home. We are backing industry that will convert these minerals, many of which are in my home state of Western Australia, into solar panels and batteries—the very technologies that will power the next century of Australian homes and businesses.

And we're helping Australian households be a part of that clean energy future too. We will subsidise the cost of home batteries for Australian households, reducing their power bills for life. Our $2.3 billion Cheaper Home Batteries Program will help more than a million households install home batteries by 2030. It will reduce the cost of a typical battery by around 30 per cent. Families with rooftop solar will be able to store their own power and use it when they need it. It will cut power bills by up to $1,100 per year. The program builds on that same trusted scheme that helped millions of households install solar, and we're extending that success to batteries. We are also supporting small businesses and communities to install batteries, helping more Australians reduce their reliance on the grid and pushing down power prices for everyone. This is a smart energy policy and it is real cost-of-living relief.

We are lowering bills, cutting emissions and keeping investment flowing into Australian manufacturing. The Albanese government is committed to making more things here in Australia and more things in Western Australia. Whether it's batteries or ferries to expand WA's public transport network, we're creating good, local jobs. We're also investing in transport infrastructure to support Perth's growing suburbs, including in my own neck of the woods, with works to widen the Kwinana Freeway to reduce traffic congestion and enhance freight efficiency.

The Albanese government is delivering on its promises for working people. We're training the next generation of tradies, with nearly 600,000 free TAFE places already delivered. Apprentices in construction and clean energy are now eligible for a $10,000 support payment to help them stay on course and finish their training. Today, the Senate passed our bill to cut student debt by 20 per cent, just like Labor promised. We know this is a game changer for Australians just starting their careers, saving for their first home, juggling a mortgage or raising young kids. Every little bit helps. And we're going even further, raising the repayment threshold so people aren't forced to start paying debt when they can least afford it.

For our kids in school, we're getting every school in every state on a path to full funding. As part of our agreement with the states, we're lifting the Commonwealth contribution from 20 per cent to 25 per cent of the school resourcing standard. The funding is tied to the reforms needed to lift education standards right across the country. It means more help for students and more help for teachers.

This is all about fairness. It's about giving Australians a better start and delivering on the commitments we made, because that's what good government looks like. Labor's vision is clear. We are backing working people. We're backing families. This government is committed to building Australia's future.

I too today rise to speak on the Governor-General's address to this place on the opening of the 48th Parliament. Can I firstly express my absolute appreciation and gratitude to the people of South Australia for the privilege once again of serving them in this place and being sworn into the 48th Parliament. I can absolutely commit to the people of South Australia that I will continue, first and foremost, to fight hardest for their interests, as I have done in my previous 12 years—nearly 13 years—here, because in this place our first duty is always to represent the state that elected us to be here.

Right now, there couldn't be an issue that is more important to prosecute in this place on behalf of the people of South Australia than the absolutely devastating algal bloom that is occurring in the Gulf of St Vincent. We've known now for probably seven or eight months that this algal bloom is threatening marine life and the economic lives of those people that rely on the gulf for their livelihoods, whether that be the communities, the fishers, the tourism operators or the other businesses that are in those communities. This algal bloom has threatened them over the last six months. It continues to threaten them, and they remain in a state of incredible uncertainty because we don't actually know what our governments—both the state government and the federal government—are intending to do in order to support those communities and, most particularly, to understand what needs to be done to get rid of this algal bloom and ensure it doesn't happen again and then, of course, once the algal bloom has been dealt with in whatever way is appropriate, manage the cleanup that follows and support those communities as they get back on their feet.

I say that because, as I said, we've known about the algal bloom since December last year. There's been concern expressed, and yet very little was done. Very little has been done by the state government and the federal government. We now find ourselves in a situation where the algal bloom is quite catastrophic, and everybody is wondering what they are going to do to deal with this problem. We know that it is impacted by warmer weather. As we are now slowly creeping our way out of winter into spring, we know that the threat the algal bloom currently presents is only going to heighten.

So it's too little too late, but we now need to make sure that we are acting with absolute urgency to deal with this. We can't have a situation where our governments don't care about it when we see an impact on the beaches of Edithburgh and Stansbury. But I'm telling you that this will now hit the beaches of Brighton and Glenelg, and maybe then, as it hits our metropolitan beaches, we will see the government take this more seriously. Unfortunately the track records of this government and the one in South Australia have shown it only matters if it occurs in our cities.

One of the biggest issues that we saw during the last term and we saw during the election campaign—and Her Excellency the Governor-General raised it in her address to this parliament on behalf of the government that leads the 48th Parliament—was Medicare. I want to reflect on a matter of serious consequence to the Australian public, and that is the Albanese government's preparedness to continue to repeatedly mislead the Australian public about Medicare, particularly about whether you need your credit card or whether you are going to have out-of-pocket costs when you go to see your GP. During the campaign, the Prime Minister confidently declared on a number of occasions:

One card covers it all.

Not your credit card—your Medicare card.

He reiterated this promise in excess of 71 times during the campaign, promising all Australians would need is their Medicare card to see a GP for free.

The election goes by. Australians are continuously misled about the out-of-pocket costs that they are going to be paying. Australians also know right now they have never paid more out of their pockets when they go to see a GP. The Prime Minister, I think, knew what he was telling Australians wasn't true, but the sad fact is that now, following the election, we find out that the Prime Minister's own Department of Health and Aged Care, under FOI and the incoming government brief, confirms that the government's modelling showed that 25 per cent of GP clinics will not bulk-bill under the government's own policy framework. That statistic completely and utterly shatters the Prime Minister's promise to Australians that they would not require anything more than their Medicare card when they visited a GP.

We also see other independent and reliable sources like the RACGP, AMA, Cleanbill and the like, underpinning the report from the Department of Health and Aged Care in relation to the very unlikely chance of the quotes of the Prime Minister ever coming true, with reports from all of these organisations saying that GPs will not be in a position to be able to fully bulk-bill Australians, which is the promise the Prime Minister continuously made—in fact, it was made 71 times. And we also saw this week the Minister for Health and Ageing belled the cat in his recent comments to morning television, when he said:

We never said there'd be a hundred per cent bulk billing.

Well, I'd like to understand the difference between 100 per cent bulk-billing that the minister says they never promised and the Prime Minister promising Australians that all you would need is your Medicare card. I would really like to understand how the Prime Minister and the health minister can conceive they are saying the same thing. But the Prime Minister has been absolutely unequivocal in his promise to Australians.

Let me be clear, the coalition wants Australians to be able to get timely access to affordable healthcare. We hope the Prime Minister actually hasn't lied to Australians. Unfortunately, we fear that he has. And the worst part of it is that not only are Australians having to put their hand in their pocket every time they see their GP but the amount of money they have to pull out of their pocket has never been higher. Right now, out of pocket costs to see your GP are the highest they have ever been. They increased 45 per cent in the three years of the first term of the Albanese Labor government.

We've also seen bulk-billing rates falling from over 88 per cent when we left government to 77 per cent now. That is an 11 per cent drop in bulk-billing rates over the three years of the Albanese government, and yet many opposite still come in here and actually mislead this place by suggesting, for some reason, that bulk-billing rates have gone up under Labor. The facts, the statistics, the national accounts and your very own department's figures all show bulk-billing rates have plummeted by 11 per cent. As a result of that, last year alone there were 40 million fewer bulk-billed visits to our GPs in Australia. That's 40 million more visits to the GP where people have actually had to pay out-of-pocket costs, and they have risen on average to $48 per consultation.

As a result of this, people are not going to see the doctor, because, they say, they can't afford to do so. Last year, 1.5 million Australians said that they didn't visit their doctor because they couldn't afford to. That's 1.5 million Australians who were forced into making a decision between going to the doctor and putting food on the table, meeting their mortgage repayments and paying for their groceries, their electricity and their insurance. These are the decisions that are being forced upon Australians, and they are not decisions that Australians should ever be making. But the reality is that, when people avoid seeing the doctor and avoid getting primary care, they inevitably become sicker. Inevitably, when they become sicker, the place they end up in is our emergency departments or ramped in ambulances outside of our hospitals. Not only is that really bad for the person who's impacted; it also means there is additional pressure on our hospital systems. We know that, once you get sicker, the cost of that care is so much higher.

What we've seen is a government that has run around telling stories to Australians to try and hide from the fact that, by every metric in the healthcare system, it has failed Australians in the last three years. It is a national failure of this government. The Labor government came to power promising to strengthen Medicare, and, in reality, all this Labor government has done is weaken it. But, most distressingly, we have a Prime Minister who is prepared to lie to Australians about something as important as their access to health care. The reality is that Australians know that it's never been harder or more expensive to see a doctor.

Senator Ruston, I ask you to withdraw your comment a few moments back, which I think you're aware of. Can you please withdraw?

I will withdraw. The fact is that these promises have been made to Australians, and I can assure the people of South Australia that, as your representative in this place, I will be holding the government to account to make sure that it delivers on the promises that it has made to you. If it does not deliver on those promises, I will make sure that you are well aware of the fact that you were misled in the lead-up to this election, because you deserve, as every other Australian deserves, easy and quick access to affordable health care in Australia. It is a fundamental right of all Australians.

But this is not the only promise that was broken. In the 2022 election, the then opposition, as it sought to become the government, made a number of promises to the Australian public. During the previous term of this parliament, it failed to deliver most of them. The reality is that the challenges that we were facing in the last term haven't gone away. Australians are still struggling with the cost of living. It doesn't matter how many times the government tell everybody how fabulously they're doing and about all the wonderful things they're doing, Australians know because they can feel it in their hip pocket. They can feel it in their family budgets. They feel it every time they go to the supermarket or go to pay their mortgage.

There's another promise that this government made that it's failed to keep. We know that we're in the midst of a housing crisis in this country. The Housing Australia Future Fund promised so much to Australians, yet in this place we have failed to get the government to even tell us how many houses have been built by this Housing Australia Future Fund. I fear that it's probably a very low number. My understanding is that it's probably only 17. Half a billion dollars in the last 12 months was allocated from the Housing Australia Future Fund to build houses for Australians, yet we understand that probably fewer than 20 have been constructed already.

When it comes to aged care, in 2022, this government came in on a platform of saying it was going to put the 'care' back into aged care. I cannot possibly see how denying 87,000 Australians, as we stand here today, the care that they have been assessed as needing achieves that when this government refuses to release the home-care packages that are needed to get rid of the waitlist that has absolutely blown out under this government. That is a waitlist that's more than doubled in the last three years, and the wait is three times longer than it was three years ago. How on earth can this government think that is putting the 'care' back in to aged care?

The government went to the election promising 83,000 new home-care packages to try and deal with the waitlist that has blown out under its time in government, and what do we see? The government's first action following the election was the withdrawal of those 83,000 packages for the Australians who are currently waiting on the priority waiting list. They've withdrawn them, so these people are once again left without the care that they have been professionally assessed as needing.

The other thing the government needs to come to terms with is the fact it cannot review its way through this next term of government. The last term of government was absolutely littered with review after review after review. The time for review is over. It is time for action. We need to actually do some of the things that Australians were promised in 2022. Most of the promises that were made in 2022 that were not able to be kept have been re-promised in 2025. I say to the government: if you are serious about delivering the agenda that the Governor-General set out and laid out in her speech to this place, then you need to stop reviewing and you need to start doing.

I hope the government deliver in this next term of government, because the Australian public deserve nothing less from their government. I fear that they won't, but all of us on the coalition side, for the sake of Australians, hope they actually do something this time.

Again, I note this is not my first speech. It is a great honour to rise today in reply to the Her Excellency the Governor-General's speech marking the opening of the 48th Parliament. I thank Her Excellency for the generosity and clarity with which she spoke of the government's legislative agenda. Her speech struck a tone that was both optimistic and clear-eyed, one that acknowledged our strengths as a nation and our responsibilities as a parliament. The values she invoked—kindness, courage, humility and service—are values that I believe in and, I'd hope, this whole chamber believes in. They are values that I know are lived every day by the people I represent, from Hobart's eastern shore to the Huon Valley, from Devonport to the West Coast, and every community in between.

Australians returned the Albanese government with a strengthened mandate because we've delivered and because we've listened. We've brought fairness and stability back into economic management, with tax cuts for every Australian, not just the top end of town. We've invested in the fundamentals that support our prosperity for future generations: Medicare, schools, housing, clean energy and secure jobs. We as a Labor Party and as a government know the work is not finished and that we must do more. And we want to do more. The Australian people expect us to do more, and they trust us to do more.

The 48th Parliament has opened with a clear and urgent focus: cutting student debt by 20 per cent. In my home state of Tasmania, last year the average outstanding student debt was almost $23,000. A 20 per cent reduction in that debt is worth more than $4½ thousand to each of the over 50,000 Tasmanians who will benefit. We're also raising the repayment thresholds and moving to a fairer marginal repayment system.

Other focus areas include making child care safer, more affordable and more accessible to more families; strengthening Medicare—the roll-out of 87 Medicare urgent care clinics across Australia, with 50 more to be built over the next three years, and the establishment of 1800MEDICARE; a $10 billion investment to build 100,000 new homes just for first home buyers; tackling cost-of-living pressures with practical, targeted support; making education more affordable and more accessible for all Australians, with fee-free TAFE right across the country and, as mentioned, cutting 20 per cent of all student loan debts; supporting older Australians through aged-care and pension reform; advancing the National Reconstruction Fund to drive local manufacturing; strengthening our defence capability and deepening our regional engagement; continuing the transition to clean energy with confidence and ambition; and boosting our nation's productivity, growing our economy and making sure everyone stands to benefit—whatever they do and wherever they live.

Labor's agenda has been embraced by millions of Australians on a scale that few predicted at the start of the election. You'd think such a result would give pause for thought from the other side. Indeed, just last week, we heard from the other side that the election result was 'humiliating' and warranted time for reflection—reflection, we are told, that will result in them being 'more constructive'. Yet, in the next breath, we heard nothing but derision about some of the very policies those millions of Australians clearly voted for across every state and territory.

There is no alternative from the other side. They have lost touch with Australian needs, wants and expectations. Australians need action on the cost of living, whether that be through energy bill relief, reducing student debt, cheaper medicines, access to free TAFE, or affordable childcare. Australians want to know that they and their families will get a fair go, that the economy they work in will reward effort, that they'll be able to buy their own home, that their children will be safe at childcare and that their elderly parents will be looked after with dignity in their final years.

Australians expect action on climate change. That is why we've announced a $2 billion expansion of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. Contrast this with the other side, who, in the first week of parliament, were already arguing with themselves about net zero targets.

The government's priorities must be delivered in every region, and that includes my region—my home state of Tasmania. For young Tasmanians, particularly first-in-family university students from rural areas, the wiping of indexation and reduction of HECS debt can be the difference between staying in the state or leaving Tasmania altogether. HECS debt relief will make a huge difference for approximately 52,000 Tasmanians. It's not only cost-of-living relief; it's an investment in people who have made an investment in themselves and in improving their future.

On childcare safety: in Tasmania's smaller communities, where services are often stretched and staff are in short supply, ensuring that national standards on childcare safety are enforced and properly resourced will matter deeply to working families. When it comes to affordable housing, there are too many Tasmanians unable to buy their own home who are waiting too long for social housing or who have to continually move around because they're renting. Just yesterday, my office had a call from an elderly woman concerned about what was going to happen to her after her landlord sells the home she's been renting for years. The government's build-to-rent scheme will give greater security to tenants, with five-year leases. Homeownership is a way for people to genuinely own a stake in the economy and a way to help support intergenerational equity. For this we need to build more homes and unlock more land supply.

On the cost-of-living issue: from petrol prices in Queenstown to the cost of groceries in Sorell, Tasmanians feel the pinch of distance and distribution. That's why targeted relief like energy bill rebates and rent support must reflect regional realities.

Turning to clean energy: Tasmania's leadership in hydro, wind and emerging green hydrogen means we're well placed to play a central role in Australia's clean energy transition. But we need national coordination and long-term investment certainty to maximise that role.

On the topic of aged care: in towns across Tasmania, aged care isn't an abstract policy; it's deeply personal and community based. Reform must lift standards, improve workforce conditions and respect rural providers.

Like many in this chamber, I've come to this place with a belief that politics should be about practical progress and that governments should be a force for good. From Rosny College to this red chamber, I've seen how public policy shapes lives and how it must evolve to meet new challenges.

One area that I hope to contribute to is improving the nation's productivity. Only through productivity improvements can we achieve higher living standards for the next generation. It won't be an easy task, but it's one we should confront with optimism and confidence.

Whether on economic development, education or the energy transition, I'm here to contribute constructively and to ensure that Tasmanian voices are not only heard but central to national decision-making. The Governor-General said:

… democracy is always a work in progress—one that thrives when ideas and propositions are subject to robust, but respectful, interrogation.

She's right. That means disagreeing well, listening, acting in good faith and delivering results that improve lives—not just for the loudest or the most powerful, but for every Australian.

This 48th Parliament opens at a time of global uncertainty but also of national opportunity. Let us use this opportunity well. Let's live up to the faith Australians have placed in us. Let's govern with the values Her Excellency reminded us of—humility, strength and service—for Tasmania, for the nation and for future generations.

Australia faces immense challenges. We live in a dangerous and more unstable world, our geographic isolation no longer affords us the protection that it once did, and the liberal international trading system which has done so much to underpin Australian prosperity is under threat. Our Defence Force is underfunded and underequipped, and our economy, once the envy of the world, is stagnating.

Australia is a great and prosperous nation, but this is not the result of dumb luck or mere chance. It's something that we have built collectively, through active choices and decisions taken over decades. Our economic success has been built by hard work, by liberal economic policies, by a thriving private sector, by competition and dynamism, by a willingness to embrace new technologies and new methods of working, and by ensuring that effort, enterprise and risk taking are rewarded, not punished. Unless and until such time as we rediscover those principles, unless and until such time as we get our economy out of its rut and get it moving again, our other national challenges will only grow more profound. We will not be able to modernise and enlarge our defence forces, as we so desperately need to do. We will not be able to modernise or upgrade our infrastructure. We will not be able to continue to fund generous social services and health care. We will not be able to care for communities in need, be they the elderly or those with a disability. Turning a blind eye to the profound economic challenges we face, or pretending—as this government has done over the past three years—that we have no agency or ability to address them, is national negligence of the highest order.

In her address, the Governor-General noted the government's newly found interest in productivity and in a more resilient and diversified economy. It's refreshing to hear this Labor government finally acknowledge the scale of economic challenges facing our nation. At least the era of denial seems to be over. If the Labor government are genuine about seeking to address these challenges, then they will find a constructive partner in the Liberal Party. I'm very grateful to have been appointed as the shadow assistant minister for competition, charities and Treasury by the Leader of the Opposition, and I look forward to working with my colleagues across this parliament to scrutinise, hold to account and support, where warranted, this government's economic policy.

But let's be honest about our challenges. Under this Labor government, we've got lower living standards, we've got higher debt, we've got higher taxes, we've got stagnant productivity, and we've got anaemic business investment. The government now say their ambition for rising wages, growth and productivity requires a unified national effort. Well, this damascene conversion is welcome, but Australians are right to ask: where has this ambition been for the past three years? We've seen GDP per capita—the best measure of family, household and individual prosperity—in sustained decline under this government. It's likely that GDP per capita will not recover to 2022 levels until 2030. That is a lost decade. We've had productivity stagnant since Labor came to office. It currently sits at 2016 levels.

We've had this government take $144 billion in new spending decisions since coming to office and, in addition, spend much of the windfall from high commodity prices. In the last budget, we saw government spending growing at six per cent, four times faster than the rate at which the economy is growing. That is unsustainable. And it's reflected in the jobs figures. Four in five jobs created in the past two years have been in the non-market sector, propelled by government spending. This is the only part of the economy that is actually growing, the non-market sector.

Business investment is close to the debts last seen in the middle of the 1990s recession, over three decades ago. The OECD estimates that Australia has a 30 per cent shortfall in investment relative to economic output, making us the third worst-placed country in the OECD on this metric. Our energy costs are now some of the highest in the developed world when they were once amongst the lowest and formed a key plank of our competitive advantage. Energy is an input into every facet of economic activity, and high energy costs effectively act as a tax on production. This deterioration in competitive advantage is a direct result of the flawed energy transition being pursued by this Labor government.

I now want to turn to productivity, which is the topic of many speeches at present and the focus of the government's upcoming economic reform summit in August. As the Productivity Commission has rightly identified, productivity growth has accounted for 80 per cent of national income growth over the past 80 years. That means that productivity is the basis of higher living standards. It underpins economic growth. It's why this generation of Australians is materially better off, with more opportunities and better health than previous generations of Australians. The only way that today's parents can expect their children to have a better standard of life and more opportunity is if we get productivity moving again.

As Ken Henry noted in his recent Press Club address, unless Labor's anaemic productivity is rebooted, this government will need to raise taxes by as much as five per cent of GDP. That is the pathway we are heading down: a low-productivity, high-cost, high-tax, high-spend economy. Ken Henry further noted that the average Australian today is cumulatively half a million dollars worse off because of the failure to match our productivity performance in the last two decades of the 2000s to that of the 1980s and 1990s. But it's important to understand that our productivity performance is not uniform. In the market sector—the private sector, largely—productivity has increased by 35 per cent since 2000. But, in the non-market sector—the sector which is overwhelmingly government owned, operated or funded—productivity has grown by just two per cent in that period. So that's an increase of 35 per cent in the market sector since 2000 and an increase of two per cent in the non-market sector since 2000. Remember, four out of five jobs created in the past two years have been in the non-market sector.

It is this growth in government spending which is driving the creation of non-market sector jobs, crowding out the private sector and hurting our overall national productivity. But, even in the market sector, productivity performance has been patchy. In construction, for instance, which is worth highlighting, labour productivity has gone backwards in past decades. In the past two decades, for instance, labour productivity in dwelling construction has fallen by 33 per cent in terms of the number of houses built. This means it takes more workers more time to build a house than it did two decades ago. We are getting worse at building homes. If you want to know why we have a housing affordability crisis, part of the explanation lies in this figure.

Let's not forget that one of the very first acts of this government when elected in 2022 was to abolish the sole industrial umpire in the sector, the Australian Building and Construction Commission, the ABCC. Since that time, the unchecked, militant, unlawful and intimidatory tactics of the CFMEU and other emboldened construction unions have added an estimated 30 per cent to construction costs in Australia over the last three years. That's a tax that we all pay. It's a tax that our state governments have to pay if they're undertaking major infrastructure projects, but it's also a tax we all pay if we're seeking to renovate our home or buy a new home.

One of the most troubling figures to emerge in recent days—which, I think, spells out the economic malaise we're in—is that, today, more than 50 per cent of Australians rely on government for their main income, whether it's through public sector wages, social security benefits or subsidies. This is because we have seen government spending surge, going from 24 per cent of GDP to 27 per cent of GDP in just a few years. That's a figure that was last seen in the early 1980s, and there is no end in sight. This is strangling the private sector and increasingly turning Australia into a mendicant society, one that depends on government spending for its livelihood.

This government has now announced an Economic Reform Roundtable to take place in the third week of August. This is a welcome recognition, at least, that the Australian economy is in poor health and that we have an urgent need to address its ailments. Hopefully, it means the era of denial is over. But this summit has to be more than a ritualistic or formulaic exercise. It must deliver outcomes.

But you cannot say that the initial signs are promising. We've had the Prime Minister and the Treasurer rule out industrial relations changes. We've had the Prime Minister and the Treasurer effectively rule out any ambitious tax reform. We've had government ministers talk about giving unions a right of veto over the deployment of productive technology in the workplace. We've got trade unions having been given four out of the 24 spots available at this Economic Reform Roundtable.

One of the demands from the ACTU and trade unions—these are the people who will occupy almost 20 per cent of the seats at this roundtable—is to abolish the Productivity Commission. That's right: abolish the professional, independent, expert body that advises the government on how to improve productivity. The union suggestion is that this body should be abolished as a way to somehow improve our productivity. Another of their demands is to give trade unions a veto over the deployment and use of artificial intelligence in the workplace. Their final demand is a shorter working week, not offset by productivity increases, by increased workplace flexibility or by the deployment of new technologies—just a shorter working week.

It doesn't augur well, and it has echoes of the Jobs and Skills Summit in 2022, which was, as business frankly concedes now, a complete stitch-up. It was used as a vehicle by the government to pursue dramatic changes to our industrial relations system, which has taken us well back beyond the era of Paul Keating. It's basically destroyed the system of enterprise bargaining that he helped introduce, and it's destroyed the very notion that workers in an enterprise can negotiate with their employer and trade off flexibility or productivity for material wage gains or better working conditions.

I want to turn briefly to competition, because competition is an area that must be addressed by this roundtable. Australia is being held back in too many sectors by weak competition. A lack of competition in these sectors is hurting not only the workers in those sectors, who are not able to sell their labour more effectively to other bidders, but also consumers. We have welcomed the government's work through the competition taskforce, and we remain ready to support important competition reforms.

But what have we seen on the government's agenda? Well, one of their first acts last week in the parliament was to seek to enshrine penalty rates in law, remove flexibility and make it more difficult for workers to negotiate higher rates of base pay by offsetting penalty rates—something that many workers have pursued over the years. We've also seen ministers talk about giving unions a veto over the deployment of artificial intelligence. And, again, the only area of tax reform the government seems to be pursuing is a novel, untested and, frankly, nightmarish tax on unrealised gains in super accounts, something that has never been done before in Australia, which will almost certainly act not only as a tax on those individuals who have self-managed super funds with balances above the amount but a tax on early-stage investment.

We will hold this government to account for its big talk on productivity and economic growth. Australia is a great and prosperous nation not by chance but by choice. Our economic success has been built on hard work, on economic liberalism and on reward for effort. But weak productivity, a lack of competition and anaemic growth are all major challenges for Australia, and we cannot afford to sit by or think we can regulate or tax our way to prosperity. If we want to remain a high-income, high-opportunity country, we need to get serious about economic reform. That means less red tape, more competition and greater innovation so that we can restore our economic strength and leave the country in better shape for our children.

I also rise to make a contribution to this debate. But, before I do, I absolutely need to thank and acknowledge the good people of South Australia for returning me to serve another six-year term, alongside all my fellow South Australian senators who were also re-elected, and I acknowledge Senator Antic, in the chamber, as one of them. I know it is absolutely the privilege of all of our lives to serve in this place. There's a deep level of trust placed in us by the people of our state, the greatest state in Australia, to do our job here, and I really want to recognise that. Oh, sorry! Senator Blyth, as well, is one of our South Australian senators representing that great state. So thank you, South Australians, for that privilege that you have bestowed upon us.

Throughout the campaign, my greatest hope was that the election would return an Albanese Labor government so that we could continue all the work we started last term. But my second greatest hope during the election campaign was to find myself with a new local member of parliament. The newly elected member for Sturt, Ms Claire Clutterham MP, is the first Labor MP in 53 years to serve in that seat and the first woman ever to be the local representative in that role. The member for Sturt worked extraordinarily hard during that campaign. She will be a fantastic addition to the federal parliament. I know she will make a great contribution. I also acknowledge Mr James Stevens for his service over six years as the previous member for Sturt.

There were many volunteers from our movement who contributed to the history-making result in Sturt and I want to thank and acknowledge all of them, including my friend Jason Byrne, who made a remarkable contribution to that effort. But there were many, many people who did, and I acknowledge all of them, too.

I also want to thank the Australian Electoral Commission and acknowledge the role that they played in the 2025 election campaign. Our democracy is the envy of the world, and our Electoral Commission deserves so much credit for that. We are extremely lucky to live in a country where we can take for granted the fact that we will have fairly conducted election campaigns, free of corruption and interference, and the AEC are the custodians of that. The people who work for the AEC do extraordinary work, over very, very long hours and often in trying circumstances. I do want to acknowledge their work and their contribution in the conduct of our recent federal election.

We took many commitments to the Australian people this federal election, but I think it is fair to say that the most significant of those commitments we took was about our healthcare system—the future of Medicare, and how we choose to invest in health care, how we choose to prioritise health care, and especially how we choose to invest in and prioritise women's health. I've been advocating for greater investment in women's health since the start of my parliamentary career, because you simply do not have to look very far to see the instances where women's voices have gone unheard, where women have felt silenced, and where women have not received the support and care they need when it comes to their health care. I am deeply proud of the position we took to this election campaign—our investment of some $800 million in women's health, including new medicines on the PBS for the first time in decades; new contraceptive pills on the PBS for the first time in decades; new hormone replacement therapy on the PBS for the first time in decades. We're also making substantial investments in men's health, too, which I'll come to later in my speech.

But health care, I think, was the defining policy question in our election campaign and it will be the defining work of all of us as we continue our term. There are few things more important—really, is there anything more important?—to Australian families than their health and the health of the people they love. And we know that we need to improve primary care in this country. We need to improve and invest more in the Medicare system in this country.

We are the pride of the world when it comes to our healthcare system, but it was systematically undermined by the previous government's previous prime ministers—I can't remember how many there were. We need to turn that around and make much greater investments in our healthcare system. Women's health is a significant part of that.

Order! Senator Smith, you'll be in continuation when debate resumes on the address-in-reply. It being 1.30, it's time for two-minute statements.

This morning I attempted to introduce a bill to protect women's rights by amending the Sex Discrimination Act, by removing references to gender identity and restoring the act to its original purpose, which was to prevent discrimination on the basis of biological sex. That attempt was thwarted by Labor and the Greens, who opposed the bill's introduction. That's right: Labor and the Greens don't even want to discuss the issue of protecting women's spaces.

What that bill sought to do was to restore the Sex Discrimination Act to the position it was in in 2013, when there was a prescriptive definition of 'man' and 'woman', before the Gillard government introduced the concept of 'gender identity' into the act as a protected attribute. This change has had what, arguably, may have been unintended consequences, in creating a situation where the safety, privacy and opportunities of women are now threatened under the very law that was designed to protect them. But Labor and the Greens don't care.

Sex is not a social construct. It's a core biological reality that underpins human nature and the protections that this act was meant to provide. But, today, 'discrimination' on the basis of the concept of gender identity has become unlawful, placing Australians under legal threat for not affirming a concept that they may actually fundamentally disagree with. Now, if some of the people in this building actually cared about those who suffer from gender dysphoria, we'd be talking about this in a truthful manner. But that is not what happened today.

I want to take the opportunity, however, to thank the coalition, the opposition, for pushing the bill through for at least a second reading—they voted in favour of it—and also Senator Canavan, who co-sponsored the motion this morning. This battle is not over.

The Department of Education estimates that around 62,000 First Nations students with a student loan debt will benefit from the reduction of 20 per cent that passed the Senate earlier today. This is a powerful reminder of how economic justice and educational equity must go hand in hand.

I know well the transformative power of tertiary education—how it can unlock doors and illuminate pathways. In 2008, I began my own journey with university education while working full time. I was the first person in my family to attend university. For my family, tertiary education wasn't a viable option. There were many reasons for this, but financial barriers were definitely a significant reason.

That's why I'm proud that Labor is cutting student loan debts by 20 per cent. But this is not simply about easing individual pressure; it is about building a stronger, smarter and more productive future for our nation. The jobs of the future will demand more specialised skills, more training and greater adaptability. Without equitable access to tertiary education, we risk leaving too many Australians behind and our economy without the skilled workforce that it needs. Labor is building a better, fairer system—one that ensures all Australians, regardless of background or postcode, can access the opportunities that education provides.

These reforms sit alongside our broader cost-of-living measures, which also came into effect on 1 July. From tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer to increased rent assistance and expanded energy rebates, Labor is easing pressure on all households in a targeted and responsible way. These cost-of-living measures ease the day-to-day pressure so students can focus on study and not just on survival.

For people wondering why we should support this whether we have a student loan debt or not, it's because the benefits flow beyond just the graduate. They flow into our communities, through our hospitals, our schools and our economy. Every teacher, nurse, engineer or social worker trained in our universities strengthens our communities and our country.

HODGINS-MAY () (): Today I would like to read out a statement from Jewish Voices for Humanity, a group from my home city of Naarm/Melbourne:

We are Jewish Victorians deeply concerned about Israel's systematic oppression of Palestinians, culminating in the current genocide and forced starvation in Gaza.

Many of us are descendants of Holocaust survivors; all of us carry its legacy. We understand genocide. What Israel is doing in Palestine—mass killing, starvation and displacement, destruction of civilian infrastructure, and denial of aid—is indefensible. These are crimes against humanity and genocide.

"Never Again" is a core Jewish value born of the Holocaust. It must apply to everyone. Never Again is Never Again for anyone.

Standing up for Palestinian rights is not antisemitic. We believe Palestinian safety is inextricably linked to our own.

We reject the conflation of antisemitism with criticism of Israel and Zionism.

The weaponisation of antisemitism is dangerous, whether through stifling support for Palestinians or critique of Israel. Genuine antisemitism must be addressed alongside all other forms of racism. True safety will only come from justice, and a society where everyone has equal Rights. A just resolution and equal rights for Palestinians are cornerstones of social cohesion.

We call on the Australian government to ACT NOW to stop the genocide in Gaza. Words are not enough.

We must:

There is much more Australia can and must do. As Jews, as your constituents, with all our hearts we urge you: don't turn away. Act now … If we don't act, we leave a terrible legacy for future generations, and history will judge us harshly.

One of the shadow portfolios I have the great honour to hold is forestry. On 19 August, before we come back, it will be National Forestry Day. I also note that I have the privilege of serving with my great friend from the other side Senator Raff Ciccone as the co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Forestry, Timber and Paper Products.

This speech is a two-minute speech, there are two minutes allocated to it. The reason that's important to forestry is this: with the Australian forest holdings, every two minutes enough timber is grown to build a house. So, in the two minutes that I am talking in this speech, all of the Australian plantations and forests will grow enough in volume to build an entire house. That happens all the time.

I had a great fun time going up to the Hyne Timber Tuan Mill near Maryborough in Queensland and seeing the care and pride they take in producing the timber. It was way more than I thought. It's not a Monty Python skit with lumberjacks walking around. These guys process and scan through the wood. They test for flexibility. Each individual plank, each individual length that comes out, is guided for quality control. They want to minimise waste. They want to get that out here because they know that every tree that they are processing and every piece of wood that they're doing is taking carbon out of the air. It is a truly green building product from these plantations. They take all this carbon, they make the trees, they put that out and it's replaced—another house every two minutes.

Our forest industry is a great one. Our forest industry means that we aren't taking other timbers from such places as Borneo or the Congo. These things are here. Our people that work in these industries are great. So, on 19 August, I want to celebrate all the workers and all the people up there. We had Joe the GM, David the plant manager and James Hyne, whose name appears on the Hyne Timber sign. They are all out there working in an Australian industry that would be replaced by things that happen worse overseas than they do in Australia. They build a quality product, and I want to support them all.

I would like to firstly acknowledge the Minister for Social Services for her own commitment and her team's work to supporting all Australians, especially in my home state, Western Australia. Labor is investing $150 million each year over the next five years through financial wellbeing and capability activity grants. These will provide free and confidential services, information, advice and advocacy to support vulnerable Australians and their loved ones to manage financial crisis, stress and hardship and to improve long-term financial wellbeing.

In my state, there were 25 organisations that were awarded these grants. These services provide meals, accommodation and other daily needs and essentials. We know that these grants have been awarded to organisations to support Western Australians that are doing it tough. Emergency relief is the last resort for many of them. It supports Australians to get back on their feet. No-one wants to have to ask for help, but these organisations allow people to do that with dignity through wraparound support—sometimes just to have a cup of tea and an understanding ear right there available.

I've heard firsthand from some of my constituents that having a safe and non-judgemental place to go helps lessen the shame they sometimes feel. The next round, in 2025-26, will provide further support for people, from pre-crisis and early intervention to financial response, recovery and resilience. It is, again, the Albanese Labor government's commitment to continue supporting these organisations through these wonderful grants and providing vital services to our most vulnerable Australians. I thank the minister and her staff—her office—for supporting my electorate in Western Australia.

Parliamentarians back in the nation's capital may have noticed a couple of things over the last two weeks which they may have found a bit disturbing: not just how cold it's been, with a couple of apparent minus nines here in the nation's capital, but also the growing number of people sleeping rough in Canberra—the growing homelessness in the national capital. Homelessness Australia says the number of people accessing homelessness services has increased by 10 per cent since 2022. Meanwhile, the number of social housing homes as a percentage of all housing has decreased here in the ACT. There are more than 3,100 people waiting for access to safe and affordable housing. Average wait times for those on the priority list exceed seven months. For others, it's more than five years wait.

As a wealthy country, we need to be doing so much better than this. Labor's investments over the last term are welcome but aren't rolling out fast enough. The latest update from Housing Australia shows that more than 5,500 dwellings from the first round of HAFF, announced in September last year, still don't have funding agreements. What is going on here? Why is it to slow? Round 2 closed in January, but successful projects are yet to be announced, and round 3 still hasn't opened. And there's no sign of the promised National Housing and Homelessness Plan. It's not good enough. We need to see far more urgency. Even take the CSIRO Ginninderra site, a sale between two Labor governments. They can't even do that in three years. Australians expect better, and I think they deserve better when it comes to housing in this country. I would urge the Albanese government to actually start delivering on this.

Labor talk about a future made in Australia, but under their watch it's quickly turning into a nightmare made in Australia, especially for the metals manufacturing sector and for northern Australia. We are staring down the barrel of losing Glencore's copper smelter in Mount Isa and the refinery in Townsville. These aren't just facilities; they are the economic backbone of the region. Seventeen thousand jobs directly or indirectly depend on them. That's 17,000 families buying from local businesses, sending kids to local schools and holding entire towns together. We saw what happened when the Yabulu Nickel Refinery closed in 2016. Townsville still bears the scar.

This is a national interest issue. Copper is essential, from houses to smartphones to defence hardware, but, instead of strengthening our sovereign capability, Labor is letting it slip away while China opens new copper smelters and even Glencore is investing in a new copper smelter process in Riyadh, using the Glencore technology from Mount Isa.

Let's be clear: Mount Isa is not just a dot on the map. It's a strategic hub for defence, for biosecurity, for regional health care, for Indigenous services and for the development of the North West Minerals Province. When Mount Isa falters, so does northern Australia, and, when northern Australia falters, the whole nation pays the price. This government has poured billions of dollars into failed green hydrogen schemes while allowing our lucrative nickel industry to leave and the copper sector to falter. Labor has always had the wrong priorities, and it's always the regions that cop it in the neck when Labor's in office. Labor need to wake up because, if they don't step in and support copper and critical minerals processing in the north, there will be no future made in Australia; there'll only be a nightmare, and it'll have Labor's name all over it.

I note that this is not my first speech. I want to speak about how important the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is to people living with medical conditions. This year, I was diagnosed with a genetic heart condition called familial hypercholesterolaemia, or FH. FH is an inherited condition that affects up to one in 250 Australians. When I was diagnosed with FH, I was told that, without regular medication, I could have a heart attack much younger than average. FH causes dangerously high cholesterol levels from birth. Without treatment it increases the risk of early heart disease by up to 20 times. In severe cases, children with undiagnosed FH can suffer heart attacks before they finish school. But here's the good news: with early diagnosis and regular access to cholesterol-lowering medication, people with FH can live long, healthy lives.

The medication I take each day is on the PBS. I must commend Minister Butler for our government's policy to reduce the PBS co-payment to a maximum of $25 from 1 January next year. This policy is a lifeline for every Australian needing medication but particularly for those of us with medical conditions. To put this into perspective, the Australia Institute's research shows that my medication can cost more than $2,000 in the United States if you do not have private health insurance. This change to the PBS will strengthen our healthcare system and relieve the cost of living. This reform is practical and compassionate, and this reform is necessary for Aussies like me who rely on medication every single day.

I rise to speak about the forced mass starvation and ongoing genocide in Gaza. Israel has killed over 60,000 Palestinians since October 2023, but the number is likely much higher. Just this week, we received a petition with the names of 17,000 children who have been murdered in Gaza. It's utterly heartbreaking. Over 1,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli soldiers while trying to get the food they need to survive. It's undeniable that Israel is using mass starvation to kill the people of Gaza. There have been at least 147 deaths to date directly attributed to starvation. Most of them were children or infants. My heart breaks for every single one.

Yesterday the Senate passed a motion condemning Israel's aid blockade. It recognised that, without aid, millions of Palestinians risk being plunged further into catastrophic hunger and mass death. This government agrees that Israel is breaching international law, but now it's time to act. For too long, the Albanese government has refused to end our complicity in this genocide. This government has failed to sanction the Israeli security cabinet, which is responsible for carrying out the genocide in Gaza and for the illegal occupation of the West Bank. The Albanese government must impose a sanctions regime against Israel, just as it has done for Russia, for the illegal invasion of Ukraine. We must act in the face of this genocide. Australia needs to sanction Israel, end the two-way arms trade and cut off any funding for the genocide. We won't stop until Palestine is free.

I was extremely concerned to read this week that WA's NAPLAN results were amongst the worst in the country, with 40 per cent of year 3 students below the reading benchmark and 38.5 per cent below the numeracy benchmark. According to the Grattan Institute's Amy Haywood, that's at least 46,000 students across WA that are not on track. That's not just a number; that's thousands of futures at risk. In these foundational years, falling behind can impact a child's entire educational journey. It seems trite to say, but children are our future, and, if we really mean that, then we need to start acting like it. WA classrooms are under immense pressure, and teachers are stretched, trying to cater to kids with complex needs and behavioural challenges, all while managing large classroom sizes. Victoria averages one teacher for 20 students, while WA teachers face 27.

The funding of schools by the state government is hampered by WA's limited share of GST revenue. Despite WA's economy carrying the eastern states on its back, we are left behind when it comes to divvying up the GST. A larger share of the revenue would mean more money for the state government to put into our schools. Then we have the Commonwealth's share of the school resourcing standard. The government has, commendably, committed to fully funding public schools across Australia by 2034—by 2034! That's in 10 years time. The kids in year 3 today will have graduated before this promise is fulfilled. That's not good enough. Western Australians deserve better, WA families deserve better and WA children, especially those falling behind, deserve a fair go now, not in 10 years.

Earlier today my colleague Senator Bragg proposed the establishment of a select committee to look into productivity in Australia. This committee would have included members of the government and the opposition, it would have been wide ranging and far reaching, and it would have examined what the government itself concedes is a profound national challenge facing Australia, which is the collapse in our productivity. Productivity levels in Australia are currently sitting at 2016 levels. Unless we get productivity growing again, we have no hope of improving living standards, we have no hope of modernising and re-equipping our Defence Force, we have no hope of upgrading our infrastructure and we have no hope of continuing to fund generous social services or look after the needy in our community.

That's why this side of the chamber, the coalition, has welcomed the government's Economic Reform Roundtable, to be held later next month, and we will be participating in it in good faith. But, I have to say, the early signs are not good. We have had the Prime Minister and now the Treasurer rule out industrial relations reform. We've had them rule out substantive tax reform. We've had them give trade unions one in five seats at the productivity roundtable, and one of the signature suggestions of the trade unions for this roundtable is to abolish the Productivity Commission. The trade unions want to abolish the professional, expert, independent body that is advising the government on how to improve productivity.

That is why I was so genuinely disappointed to see that Senator Bragg's motion was not supported. This is an opportunity for bipartisanship. This is an opportunity for us all to recognise that productivity faces profound national challenges. Senator Bragg's motion was an opportunity for the parliament to address this issue, and that is why the government's opposition to it was so disappointing.

Not counting tourists, the number of people in Australia today who are not Australian citizens could be as high as 3.7 million. In a country with an estimated population of just 27.4 million people, this huge influx is stretching our hospitals, making housing unaffordable and making life more expensive.

Noncitizens must have a visa to be in Australia. These are split into two categories: permanent residency visas and temporary visas. The latest data from the Department of Home Affairs shows that, excluding the 320,000 tourist and crew visas, there are currently 2.5 million people in Australia on temporary visas. The data on permanent residency visas is not clear; it's murky. Between 2000 and 2021, three million permanent residency visas were issued to permanent migrants. In 2023, it was estimated that 59 per cent of those three million permanent visa holders have become Australian citizens. As of 2021, that would leave 1.2 million people who have not become citizens and are still on permanent visas, plus any more permanent residents who've arrived since 2021. Adding that best estimate of permanent visa holders to the 2.5 million people on temporary visas, we get 3.7 million people who are potentially in the country on visas.

So what's the real number? How many people are currently in Australia on a permanent visa, and why won't the government tell Australians? Is it just too embarrassing for the government, after they promised to reduce immigration, to admit how many people in Australia aren't Australian citizens? My new One Nation colleague Senator Tyron Whitten, Senator for Western Australia, will be asking the government about this number in question time today. In the middle of a housing crisis, the government had better know how many additional people it is letting into our country, undermining our standard of living and way of life.

This week I was lucky enough to meet with an ASRC delegation of people subjected to the cruel fast-track process. Narges and her son Nooshad arrived in Australia in 2013, seeking safety from the regime in Iran. Narges is an NDIS support worker, and Nooshad works in IT. Nooshad lives with cerebral palsy and, because of the fast-track process, remains unable to access the disability support that he needs to find work. They told me, 'We've been doing our best for 13 years, but we just want to be able to call Australia home.'

I also met union organiser Thanu. After arriving alone in Australia at just 19 years of age and being stuck in a limbo with no work rights, Thanu has built a life for himself against all odds. He has elderly parents whom he hasn't seen for years. He's prevented from seeing them, from holding them and from making human connections.

Also in the delegation was Rathy. I've had the pleasure of meeting Rathy many times. She's a proud Tamil refugee woman, a grassroots organiser and a mum of two daughters. One was born in Australia, with all the rights that comes with that. She's now a happy 11-year-old and an Australian citizen. The other, her older sister who arrived as a toddler, is now 16 years old. After 13 years, the risk of separation is a real threat to this family. Rathy's older daughter doesn't even know if she will be able to go to uni. She told me:

For more than a decade, we have been trapped in this so-called Fast Track process but nothing about it has been fast. We are left in limbo, waiting, suffering, forgotten. We are not living, we are just surviving. We've lost years, we've lost loved ones, we've lost pieces of ourselves. All we want is a chance to live with dignity, to rebuild, to be free.

How many more lives will be tarnished by this cruel system? Australia is their home. Enough is enough. Let's give them permanency and that home now.

Congratulations to Labor! They're patting themselves on the back for doing the bare minimum for Tassie farmers and producers. It's official: Tassie businesses can now get 25 per cent more money back on claims made under the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme. Don't get me wrong; it's a win. Twelve months ago, no-one in this chamber was talking about this broken scheme at all. I'm really proud that the Senate Select Committee on the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme has led to the first pay increase for Tassie businesses in years, but it doesn't even scratch the surface of fixing this completely broken system. A system set up to make things fairer for Tassie businesses is sending them backwards instead.

We know that changes are needed, but, instead of getting on with it, Labor wants to do another review. The funny thing about reviews is that they're not a promise to change anything. Labor doesn't have to act on any of the recommendations; all it will do is kick the can further down the road. We're in a cost-of-living crisis. Tasmanians need help now, not in three years time when there's another election Labor wants to win.

If Labor don't have any ideas, that's okay. I've put forward things that can be done right now to improve the scheme. The scheme needs to be faster, cheaper and easier to use. Payments need to get to businesses quicker, and the whole scheme should be modernised. Air freight should be included; it would be a game changer for King Island and Flinders Island. We need staff actually on the ground in Tasmania to help people use the system that is supposed to help them. The scheme should only sit under one government department, not two. Having two departments means less accountability and transparency. We can fix that. These changes could happen today if Labor wanted. It's time for real action on this freight scheme, not empty promises.

Community houses truly are the heart of our communities. Earlier this month, I had the privilege of meeting Tracy from the Burnie Community House. Tracy was very kind. She introduced me to her staff and their volunteers, so they could tell me about the amazing work that they do for the local community. From the community kitchen to the veggie co-op, I was inspired by the passion and dedication that Tracy and her team bring to their work. What I witnessed wasn't just a service; it was a movement of care, inclusion and connection. The Burnie Community House is on the front line, supporting people of all walks of life and, can I say, more often than not supporting some of the most vulnerable people in the community.

Community houses like the one in Burnie are doing more than offering programs; they are creating safe spaces where people feel seen, heard and valued. They're helping adults and kids build confidence to learn new skills and find pathways to employment and education. And, perhaps most importantly, they're weaving together the social fabric that brings people together and holds our community strong.

In a time when isolation and disconnection are growing challenges, the work of neighbourhood houses is more vital than ever. They remind us that the community isn't just about geography; it's about relationships, and it's about support and shared purpose. What I saw in the Burnie Community House was a team who cared. They wanted to do everything they could to support their local community, and I commend them for the work that they do. When we support community connection, we can build a future that's inclusive, resilient and full of hope. I look forward to visiting more community houses in Tasmania over the coming months.

by leave—I advise the Senate that Senator McCarthy, the Minister for Indigenous Australians, will be absent from question time today on account of ministerial business interstate. During Senator McCarthy's absence, ministers will represent portfolios at question time in accordance with the letter circulated to the President, party leaders and Independent senators.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Penny Wong. As I joined Australian diggers conducting Exercise Talisman Sabre this month, the Netherlands joined a growing list of countries calling on Australia to increase our defence spending. But, as I said last night, if Australia's political leadership were completely honest with the Australian people, the case for increasing defence spending would be a no-brainer. In 2022, the Albanese government said it would set targets on raising defence spending as a proportion of GDP. The government has since backflipped on this commitment. Minister, why was an increased GDP target a good idea in 2022 but a bad idea now, given that global challenges have only worsened?

First can I acknowledge the first question from Senator Collins and congratulate her on her first speech yesterday. Can I say to her—she would be aware, I would assume—that we have increased defence spending over the forward estimates and over the decade: an additional $10.6 billion over the forwards, and $56.7 billion over the decade.

As the Prime Minister has made clear, we fund capability. We are very conscious that the first responsibility of a government is to ensure we keep our people safe and keep our nation safe. Critical to that—and central to that—is ensuring Defence has the capability required to deal with these uncertain times. That is why we have increased defence funding to record levels—the biggest peacetime increase in Australia's history.

I would also make the point—and the senator was not part of the government which delivered this—that what we saw under the previous government was a lot of press releases but very little capability. In fact, some 28 projects were running nearly a century behind schedule; the cumulative slippage in capability acquisition under the previous government was 97 years.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order!

The senator is one of those who does understand the strategic circumstances Australia faces. She would also understand, given her deep knowledge of the Pacific, the importance of all arms of national power—

Senator Henderson, I've called the chamber to order!

being directed to Australia's national security. Defence is first amongst those, but there's also diplomacy and economic engagement, and she described it as a form of integration with the—

She?

Sorry, the Senator described it as a form of integration— (Time expired)

Senator Collins, first supplementary?

It takes an appreciation of the Australian Defence Force to understand the pressures our men and women in uniform face and the sacrifices they make for our country. Minister, is it correct that the Prime Minister has never attended and participated in an Australian military exercise?

Seriously?

It's a disappointing question from a senator who I think actually has—

If you don't like it—

Well, it is—from a senator who I think does have an appreciation of the importance of the role of the ADF—

Order! Order! Senator Watt, I've called order!

It's disappointing, because I held her in regard. What I would say—through you, President—to the Senator, is that the Prime Minister absolutely understands what the men and women of the ADF do for our country. I think she may have been, amongst others, at the ceremony at the War Memorial where the Prime Minister, as always, spoke. He spoke about the importance of service and the debt of gratitude all of us owe all those who serve. I would also say that I had the privilege over the weekend of standing with service women from three countries, three services— (Time expired)

Senator Collins, second supplementary?

While the Prime Minister spent six days in China visiting tourist sites to pay homage to past Labor leaders, he missed our biggest and most significant joint military exercise. Why didn't the Prime Minister visit our troops at Talisman Sabre when he did make time to visit People's Liberation Army officers in China? Why does the Prime Minister think national security, defence and meeting our allies is somebody else's job?

First, in relation to Talisman Sabre, senators may have seen that we had a UK led carrier strike group with the largest warship in the British navy, which the defence minister and I visited with our counterparts. What I was saying when I was speaking earlier was that I had the privilege of speaking with the men and women of three countries and three services who were participating in Talisman Sabre—

She's not asking about you; it's got nothing to do with you.

Senator Ruston, maybe you could show them some respect. That matters. President, through you: to Senator Collins, she would understand that China is a great power in our region and we need to engage. That is not to diminish any other relationship. We know who our strategic partner is; it is the United States. But I think those opposite have not learned from the Dutton era, have they? (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. The Albanese Labor government's focus since being returned to office has been on delivering on its commitments to the Australian people. Why is it important that government delivers on its commitments and how is the Albanese Labor government delivering on its commitment to protect young Australians from the harms of social media?

I thank Senator Stewart for the excellent question. As she references, the Prime Minister did announce last year that our government would legislate 16 years of age as the minimum age for access to social media. This week, the Minister for Communications has tabled the rules for these world-leading minimum age social media laws. Starting from 10 December 2025, we will require social media platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent Australians under the age of 16 from creating a social media account.

Following advice from the eSafety Commissioner and broad consultation, Minister Wells also outlined which types of online services would be excluded from the legislation, including health and education messaging apps as well as games. Most importantly, we are placing the burden of action on social media platforms, not just on parents or young people. I have heard some criticism from some in this place about this policy framework and I would say this: it is true that there is no solution which is perfect when it comes to keeping our young people safe online, but minimum age social media laws will make a meaningful difference. They are also the right thing to do.

The online environment can be dangerous and these laws are about giving parents and carers additional support—and I'm sure many parents relate to this challenge—to help ensure that children won't feel isolated or excluded for not being on social media, because their friends and classmates will not be on it either. Building Australia's future includes doing all that we can to give the next generation of Australians the best shot at life. It means looking after the next generation. The Albanese government is delivering on that commitment.

Senator Stewart, first supplementary?

During our first term, the Albanese Labor government also delivered on our commitment to make medicines cheaper, cutting the maximum price of a PBS listed script from $42.50 to $30. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to deliver on our commitment to make medicines even cheaper for Australians?

As you would know, Senator Stewart, when we came to government in 2022, about a million Australians were not filling their prescriptions, because they could not afford them. They weren't filling their prescriptions, because they couldn't afford them. This was the situation when those opposite were in government. So we delivered the largest cut to the price of PBS medicines in the history of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, cutting the maximum price from $42.50 to $30, and freezing the price at $7.70 per script for concession card holders and pensioners.

Now, colleagues, do we remember what the coalition did when faced with the opportunity to help Australians afford their medicine? Can we remember what they did when cheaper medicines came before this chamber? They voted against it. They voted against cheaper medicine. They voted against more money in Australians' pockets. We on this side will not be deterred. This week we are going further— (Time expired)

Senator Stewart, second supplementary?

In November last year, the Prime Minister announced a commitment that a re-elected Albanese Labor government would cut student debt by 20 per cent. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering on this commitment, and what does this mean for people struggling with student debt?

As the senator would know and as colleagues would know, last year the Prime Minister came to South Australia, to the electorate of Sturt, and announced that a re-elected Labor government would cut student debts by 20 per cent. We promised that this would be the first thing we would do when we were back in parliament, and that is exactly what this team has done. That's exactly what we have done, because we understand that getting an education shouldn't mean a lifetime of debt. Three million Australians are getting a 20 per cent cut to student debt, and millions more will benefit from our changes to the repayment threshold so that Australians can earn more before they start paying off their debt. This is on top of our policy last term to cap indexation.

Whilst we are cutting student debt, what are they doing? When this vote came on in the chamber, they were so divided they couldn't even bring themselves to vote. They couldn't even—

A point of order on misleading the Senate. Labor did not cap indexation.

Senator Henderson, that's a debating point, and you know that very well.

Whilst we are cutting student debt, you can't even bring yourselves to vote on it. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Minister, the latest Closing the gap report shows that only four of the 19 targets are on track, and critical outcomes like incarceration, suicide and child removal are going backwards. How can your government continue to claim to be delivering outcomes for Indigenous Australians when your government's own report is damning and shows you are failing them?

Senator Liddle would be aware that the Productivity Commission report today updated on Closing the Gap. Obviously we are making progress in some areas and insufficient progress in others, and the government acknowledges that. I think you would have heard Minister McCarthy speaking about this publicly. Four targets are on track to be met. That is insufficient. Encouragingly, 10 targets are improving, and some states, like Victoria and South Australia, are making real progress. That is obviously good news. Unfortunately, the Northern Territory is not, and the report shows that in fact the Northern Territory is going backwards.

Obviously Closing the Gap is a long-term commitment. It's a commitment I hope that can continue to have bipartisan support. Obviously the minister is continuing to work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and the Coalition of Peaks to make a difference in the lives and life outcomes of Indigenous Australians.

As I said, we have four targets on track, including children enrolled in preschool, Indigenous employment, sea waters and land mass subject to legal rights and interests, all covered under Indigenous rights. But the targets that are improving, which do matter, are life expectancy, healthy birth weight, attainment of year 12, the completion of tertiary qualification, youth in employment, education or training, and Indigenous people living in appropriately sized housing. The really concerning ones are those not on track and worsening: early childhood, incarceration, which I know is something the chamber has been discussing, Indigenous children who are aged up to 17 held in out-of-home care, and Indigenous suicide rates. Obviously, as a country, we need to do better on those. (Time expired)

Senator Liddle, first supplementary?

Thank you, Minister Wong. Of course we need to do better. Why does this government continue to talk about listening and reform when the reality is that, under Labor, since 2022, incarceration rates are rising—up 3.5 per cent; Indigenous suicide rates are worsening—up 9.4 per cent; and youth detention is up 11 per cent? Isn't this more proof that Labor governs with slogans, not substance?

No. I don't agree with you, and I don't think any government of any political persuasion—

So the statistics are just wrong?

Senator Liddle, second supplementary?

Well, let's try this one. The evidence is there. The latest—

Sorry, Senator Wong. I thought you had—

No, I was sitting down because it would be good if, just on one issue, Senator Cash could show a modicum of bipartisanship.

I'm very sorry. I did not hear Senator Cash. Senator Liddle, I think the minister has more to add on your first supplementary. And there needs to be silence across the chamber.

Senator Liddle, I may not agree with every policy prescription you have, but I respect your commitment on these issues. What I would say to you—and I think you know this—is that no government of any political persuasion has delivered the sorts of outcomes on Closing the Gap targets that we would want, whether it's governments from your side of politics or ours, state or federal. We know that, and we have to do better.

I hope that, in this term, we see continued improvement on some of the targets that we are seeing now, and I hope the four targets you mentioned, which I was upfront about as worsening, are ones that we can turn around. We know that all of us—this parliament and governments of all political persuasions at state, federal and territory levels—have to work together to try and ensure we do better on these targets for— (Time expired)

Senator Liddle, second supplementary?

The latest Closing the gap report also shows that the target to reduce overcrowding in Indigenous housing is also not on track. Since the Albanese government was elected in 2022, how many new additional homes have been funded by the Commonwealth for Indigenous Australians in the Northern Territory, and what is the net increase in housing supply in the Northern Territory?

I will see if I can get more detail on the housing points and the specific issue of how much additional housing since we came to government in 2022. I would make the point that the information before me is that appropriately sized housing, which is target 9a, I think—I have it listed as improving but not on track. So I will certainly get for you whatever additional information Senator McCarthy can provide in relation to that. Obviously that means we're not meeting the target, but I hope what my brief says to me is that it is improving from where it was.

My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator Watt. The toxic algal bloom in South Australia has been wreaking havoc on our state—on our fishing industry, our tourism industry and our community. Our beaches may be closed over summer. Our beaches are littered with dead fish, dolphins, seals and rays. Isn't it true, Minister, that, if this devastation were happening on Bondi Beach, you would have spent a bit longer than 11 minutes checking it out?

Thank you, Senator Hanson-Young. It is a shame that Senator Hanson-Young is so intent on playing politics with this very serious environmental event. The bit she left out of her question was the fact that when I visited Adelaide last week I announced $14 million in funding from the federal government to support the response to and recovery from the algal bloom. You forgot that little bit. But you're right: I did, while I was in Adelaide, take the opportunity to go and inspect one of the beaches with the member for Boothby, Louise Miller-Frost, who's been advocating very strongly on this issue for some time.

And I was also pleased to see, this week, Premier Malinauskas make further announcements about the joint federal-state response to this event, which included some of that funding, which will go not only towards supporting greater scientific research to understand the causes and effects of and responses to this event but also towards supporting the many businesses who are impacted by this event. I think we've all understood the damage that this event has caused, of course, to the marine environment, which is devastating, as I've said before. We've also seen the terrible impact that it's having on a range of businesses in South Australia, whether they be in the fishing industry, oyster farmers or tourism businesses—and others as well.

So, as a result of the work that we've done, this government is not sitting there throwing stones about this event; we're actually acting to provide the kind of support that South Australians have been looking for. So I'll leave it for Senator Hanson-Young to continue making her political pointscoring about this event. What we're focused on is supporting the South Australian government to respond to the event, and the South Australian government were very clear in expressing their gratitude for the fact that they do have a federal government who's keen to work with them on this event. (Time expired)

Senator Hanson-Young, first supplementary?

HANSON-YOUNG (—) (): Well, $14 million is something, but it's been pretty slow coming and it's pretty minuscule. It's going to hardly touch the sides of what our state is going to need. Minister, when will you fix the rules—as requested by the South Australian government themselves, the fishing industry and the community—to declare this a national disaster, because that is what it is?

Thanks, Senator Hanson-Young, for the question. As I've pointed out in private meetings with Senator Hanson-Young, both before and after this event, and as I've said publicly, the government has approached this event as being more like a drought than a natural disaster in the sense of a flood, a cyclone or a bushfire. The reason for that is that, when you think about those sorts of natural disasters, they are rapid events that pass through communities, leaving a very devastating trail, as opposed to this kind of event and as opposed to a drought, which are long-running events that build up over a period of time and that can't be fixed, in the sense of doing something to the event—and we are all waiting for the weather to intervene as soon as possible to disperse this event. But, in the meantime, what we're providing is that $14 million as half of a $28 million package, and that is every single dollar that the South Australian government asked for. Senator Hanson-Young hasn't been able to come up with a proposal about what we should do, other than get out there and issue press releases.

Senator Hanson-Young, second supplementary?

The algal bloom is yet another canary in the coalmine for climate change. Who will you make pay for the damage of this disaster? It's time that you made Santos and Woodside pay for the damage of their toxic fossil fuels. Will you make them pay?

Senator Hanson-Young, I'm very proud to be part of a government that believes it's the responsibility of the government to provide support to the population when they are in need, so that's what we've done. We've used public funding—taxpayer funding—to provide support to the South Australian environment and to the South Australian community as they need that. We're not actually interested in playing the kinds of political games that the Greens are playing around this to advance some sort of political pointscoring. What we've actually done is work alongside the South Australian government to provide them with the support that they requested, every single dollar they requested, within 24 hours of receiving the request. We're working very cooperatively with them to make sure that support is provided. Again, if the Greens want to focus on issuing press releases, coming up with slogans, holding rallies about this event, that's your right. What we're actually about is providing the scientific research funding and the financial support that people who are being impacted by this event desperately need.

My question is to the Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher. Since coming to government in May 2022, the Albanese Labor government has made driving gender equality a key national priority. Supported by investments in the care economy, in Medicare, in equal pay and in skills and training, our agenda is ensuring that women are able to access work and job opportunities of their choice. Why is the government investing in skills and jobs for women?

I thank Senator Darmanin for the question. It is an important one and one that the government has focused on since day one. When we came to government in May 2022, we set about placing women's economic equality right at the front of our economic policy thinking, as a priority across the government. We have put in place a number of measures to make sure that we are driving equality across the economy and across the community. They include, when we look at wages, skills and job opportunities, measures like our tax cuts, which have delivered tax cuts for every woman taxpayer, with 90 per cent of women better off under the reshaped tax cuts that Labor did in the last term. We have, of course, seen a record-low gender pay gap: 11.9 per cent of—

You put a tax bracket in, remember that 37c?

Don't you like women getting a better share of the tax cuts there, Senator Bragg? Don't you like the gender pay gap lowering to the lowest on record, with women earning $217.40 more per week on average than they did when we came to government. There are 600,000 new jobs for women and record-high labour participation. Why? Because we are making investments in early childhood education and care and in the care economy so more women can have more choices and more opportunities. If they choose to work an extra day, then that opportunity is available to them.

We've seen investments in skills, like free TAFE and the establishment of the Commonwealth prac payment for teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work. That will, of course, support women who are undertaking those courses. And, of course, we cut the HECS debt. This morning the Senate passed that very important reform. We've reformed indexation. Women are 60 per cent of HECS debt holders, and the reforms passed by this parliament will help them enormously.

Senator Darmanin, first supplementary?

We know the Australian labour market is highly gender segregated. Why is it so important to challenge this segregation in the interests of the Australian economy?

I thank Senator Darmanin for the question. We do have one of the highest gender segregated labour markets of the OECD. To us on this side of the chamber that's not good enough. We want to make sure that every girl and every boy in Australia gets to do what they want to do, that there are no barriers to them doing training and work experience for the job that they've always dreamed of doing, and at the moment that's not the case.

We have a highly segregated labour market, and we want to change that. We want more women going into the traditionally male jobs and we want more men going into the jobs that have been traditionally held by women. Now, as we're dealing with some of those care economic wage issues, we are seeing more men go into aged care for the first time, and that is welcome. We on this side of the chamber will always pursue equality. We don't want to see a labour market where anyone is held back with particularly women denied those opportunities.

Senator Darmanin, second supplementary?

Creating opportunity for women is in our national interest. It is not just a measure of fairness; it's a driver of our success as a nation. How is the Albanese Labor government continuing to work to support the aspirations of women around Australia?

Thank you, Senator Darmanin, for the question. You put it more eloquently than I did in my previous answer.

I can tell you what we will not be doing. We will not be subscribing to the views of those opposite. This week we had the member for Longman, Mr Young, say:

Men tend to be more drawn to vocations that involve maths and physical exertion like construction and trades … Vocations like hairdressing, nursing, social work and the like will always be more female dominated.

That is a quote from this week from a 2025 Liberal member. We do not subscribe to that view. We also don't subscribe to views such as those of Senator Antic, who has said:

I think a little more patriarchy will help us out, not hurt us at all.

Or:

… every angry gender studies professor who thinks that they're going to crush the patriarchy has got some news coming.

These are not views that are held over on this side of the chamber. We want to see equality for women and for men. We want opportunities for all. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. Yesterday, it was reported that a tanker carrying fuel refined largely from Russian oil docked in Kwinana, in WA. While sanctions on Russian products exist, the fuel that has arrived in WA was reported to have been processed at the Jamnagar refinery in India. As we sit today, there are three stored oil tankers filled with products also tainted by laundered Russian oil, unable to ship to Europe because the EU has cracked down on the types of sanction evasions we're seeing happen right now in my home state. Western Australians need to be sure that, when they're pulling the trigger at the bowser, they aren't helping to pull triggers in Ukraine. What is the status of the fuel shipment, given the sanctions the government has placed on Russia?

Through you, President: as Senator Payman would know, we have imposed strict sanctions and other trade measures to restrict the import purchase and transport of oil coming from, or that originated in, Russia. Last month I announced our first sanctions against Russia's shadow fleet to help starve Russia's war machine of revenue. As a result of the measures taken, direct Australian imports of Russian energy products have fallen from $80 million to zero since before Russia's invasion. There has been bipartisan support for that.

What Senator Payman references at a systemic level is what happens to energy products which enter via third countries. As I've said publicly, regrettably the mechanisms we would need to track and monitor all energy products via third countries are not in place in those countries. We'll continue to look at what options we can utilise to place further pressure on Russia's oil revenues. I think the senator referenced the European Union ban announced on 18 July, which will come into place in January 2026. I note the European Union has not yet issued any guidance about how that would in fact be implemented.

I would also say—and I think the senator referenced this—Australians do expect businesses to try and avoid their supply chains inadvertently funding Russia's illegal and immoral invasion of Ukraine. The government does call on businesses to uphold that responsibility. But the answer to the question is, firstly, we have sanctioned and we have increased those sanctions, including on the shadow fleet. Secondly, regrettably, there are not the mechanisms in third countries to enable all the issues you raise to be tracked.

Senator Payman, first supplementary?

The Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air found that 55 per cent of the crude used at India's Jamnagar refinery comes from Russia. Since the invasion of Ukraine, Australia has imported US$2.3 billion worth of fuel from these refineries, with an estimated $1.3 billion flowing straight back to Russia in taxes. Can the minister assure Australians that this money will not be contributing to the invasion of Ukraine?

I think, Senator Payman, you're asking me to make an assurance about Indian refinery revenue. We are not the government that has responsibility for what occurs in the refineries that you outline. I revert to my previous answer, which is, firstly, we have sanctioned Russia—and both parties of government have supported this. Secondly, we have expanded that to include the shadow fleet. Thirdly, we are looking at how we might further deal with the issue of importation from a third country, but, at this stage, the mechanisms for that to be tracked don't exist. Fourthly, I would encourage businesses to ensure that their supply chains reflect the position of the Australian community, which is obviously very supportive of Ukraine and very keen to ensure that there is no support flowing to Russia for their illegal and immoral war. (Time expired)

Senator Payman, second supplementary?

Minister, you mentioned earlier the European Union. Will the government follow the EU's lead to close these loopholes that are available for third countries and send in Border Force to stop this fuel from reaching Australian bowsers?

Certainly we welcome the progress that the European Union has made. As I'm advised, and as I indicated to you, Senator Payman, the announcement has been made. The start date of that announcement is actually January of next year. No guidance has yet been issued that I'm aware of about how it would be implemented. We certainly will be very keen to understand how the European Union seek to deal with the sorts of practical issues that I have described to you. We'll certainly be looking at that and engaging with them as they work through that process.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, Senator McAllister. Minister, how many older Australians are currently on the national priority system waiting for a home-care package they have been assessed as needing?

Thank you, Senator Blyth, for the question. I acknowledge the chamber's genuine interest over some time in ensuring that older Australians and older people in our community get safe, dignified and high-quality aged care. That why in the last term of parliament our government, and in particular the now Minister for Communications, did so much work in this area collaboratively across the chamber, passing the new Aged Care Act with support from the opposition. This should be above politics.

A point of order. The question was very tight. We're just looking for a number here.

The question went to the priority list for home-care packages, and it asked for a number. The minister is being relevant to the question. Minister McAllister, please continue.

Home-care packages have hit a record high: 306,000 home-care packages. They have helped cut average waiting times ahead of that transition to the new Support at Home program, which, as you know, starts on 1 November.

I'll take that interjection, Senator Ruston. In March 2019 those waiting times peaked at around three years—three years waiting time in 2019 for a level 4 medium-priority home-care package. That's right.

A government senator: Who was the health minister?

Who was the health minister—great question. We are quite aware that there is more work to do, and that's why the reforms that have been passed through this place are so significant and why our investments are so significant. We are looking forward to the circumstance where we can roll out more home-care packages to make sure that people are getting the support that they require, because everybody—all Australians—deserves dignity in their older years.

Senator Blyth, first supplementary?

In 2022 the now health minister called the home-care waiting list a national disgrace, but since 2022 the home-care waiting list has more than doubled under your watch. Eighty-seven thousand Australians are now waiting for the care they have been assessed as needing. If the waiting list was a national disgrace three years ago, what words describe Labor's waiting list today?

We, indeed, are very proud of the work that we are putting in, of the work that has been undertaken to resolve—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order across the chamber! Senator Gallagher and Senator Watt! Senator Polley! I'm not going to go around the chamber calling disorderly senators back to order. I called order. I don't want to hear the level of shouting that we heard from the opposition the minute the minister stood.

Last financial year, the government invested over $8 billion in the Home Care Packages Program. That compares to just $1 billion 10 years ago. Of course, we need to continue to invest in this sector because our population is ageing, and more and more baby boomers are entering that time—

Senator Ruston, stop the running commentary. Minister McAllister, please continue.

As I was saying, this is an area that requires significant investment, and we are making those investments—significantly more money, significantly more packages and significantly more people able to access the care that is being provided as a consequence of our investments. And there is more to come. On 1 November, when the new arrangements kick in, we are looking forward to seeing further improvements. (Time expired)

Senator Blyth, second supplementary?

Minister, considering the waitlist has more than doubled since 2022, why have you withheld the 83,000 additional home-care packages you promised before the election?

The new Aged Care Act will commence on 1 November 2025, and, with it, our new program will start—the Support at Home program. From now until that new act commences, we will continue releasing home-care packages each and every week to people assessed as needing in-home care. There will be a continuing high demand for these packages because our population is ageing—

Minister McAllister, please resume your seat. I'm really sorry I've had to interrupt you so often. Senator Ruston, I asked you to stop the running commentary. I've called you to account more than anyone else. If you can't listen in silence, I invite to you leave the chamber.

It is important to note that people who are assessed as high priority and who need urgent access to home care continue to receive that home-care package within a month and people who are waiting for packages at assessed levels are able to access the Commonwealth Home Support Program. But the truth is that, on 1 November, we will have a new program, and it is a really important step forward, one that the government is proud of and one that we hope the whole parliament can be proud of. It was a bipartisan effort to bring these reforms forward. They were badly needed after a decade of neglect. (Time expired)

My question is to Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Minister Watt. How many permanent resident visas for people who have not become citizens are currently issued in Australia, and why isn't this information published routinely?

Thanks, Senator Whitten. I'm not sure I have that level of detail with me, but I'll certainly seek some guidance on that from the minister's office if we are in a position to provide you with that detail. I'm also not sure that it is correct that that data is not published, so I'll clarify that point as well. If there's any ability for me to come back to you over the course of question time with that information, I'll certainly do so.

Senator Whitten, first supplementary?

Minister, despite the government promising to cut immigration, the latest Border Force data shows that, after excluding tourists and crew visas, there are 2½ million temporary visa holders in the country on top of permanent visa holders. The latest available data says there could be 1.2 million permanent visas on issue. How many people in Australia right now are not Australian citizens, and how many more or fewer than 3.7 million people is it?

Again, I'll see if I can get access to the specific information that you're seeking. But, given that your question goes to overall migration levels, what I can tell you is that there's been a massive fall in what's known as net overseas migration over the three years since our government was elected. You would have seen from outside the parliament the efforts that we took around international students and a range of other categories. What that has meant is that net overseas migration to Australia peaked at 538,000 in 2022-23—the year after we were elected—obviously based on policy settings that we inherited from the former government.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Well, that's a fact. And then, as a result of the actions that we've taken over the last three years, the net overseas migration for the 12 months to 31 December 2024 was 341,000—down 37 per cent compared to the peak in the year after we were elected.

Senator Whitten, second supplementary?

Australia, including my state of Western Australia, is in a housing crisis. The number of Western Australian households that consider their homes unaffordable has almost doubled in two years. Just 48 per cent of hospital emergency department presentations in Western Australia were seen on time. When will your government keep your promises and stop the mass migration program that is making life harder and more expensive for Western Australians?

Thanks, Senator Whitten. I couldn't agree more that Western Australia, along with the rest of the country, desperately needs more housing built. Senator Whitten, being a new senator here, you may not be aware that, on numerous occasions in the last three years, the Labor government attempted to pass legislation seeking to build more housing and two of the senators who consistently voted against that legislation were Senator Hanson and Senator Roberts. So I would encourage you—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator Hanson and Senator Roberts may no longer have the numbers in the One Nation party room, and I would encourage the new senators to grab the numbers and back Labor as we continue our efforts to build more housing. I'm really encouraged that we finally have a One Nation senator who seems to want to do something about building more homes. Maybe we'll see a change of approach from One Nation compared to what we saw over the last three years. Senator Whitten, we look forward to your support and your new colleague's every time we move those motions in the future.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, Senator McAllister. The Albanese Labor government was focused on strengthening Medicare and delivering cost-of-living relief in our first term of government. That included record investment in bulk-billing, delivering 87 urgent care clinics across the country and delivering the largest cut to the cost of medicines in the history of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. What action is the government taking in this term of parliament to strengthen Medicare and deliver cost-of-living relief to Australians?

Thank you, Senator Ananda-Rajah. I acknowledge your advocacy for Medicare and for public health in your time in the other place, and doubtless it will continue here. As your question notes, our government has already slashed the cost of medicines. In 2023, we delivered the largest cut to the cost of medicines in the history of the PBS, with the maximum cost of a script falling to $30 from $42.50 previously. But we want to deliver even cheaper medicines, and that's why the government will make sure that a prescription on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme costs no more than $25. This is a 20 per cent cut in the maximum cost of medicines under the PBS, saving Australians more than $200 million a year. Pensioners and concession card holders will have the cost of their PBS medicines frozen at just $7.70 until 2030.

You'd have to go way back to 2004 for medicines to be this cheap. To remind people, 2004 was when Rove McManus won the Gold Logie. It's the year that Facebook was launched. It's the year Casey Donovan won Australian Idol, and it is the last time that medicines were this cheap. Make no mistake, this is what Labor governments do. This is what real cost-of-living relief looks like. We know that health care should be accessible for everybody—no matter how much you make, no matter where you live—and it's why we will deliver $8.5 billion to expand bulk-billing to every Australian to create a new incentive payment for practices that bulk-bill every patient. This will mean nine out of 10 GP visits will be bulk-billed by 2030. We will also open another 50 Medicare urgent care clinics, and, once all of these clinics are open, four out of five Australians will live within a 20-minute drive of an urgent care clinic.

Senator Ananda-Rajah, first supplementary?

When the Albanese Labor government was first elected, the Royal Australian College of GPs described bulk-billing rates as in 'free fall'. What impact have the government's policies had to improve bulk-billing rates, ensuring more Australians can see a GP for free?

Medicare billing data shows that our record investment in Medicare saw an additional six million bulk-billed GP visits in the year to December 2024. That is an important achievement, especially because of what we inherited from those opposite. The previous government liked to inflate their bulk-billing figures by relying on the massive number of COVID-related bulk-billing appointments during the pandemic, like PCR swabs and vaccines. The coalition fudged the figures, magically producing a bulk-billing figure of 88 per cent just on the eve of the last election. The vice-president, no less, of the college of GPs called them out and said that 88 per cent figure was 'misleading' and 'significantly skewed'. And other experts described that as 'a great big lie', 'essentially rubbish' and 'completely meaningless'. We are taking a very different approach. (Time expired)

Senator Ananda-Rajah, second supplementary?

The Albanese Labor government campaigned on making the single largest investment in Medicare since its creation over 40 years ago, which will mean nine out of 10 GP visits will be bulk-billed by 2030. This approach received widespread support in the community and in the parliament. What progress has the government made on our plans to improve bulk-billing rates over this term of parliament and beyond?

On 23 February, the Prime Minister announced our policy, the most significant investment in Medicare's history, an investment that will see nine out of 10 GP visits bulk-billed by 2030. The coalition, Mr Dutton and Senator Ruston stood up that day and said quite a few things. They didn't just say that they liked our policy; they liked it so much in fact that they wanted parliament to be recalled to pass it. Do you remember that, Senator Ruston? That wasn't actually everything that Senator Ruston had to say on that day. She also talked about Peter Dutton, a man who has a very strong and proud track record as the Leader of the Opposition but also as the health minister. This was the shadow minister's favourite health minister. What did she like most about Peter Dutton, one wonders? Was it attempting to introduce the GP tax? Was that the favourite thing, Senator Ruston? Was it ripping billions out of public hospitals? We stand by our commitments in the campaign, and the question is: do you stand by yours? (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. The Treasurer has said that the government sees AI, artificial intelligence, as 'a huge opportunity for Australia'. He said:

… it's a key part of our productivity agenda, an absolute game changer … Regulation will matter but we are overwhelmingly focused on capabilities and opportunities, not just guardrails.

Yet, at the AFR AI summit in June, Senator Ayres, the Minister for Industry and Innovation, promised to give unions a significant say over the AI rollout. Can the minister confirm this: do the Treasurer's comments reflect the government's approach to the opportunities presented by AI?

I thank Senator Sharma for the question. It's an important question—the question around AI. There are obviously a lot of opportunities that come with AI, but there are also challenges, and I think we need to be upfront about that. Senator Ayres and Mr Charlton in the other place are leading the work across government looking at AI across the economy. My responsibility is looking at AI across government, and I'm doing that. Of course, the Treasurer is included in all of those discussions, as you would expect, as our leading economic spokesperson. We do believe there is a role, an important role, for unions to play in discussions, alongside other stakeholders. I've held a round table recently on AI. There is a lot of engagement from business community because they see the opportunities and challenges as well. Indeed, in the last few weeks I've spent time with a number of the big companies in Australia who are implementing AI across their businesses, and all of them talk about working with their employees in one way or another, including with union representatives.

This is an issue that workers deserve to have a say on and to be involved in. This is a big change coming to workplaces. It's happening already. There is no going back. But there is a responsibility on us as leaders in government, in business and across society to ensure that working people and jobs and the opportunities that come with AI are considered fully and that different viewpoints are heard. We make no apology for that at all.

I would encourage the opposition to engage in similar terms. If you want to be serious about the opportunities and challenges of AI, get involved. Talk to unions, talk to business and understand what is happening. (Time expired)

Senator Sharma, first supplementary?

The ACTU are promoting a plan for companies to be banned from receiving government funding and contracts if they don't meet union demands on AI implementation. Given Minister Ayres's previous commitments to the unions, has the government made any concessions to the ACTU on AI ahead of the reform roundtable?

I don't think it's any surprise that the ACTU would advocate on behalf of their members and member organisations. The Business Council and the Ai Group—any stakeholder representation group—come in and do the same; of course they do. The government is keen to work with business and unions on how we manage and respond to AI across the economy. We want to find consensus where there is one and we want to deal with some of these challenges. Every country is dealing with them. Australia is no different. But to suggest that the ACTU shouldn't have a voice or that workers shouldn't have a say or be consulted or have real influence on our thinking is ridiculous. It will relegate you. Those views will relegate you to the opposition benches for years to come if that's the view you hold.

Workers have a right to have a say. Business has a right to have a say. Governments should listen to all of that and find a sensible pathway through it. (Time expired)

Senator Sharma, second supplementary?

Thanks for that answer, Minister. Can the minister rule out that productivity-stifling concessions on AI have not and will not be made to unions in advance of the reform summit and that outcomes won't just be another stitch-up like the last jobs and skills summit?

Of course, as Senator Sharma will know, the opposition are coming—they are being represented at the productivity roundtable—so I think that the imputation that there's a 'stitch-up', and all of that sort of language, is regretful, because the opposition have been given a seat at the table to engage in those discussions.

We think there's a lot of opportunity that comes from bringing stakeholders together in that kind of environment, to find areas of consensus and to work out ways through it. We are very optimistic about the productivity roundtable. We hope that every invitee comes with ideas but also prepared to listen to alternative views. The opposition is going to be represented there. I guess it's over to the opposition as to whether they want to come with fully formed views like that, that disengage from the real opportunities, or with a willingness to listen. It's over to you.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, Senator Ayres. In its first term, the Albanese Labor government prioritised building more homes.

Opposition senators interjecting—

They don't want to hear it, do they? More than 500,000 homes have been built nationwide since Labor was elected in May 2022. This sits alongside 'making it easier to buy' and 'making it better to rent' as one of the pillars of the government's $43 billion housing plan. Why is it necessary for the government to increase the supply of housing?

I'm very grateful to Senator Sheldon for that question, although I've been hoping for the whole fortnight that Senator Sharma would ask me the question that he just directed towards Senator Gallagher, because, I have to say, his opinion piece in the Financial Review

Senator Ruston, a point of order?

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! I'm waiting. Order!

A point of order on relevance—I think the minister perhaps should be brought back to the question.

Thank you, Senator Ruston. Minister Ayres, I am going to direct you back to the question.

It was just one little joke! I really am grateful for this question, though. We have been absolutely focused as a government on delivering new homes and the homes that Australians need—28,000 homes under construction or in planning now. That contrasts with what happened under the previous government, under their program—373 homes over a decade. The truth is that Australians know, when they build a home, it takes time to build a home. You've got to work your way through it. Do you know who agrees with us about housing supply?

Opposition senators interjecting—

Minister Ayres, please resume your seat. Those on my left might find this amusing; I do not. It is my job to keep order in this chamber, and you are making it incredibly difficult. If you can't sit in silence, leave the chamber. Minister Ayres.

Do you know who agrees with us? It's Senator Bragg, whom Senator Cash referred to yesterday as 'Braggie'! I don't know whether it's Braggie with an i-e or Braggy with a y at the end.

Opposition senators interjecting—

On a point of order, you'd think the minister might be able to answer—

Just get to the point of order, Senator Ruston.

his own dixer. He's not being relevant to his own question.

Senator Ruston, there is an incredible amount of comment from the opposition side, and, as you are well aware, the minister can take those comments. I would like the question to be answered. I'm sure you would as well. That requires all of you on the opposition benches not to interject. Minister Ayres.

He said:

We need to find a way to unlock supply, otherwise we're going to make the problem worse.

That was his view a few months ago—old Braggie. We don't call him Braggie over here.

Senator Ayres—

We call him 'Home Blokka'. That's what this guy is all about.

Senator Ayres!

That's b-l-o-k-k-a—Home Blokka!

Senator Ayres, I am going to ask you to withdraw.

I withdraw.

Please continue.

Why are we working so hard with the states, with developers, with local government and with investors to deal with the questions of supply? It's because, in substance, it matters because it's about actually doing things. (Time expired)

Senator Sheldon, first supplementary?

Industry expects the Albanese Labor government's build-to-rent legislation will deliver 80,000 new rental properties. What impact will this policy have on renters and Australians hoping to buy a home?

Eighty thousand new, high-quality homes, just for renters; thousands of affordable tenancies with caps on rent—access to secure, long-term rentals will change the lives of hundreds of thousands of Australians. Men and women; little kids—lives will be changed. How do Senator Bragg and the coalition describe this life-changing nation-building scheme? 'A nightmare,' he says. 'A foreign investor tax cut.' Now the Liberal Party of Australia is opposed to foreign investment. What on Earth is going on? What on Earth is going on in terms of ideological consistency over there if you're opposed to investment in housing, in development, in building projects and in developing Australian construction projects? You have entirely lost your way. The same senator who said in his first speech that our tax system and broader policy settings— (Time expired)

Senator Sheldon, second supplementary?

The Albanese Labor government has a wide range of policies to increase housing supply. What progress has the government made on its commitment to making sure all Australians have access to safe and secure housing?

Everybody deserves a decent home. What Senator Bragg said in his first speech was:

Our tax system and broader policy settings must encourage foreign investment …

He meant it then; he doesn't mean it now. It's a symbol of the sort of inconsistency and hyperpartisanship of this show.

We have got straight to work from our first term in government. We took the Commonwealth from being a negligent bystander under the previous government to a government with the boldest and most ambitious housing program since the Second World War. In three years, we've invested $43 billion in housing, compared to just $5 billion in the previous long, turgid decade of negligence and absolute disengagement from building new homes for Australians.

I ask that further questions be placed on notice.

I have some further information in relation to the question asked of me today by Senator Liddle, which I will simply read into the Hansard. The Commonwealth is delivering on a shared commitment with the NT to improve housing for First Nations people in remote communities. Under the historic $4 billion housing agreement, up to 2,700 homes will be built over the next 10 years to reduce overcrowding and improve living conditions across 73 communities and 27 town camps. In 2024-25, a record 222 houses were delivered in remote locations in the NT. This builds on the 206 houses completed in 2023-24 and the 257 houses completed in 2022-23.

In question time on Monday 28 July, I undertook to provide further information in response to questions asked of me by Senator Bragg in my capacity as the Minister representing the Prime Minister relating to the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union. I have written to the senator to provide additional information, and I table my letter to the senator for the information of all senators. I thank the Senate.

I move:

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

I rise to take note particularly of the minister's response to the question of national security and defence spending. Once again, we've seen Labor dodge, deflect and ultimately disrespect the seriousness of Australia's strategic circumstances and the question of national security. I asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister why the Albanese government had abandoned its previous commitment to set defence spending targets as a proportion of GDP. In 2022, Labor claimed it was vital to set such targets in response to rising global threats. Yet now, as the world becomes even more unstable, the government refuses to follow through. That commitment was not made lightly. It was announced in the context of an increasingly volatile Indo-Pacific, with rising military assertiveness from authoritarian powers and our most important allies urging Australia to pull its weight.

Yet today that commitment has disappeared into thin air without sufficient explanation, without accountability. The minister notes an increase in defence spending but fails to answer why it is not to the sufficient level promised. And what did we get from Minister Wong? We got a distraction from one inconvenient truth. That truth is that Labor doesn't take defence seriously. This government has no credible plan to lift defence spending to the levels our allies and even their own Defence Strategic Review say are needed. Instead of providing a real answer, the minister threw around weak excuses.

I also asked whether the Prime Minister has ever attended or participated in an Australian military exercise. As someone who joined our troops during Exercise Talisman Sabre, I've seen firsthand the professionalism, sacrifice and strategic importance of what they do. The minister talked about herself, about the Minister for Defence, but not about the Prime Minister. I acknowledge her efforts and appreciate her involvement, but it is not unreasonable to expect the Prime Minister of this nation to show up for our troops. Some might think otherwise, but those on this side of the chamber do not.

Finally, I raised the Prime Minister's decision to spend six days touring China while choosing not to attend Talisman Sabre. He had time to meet with People's Liberation Army officers but not with our own troops or allied commanders. I asked why he made time for China's military leadership but couldn't find time to stand beside Australian soldiers during our most significant joint defence exercise. What was he doing there? Patting pandas in China—pandering to China, some might say. He had time to stroll down memory lane in China, paying tribute to past Labor figures and visiting tourist sites, but he couldn't find the time to visit the troops. He didn't even bother to show up. The Prime Minister of this country chose to shake hands with officers from China's People's Liberation Army instead of standing shoulder to shoulder with Australian soldiers and our allies during a critical moment for our regional defence posture. That's not just poor optics; I believe that it is a failure of leadership.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Supplementary questions were put to the minister, but, again, there were no real answers. Is it true that the Prime Minister has never attended an Australian military exercise? There's no denial; just more waffle. And why did he prioritise a six-day China tour over meeting our defence personnel? Again, nothing of substance. It certainly doesn't pass the pub test. Labor wants the headline without the hard decisions. They want to talk about strategic competition, but they won't fund the capabilities. They want to mention AUKUS, but they're asleep at the wheel when it comes to delivery. Our defence industry is at stake.

Un-Australian is what this is.

There is no continuous building program, nor are there rules about local content, to the detriment of our national security. It's easy to talk about hard power when you're behind a podium in Canberra, but it's much harder to actually stand up at Shoalwater Bay, stand next to our soldiers and prove you understand the stakes.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator O'Neill, sit down. I'm not going to call anyone until there's order in the chamber. Senator Ayres, some of your contributions have been very unhelpful to order in the chamber. You had the right to stand up and take a point of order, Senator Ayres. Instead you decided to interject from your seat. That is highly disorderly. Senator O'Sullivan?

President, further to what you've just ruled there, I'd ask Senator Ayres to reflect on the fact that you were directing him to be quiet and he was forceful in the way that he spoke when directing his comments through to Senator Collins, and I thought the way that he was addressing it through you was entirely inappropriate.

Everyone in this chamber has the right to take a point of order if they have a legitimate point of order to take against a speaker. Clearly, you knew there was no point of order to take, Senator Ayres, which is why you did it from your seat. However, we should continue with taking note of answers.

What we just saw in question time with the question, and with this response, from a very new senator—and I will acknowledge that she gave a very thoughtful contribution yesterday in her first speech—is a clear misunderstanding of how a proper cabinet government that is disciplined undertakes the share of the work, distributed across all of those people for whom there are responsibilities. Both the defence minister and the Foreign minister attended Talisman Sabre. I'm glad that the new member has arrived and has had the experience of sharing some time with the ADF, but dripping with sanctimony about two or three days with the ADF is no argument of any substance at all.

The defence of the nation is a critical part of what this government does. There's overlap in all sorts of other areas with state governments, but defence is the responsibility of the federal government. It's so important that, of all the things that could be spoken about in the address-in-reply, we had the Governor-General put these words on the record:

There is no greater responsibility for government than keeping Australians safe and securing our nation's future.

We stand by that, we are committed to that and we seek, in these incredibly tumultuous times, bipartisanship on that. But there is no way that this undisciplined mob, who lost so spectacularly at the last election, are capable of rising to that challenge. The Australian people need a lot better than what's on offer from the opposition in terms of accountability of the government with regard to the defence of the nation and the very existence of our country.

The twee points that were made in what I thought was a terrible set of questions—and a disgraceful contribution then, frankly—belie the fact that, under the opposition, we had $42 billion worth of announcements for defence, with zero dollars allocated in the budget for it. When you're after a headline and you're seeking to be sanctimonious and superior, we get the kind of contribution we had today. When you're dedicated to delivering for the nation in a real and practical way, you do the investment and you make the announcement at the same time. You don't make an announcement and leave it hanging with no allocation. That is the record of those opposite. No wonder Senator Collins expects the Prime Minister to be in 15 places at once. Let's face it: she's used to having a prime minister who gives himself six portfolios. That's how they run the government. What a joke!

What I'm really concerned about is that what we saw in question time today is edging towards a shift away from the bipartisanship that is vital to this nation. The facts belie the image that was attempted to be re-created here today. The facts are that the Albanese government has increased defence funding to record levels. That includes acquiring new capabilities for our Australian Defence Force of whom we are all proud. We honour their service. We honour their sacrifice to this nation. And nearly every single one of us around this chamber has been out with the ADF, in the program that we're provided for, to go and experience it firsthand and see what's happening. We know there are challenges, and that's why the Albanese government not just announced but actually added $10.6 billion over the forward estimates to our defence budget and $57.6 billion over the decade.

Those opposite can try and make points about what happens in our day-to-day interactions with others and the responsibilities that we need to take on as a government, but the money that we're investing in defence is an indication of how committed we are to that primary job of protecting our nation—not $42 billion of announcements, but $56 billion of cold, hard Australian earned cash to make sure we are protected. It's not a game; it's not to be played with. What we saw today was an absolute disgrace. The Albanese government will continually assess our defence capabilities, and we will resource them—no headline-grabbing stunts and no pretence, but real hard work—in an orderly way, with hard dollars to back it in. (Time expired)

First of all, I want to congratulate Senator Collins on an excellent contribution. We know it was excellent—and the people listening today know it was excellent—because she's taking a lot of flak. When you're taking a lot of flak, you know you're over the target and you know that Labor is very, very sensitive about this. They're very, very sensitive about this issue of defence spending because they've got lots to be sensitive about. They are doing nothing right now to protect our nation's defence. They make announcements, like Senator O'Neill just mentioned, of billions of dollars of money to be spent in the future but never in the present. It's actually what happens in the present that's going to make the difference between us being able to properly defend our nation and not being able to.

I first want to pick up on something that Senator O'Neill accused the coalition of: somehow departing from bipartisanship here on this issue. It is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black here because the Labor Party over the last few years have, time and time again, accused the coalition of destroying the relationship with China. Apparently, it was our fault that China took unilateral, illegal action to ban our exports because we had the temerity to say they couldn't build their Huawei network and we had the temerity to ask for a proper explanation of how the hell coronavirus was unleashed on the world. Both things were very reasonable to do, and the Labor Party didn't oppose them. But then they took China's side. They took China's side on the illegal trade actions China took and gave them credence and, somehow, justification to ban our coal, our barley, our lobster and our red wine. Instead of standing up for Australia's right to say, 'We will decide who builds our 5G network'—which pretty much every other Western country has joined on us now—they decided to take the Chinese Communist Party's side on the illegal trade action it took. Instead of defending Australia's sovereign right to pass foreign interference laws—which we did, and, again, China had a disagreement with us on that, but we had the sovereign right to do it—they sided with the Chinese government. And now they come in this place and say: 'You can't criticise us for our defence policy, because that would be un-Australian.'

No. What is un-Australian is to not stand up for our defence interests right now and point out what is going wrong right now. The biggest issue here is that the Australian government, unfortunately, does not seem to be engaging with our most important friend and ally, the United States. They have not provided a considered response to the request from the United States for our country to lift our defence spending and to work with them on a number of specific defence projects. We can have a reasonable debate about whether we should lift our defence spending or not. But it is at least legitimate for our friend and ally, who provides us with significant military support and with whom we have engaged in the most significant military agreement since the Second World War, the AUKUS agreement, to request that we life our load and contribute to the relationship.

When US Defense Secretary Hegseth made this request at the Shangri-La conference a few months ago, he gave a very considered speech that I encourage all senators to read. He obviously spent a lot of the speech talking about China and the aggressive actions they are taking in our region, threatening many of our friends and neighbours. But one thing that has gone unremarked is that the country he mentioned the second most was Australia. He mentioned us seven times through that speech. All of those mentions were very positive, but many of them indicated how he wants to work with Australia. He mentioned how the American government is establishing a project in Australia to repair P-8 radar systems. He mentioned how he'd like to work with Australia and for us to develop guided weapons and explosive ordnance supply chains. He mentioned how he'd like Australia to produce 155-millimetre ammunition, which is the bedrock of every defence force. A major issue is that Russia can produce more of that type of ammunition than the entirety of the NATO countries can right now in any one year, so it's very important for us to produce 155-millimetre ammunition. When we were in government, we supported a facility in Maryborough to do this.

Why aren't we working with the Americans on this? Pete Hegseth gave that speech, a very considered speech and an olive branch to our country. The Prime Minister was asked about it, and he said:

Well, we're a sovereign nation. And the idea that we, you know, respond to every comment that's made … what we do is serious policy.

That is an insult. That is an absolute insult for our Prime Minister to respond to a considered speech like that by saying, 'We don't respond to every comment.' I mean, get serious, guys. Take seriously what the US Defense Secretary says, instead of making juvenile and naive responses like that. I am very worried about where our country's defence policy is right now, because our government doesn't seem to be in control. (Time expired)

I just want to concur with the comments made by my Senate colleague Senator O'Neill. I think today demonstrates that those opposite still haven't learnt anything—not even after going through another election where they were defeated. We are investing in defence spending, as they well know. But they've come in and taken a shot at the Prime Minister, when we have a Minister for Defence and when they know very well that a Prime Minister cannot be at every event that he or she may want to attend. But the reality is that we've had to undertake a massive clean-up of the messes that you guys left behind after 11 long years of being in government. Defence is just one of those.

Let's talk about something that impacts every Australian just as much as national security and our Defence Force, and that is aged care. Let's talk about aged care, shall we? In 11 years, they had five failed ministers for aged care—five! In government, they had to call a royal commission into their own failings. Now, I would be turning away, too, if I were you, Senator Cash, and ignoring the fact that what I'm saying is absolutely right. They were your own failings; you had to call a royal commission. And what was the name of that report? Can anyone tell me? 'Neglect'—neglect!

So, again, we've had to come in and take the time because there are so many messes. Aged care is just one of those. The investment that we've made into aged care has been so significant. Residential aged care in this country was in a shambles, thanks to those opposite. They didn't invest the money needed to ensure that we had a well-educated, trained workforce. No, they didn't do that. Did they ensure that home-care packages were meeting needs? No, they didn't. Are we an ageing population? Yes, we are. Unfortunately, that's increasing all the time, so the demand is always going to outstrip the capacity of any government to deliver everything that we want. But for you to come in here and lecture us and ask about home-care packages, with your failings—I mean, let's be real: five failed ministers!

If we want to go back and talk about the pandemic and what happened in aged care in this country during that time—who was in government? That's right; it was those opposite. How many people died in residential aged care because there was no registration of aged-care workers in this country? Those workers, who were earning lower wages than most Australians, had to have a second job, so they were going from one residential care home to another. So don't come into this place and try to lecture us about not doing enough. We have set the foundations in our first term around aged care.

We have had to re-establish our international reputation because of the way those opposite, when they were in government, ruined it in so many areas. And let's not even talk about what their reputation was in the Pacific with our closest neighbours.

Now they want to attack the Prime Minister, who is doing his job. The Minister for Defence is doing a great job—Minister Richard Marles. He's very good, he's highly respected, and he's working with Defence, making the strategic decisions about how and where we invest our money.

Then there were questions today about Closing the Gap targets. We have been investing in our Indigenous brothers and sisters, wanting to lift up their opportunities in this country. But, again, you haven't got a very good track record on this issue yourselves.

We want to talk about artificial intelligence. We've engaged with the union movement and want to see good, highly qualified, skilled jobs in this area where there's a lot of opportunities. We should be getting people to invest in AI in this country. But what do those opposite do? They pluck another thing out of the air. They just want to come in here and say that we're not doing enough, or we're dealing with the wrong people. Maybe some of you should pick up the phone and have a chat with some unionists— (Time expired)

Having just been re-elected for my second term of six years, I've spent a little bit of time—and I'm sure others in this place are in the same boat—pondering about what I've achieved and what needs to be achieved over this term. One of the things—and I know you know me well, Deputy President Brockman—that really drove me to run for parliament in the first place back in 2018-19 was this issue of closing the gap. Those who know me know I spent 10 years working in that space, particularly in the employment area, working to close the gap in employment and see that unemployment rate reduce. My firm belief is that while employment won't change everything, without it nothing will change. If you can increase that economic empowerment and economic independence, not only do you change the life of the individual; indeed, they change it for themselves, their entire families and the community.

Unfortunately, one of my great disappointments—and this isn't a political statement; I'm not pointing fingers at any individual, any party or any situation—is that we haven't seen enough progress in this space, in terms of closing the gap. It's very disheartening. We get the pleasure of a job like we have here in this place but the reality for people at the coalface of dealing with this, for individuals in communities across Australia that are facing the many challenges that are represented by the stats we've seen reported on today, it's very confronting and it's very real.

One of the concerns I've got about the way this government is handling this issue is in the area of economic participation. It's great to see that the economic participation target is somewhat on track; they're saying that 55.7 per cent of people aged 25 to 64 years were employed in 2021. It's good that that's on track, but I question how that is being measured and what's going on behind that statistic. We know the government have made the decision—admittedly, with the support of the Coalition of Peaks and others who have informed this important tracking process—to include participation in, for example, the Remote Jobs and Economic Development Program and the rangers type programs. I don't want to denigrate them, because those programs have a place, but, ultimately, the real measure needs to be whether or not we're getting people participating in an economic space that is independent of government, that is a market job rather than a government directed or government funded job. A lot of the programs and the jobs that are funded through these programs are very dependent on government and, in many cases, are displacing real jobs that exist within the marketplace, in the common labour market.

I'm very concerned that, when we measure things like the Closing the Gap targets, we measure outcomes that really matter and that we measure those in a serious way so we can get people liberated and off their dependence on welfare and government. You could be on a program like this for long enough to get long service leave, being in a welfare-driven, supported program, whereas we really need to be getting people into sustainable jobs that are not dependent on government continually having to prop up those jobs. I don't denigrate the good work that is supported by many of these programs, but if we're limiting ourselves and we're not thinking with the blue sky thinking we need, where we lift our vision for Australia, then I fear we will continue to hold people back and prevent them from having the full benefits of being liberated, from an economic point of view.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for the Environment and Water (Senator Watt) to a question without notice asked by Senator Hanson-Young today relating to algal bloom in South Australia.

South Australians love their beaches, and I certainly number myself amongst them. In May of this year, I spent a week down at the Victor Harbor area of our state and witnessed there, for the first time personally, the awful yellow sludge that was flowing across our beaches and blowing along the coast of our beautiful state. I spoke to a number of surfers, to small-business people and to fisherpeople about the impact and the fear they held about what was coming our way as a result of a toxic algal bloom that we did not understand. I felt its effects on my own skin. Surfers talked about the impact of skin reactions and about the impact on their own lungs.

But, since that time, we have witnessed an unfolding crisis—a loss of hundreds and hundreds and thousands of marine creatures along our South Australian shores. Not so long ago, I went to the public meeting of South Australians at the Brighton & Seacliff Yacht Club. Hundreds of South Australians came out to share their grief at the crisis unfolding in the places they love and to the creatures that they care about. Many were citizen scientists who themselves have collected the dead bodies of seals and of large creatures like sharks. We've seen dead dolphins. We've seen all species of fish, and we've seen our very rare sea dragons, coming up in their hundreds, stranded on those shores.

South Australians have been deeply shocked by what we have witnessed, and what we've seen on our shores is a small part of what is going on under the waves. There is a bushfire equivalent underway in the waters off the South Australian coast. It is deeply shocking, and it is a major crisis for many of our industries that depend on that marine life. We've got people whose livelihoods are threatened very fundamentally—who haven't caught a fish for months or whose oyster leases are at risk. Not only are we seeing right now the dead bodies of marine life, which really concerns us; the concern is that this is going to go on for months and months and possibly years and affect those livelihoods.

We also see, as we sit here, the possibility of that algal bloom reaching up into the top of the gulf and threatening species and tourist industries that are incredibly important to us—the giant creatures that thousands of Australians visit and see at the top of the gulf, and the beautiful underwater nature that is there is now at risk from this bloom. As my colleague Senator Hanson-Young made clear, if this were happening in Bondi or if this were happening in St Kilda, we would have a COVID-level response. It would have kicked into gear months ago. Instead, we have waited four months for Minister Watt to get to South Australia and spend the 11 minutes that he did on the shore in our state looking at our problem, and he wrote a cheque and he matched the cheque of our Premier Malinauskas. It's a small cheque. When you look at the millions of dollars that are going to go out of those industries and cost our South Australian economy, it is so far from what is needed to support those businesses.

I also want to talk about the scientists who came along to the public meeting not so long ago and showed us the images of what it looked like under the jetty on Yorke Peninsula six, eight and 10 months ago and what it looks like now. It is devastating. It is truly shocking that we are going to see more and more of these algal blooms around our country on a reef system that stretches from right over towards New Zealand to beyond Perth. This is the southern reef system, which is potentially being affected over time by rising ocean temperatures that scientists have been telling us about for years. They have been saying increases in ocean temperature are going to put our coastal marine life at risk, and it's partly driven by changes in the underwater ecology. We know our seagrass systems and our giant kelp systems are not what they were. Over decades, they have changed. And they are a natural rehabilitation, we hear, from the scientists, of that algae. But they are gone; they've been decimated.

But the really important difference now is that we are reaping the product of fossil fuels and their impact in driving a climate crisis that is increasing the temperature of our oceans, risking our beautiful marine life and not only our economic wellbeing but so many things that South Australians treasure. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

by leave—I advise the Senate that I am replacing Senator McDonald as whip for the purposes of standing order 24A relating to the Selection of Bills Committee.

by leave—I table this nonconforming petition, titled 'Stand up for disability support: stop the NDIS cuts', of some 60,000 signatures.

by leave—I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to the 150th Inter-Parliamentary Union Assembly, which took place from 5 to 9 April 2025. I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

From 2 to 9 April this year, I travelled to Tashkent, the capital of the Republic of Uzbekistan, as part of the delegation to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, known as the IPU. It was no ordinary delegation. As the House of Representatives had been prorogued for the election, I had the privilege of representing our very much respected Speaker, the Hon. Milton Dick, as the delegation leader on this occasion. I was also accompanied by my then colleague from the Senate, Senator Reynolds. While the delegation was small, the task was significant. We certainly missed the company and the leadership of the Speaker, but we did our very best to represent Australia's interests and to build relationships with our fellow parliamentarians from around the world.

Australia's contribution to the IPU is longstanding and substantial, with continuous participation in parliamentary diplomacy to promote peace, cooperation and mutual understanding among nations. Prior to the commencement of the formal assembly, I had the honour of representing our Speaker as chairperson of the Sub-Committee on Finance to the Executive Committee.

Senator Reynolds, in what would be her final contribution to the IPU, continued her vital work on addressing orphanage trafficking. She facilitated a discussion on the implementation of the 2023 resolution on this issue, hosted by the Standing Committee on Democracy and Human Rights.

While political debate in Australia is often robust and occasionally intense, when a bipartisan delegation travels abroad, we act as one—as team Australia. I was, therefore, very proud to preside as President over the same committee in which Senator Reynolds had advanced her work on orphanage trafficking.

During the assembly in Tashkent, I continued my advocacy on tax avoidance and evasion. I introduced a resolution condemning the predatory tax practices of certain multinational enterprises and reaffirmed Australia's commitment to fair and transparent global trade. Firms such as PwC have promoted schemes that allow multinational enterprises to exploit jurisdictional gaps, enabling them to operate across borders with little accountability while maximising profits. This behaviour undermines the integrity of global tax systems and creates a lawless zone within the infrastructure of international commerce, and, in doing so it, it undermines any movement towards the achievement of the sustainable development goals, on which there is so much consensus yet so little investment.

I look forward to working with my fellow co-rapporteurs, Mr JMR Edwards of Chile and Ms J Sabao of Zambia, to further international cooperation in this area and to help secure much-needed revenue for nations striving to reach those important sustainable development goals. In the same spirit of multilateral collaboration, I would like to acknowledge the significant efforts of the Standing Committee on Peace and International Security, and the many delegations to the assembly, in securing a resolution at the IPU, after a considerable period of dissent, on the critical issue that so much of our attention is focused: the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. This achievement in the Standing Committee on Peace and International Security demonstrates that negotiation and consensus can still deliver meaningful outcomes and, indeed, hope. It reassures me that parliament-to-parliament contact and relationships remain vital and effective in striving for peace for our brothers and sisters right across the globe.

On behalf of the delegation, I extend our deep gratitude to the parliament of Uzbekistan for hosting the 150th IPU Assembly. We are especially thankful, as the Australian delegation, to Senator Kadirxanova Malika Akbarovna and her team for their support throughout the assembly. We also express sincere appreciation to the Deputy Mayor of Tashkent, Dr Shakhnoza Abduvaxitovna Sultanova, whose assistance and hospitality enriched our visit with insight into Uzbek culture and customs.

I would also like to thank the Speaker for entrusting me with the responsibility of leading this important delegation when, clearly, he was unable to attend. I also thank Dr Jane Thompson for her unwavering support as secretary to our delegation. Finally, I wish to pay tribute to former senator Reynolds for her enduring advocacy and service in representing Australia on the global stage. Awareness about orphanage trafficking is now common knowledge across all the parliaments that have participated in the IPU, and that is a significant contribution to the safety of millions of children.

Question agreed to.

I present additional information received by committees relating to the following estimates:

Additional estimates 2023–24—Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee—Additional information—

Defence portfolio.

Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio.

Additional estimates 2024–2 5—Environment and Communications Legislation Committee—Additional information—

Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water portfolio.

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

At the request of the chair of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, I present the report of the committee on an examination of annual reports tabled by 30 April 2025.

At the request of the chair of the Education and Employment Legislation Committee, Senator Marielle Smith, I present the report of the committee relating to the re-adoption of its inquiry into the quality of governance at Australian higher education providers.

Ordered that the report be adopted.

I present the 186th report of the Committee of Privileges, entitled Person referred to in the Senate: Mr Lesley Turner. I move:

That the report be adopted.

This report forms part of a series of reports recommending that a right of reply be afforded to persons who claim to have been adversely affected by being referred to in the Senate either by name or in such a way as to be readily identified. On 28 February 2025 the President received a submission on behalf of Mr Lesley Turner relating to speeches made by Senator Nampijinpa Price in the Senate on 20 August 2024, on 9 September 2024 and on 12 February 2025. The President referred the submissions to the committee under privilege resolution 5. The committee has considered the submission and recommends that Mr Turner's response be incorporated in Hansard.

The committee reminds the Senate that, in matters of this nature, it doesn't judge the truth or otherwise of statements made by senators or the persons referred to. Rather, it ensures that these persons have submissions, and ultimately the responses it recommends accord with the criteria set out in privilege resolution 5. I commend the motion to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Response as recommended by the committee incorporated accordingly

Response of Lesley Turner to comments by Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price in the Senate

1. My name is Lesley Turner. I am the CEO of the Central Land Council and the applicant in defamation proceedings filed in the Federal Court of Australia on 5 September 2024 against Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price (Proceedings).

2. The Proceedings concern a Media Release published by Senator Price on 21 July 2024 (Media Release). The Media Release incorrectly stated, amongst other things, that a motion of no confidence was moved against me the previous week at a Central Land Council meeting at Watarrka (Allegation).

3. The Central Land Council issued a public statement on 22 July 2024 which clearly stated that the Allegation was inaccurate. Senator Price did not retract the Allegation, and I felt I had no option but to instruct solicitors to issue a Concerns Notice to Senator Price under the Defamation Act 2006 (NT). The Concerns Notice was served on Senator Price on 29 July 2024.

4. Since the service of the Concerns Notice and the commencement of the Proceedings, Senator Price has made numerous statements to the Senate about matters in issue in the Proceedings or about potential witnesses in the Proceedings which are a clear conflict of interest and which have the potential to interfere with the Proceedings, as follows:

A. 20 August 2024

On 20 August 2024, approximately a month after being notified by the Central Land Council that the Allegation was inaccurate and three weeks after receipt of the Concerns Notice, Senator Price made a speech in the Senate in which she asserted:

"With respect to the Central Land Council, I personally wrote to Minister McCarthy last week to notify her that, at a meeting of the council on 18 July 2024, a no-confidence motion was moved by the chair of the council against its CEO. As far as the chair is concerned, it was successfully passed. The fact that there was a no-confidence motion of this nature in the first place is a red flag in itself."

On 21 February 2025, Senator Price's solicitors notified my solicitors that she would no longer be maintaining the truth defence pleaded in her Amended Defence filed in the Proceedings on 22 December 2024. In other words, she is no longer arguing in the proceedings that what she said about me is true.

B. 9 September 2024

On 9 September 2024, Senator Price made a speech in which she praised Matthew Palmer, the former Chair of the Central Land Council, and Arrernte elders Sabella Turner, Veronica Lynch and Margaret Lynch. All of these individuals were present in the Senate gallery when the Senator made her speech. They were all, at that time, also potential witnesses in the Proceedings. In her speech, Senator Price called the Arrernte elders "three very brave,admirable women". She also attacked the Central Land Council (and by inference me, as the Central Land Council's CEO):

"These four are here because they have seen the dysfunction that presently exists within the ranks of the Central Land Council."

C. 12 February 2025

On 12 February 2025, Senator Price made a speech in the Senate in which she criticised another witness in the Proceedings. She should not use the Senate as a platform to make speeches about witnesses in her personal litigation.

5. The comments made by Senator Price on 20 August 2024 were false and defamatory. I therefore seek this opportunity to correct the Senate record.

I present the Register of Senators' Interests, incorporating statements of registrable interests and notifications of alterations lodged between 1 January and 30 June 2025.

I present the Delegated legislation monitor No. 4 of 2025 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation together with ministerial correspondence, and I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I rise to speak in response to the monitor that I have just described on the record. It reports on the committee's consideration of no fewer than 596 legislative instruments registered between 1 March and 24 July 2025. In this monitor, the committee has commented on one new instrument and one concluded instrument.

The new instrument that the committee has commented on is the Help to Buy program 2025. This instrument directs Housing Australia in relation to performance of its functions under the Help to Buy Act 2024 in administering the Help to Buy program. This program aims to assist eligible Australians to purchase new or existing homes by accessing an equity contribution from the Commonwealth. The committee is seeking the minister's advice regarding this instrument under a number of scrutiny principles. The instrument confers a range of broad discretionary powers on Housing Australia to administer the program. However, the relevant factors to which it must or may have regard in exercising those powers and the definition of terms central to its discretion under those powers are in fact unclear.

Examples of the provisions which the committee is raising concerns about include subsection 29(1) and subsection 30(1) of the instrument, which require Housing Australia to exempt a participant from complying with a requirement for participation in the scheme if it is satisfied that it is impractical for the participant to meet the relevant requirement due to circumstances, including hardship, or on other compassionate grounds. However, neither the instrument nor its explanatory statement provide factors that Housing Australia may or must have regard to in determining whether it's satisfied that circumstances exist to exempt the participant from complying with the relevant requirement.

Under scrutiny principle (c), the committee expects that instruments conferring broad discretionary powers should set out the matters to be considered by the decision-maker in exercising that discretion and the source of any relevant safeguards or limitations. In this instance, even though many of the provisions which the committee is raising concerns about are beneficial in nature, it is nonetheless expected that discretionary terms such as 'hardship' and 'on other compassionate grounds' are sufficiently explained in the explanatory statement to ensure users of the law can gain a clear understanding of the instrument and how it may affect them.

Repeatedly, neither the instrument nor the explanatory statement addresses whether independent merits review is available for the discretionary decisions under the instrument in line with the committee's expectations under scrutiny principle (i). Noting the potential impact which discretionary decisions may have on the rights of obligations and interests of applicants to and participants in the Help to Buy program, the committee is requesting the minister's advice confirming whether discretionary decisions under the instrument are subject to independent merits review and, if not, what characteristics of those decisions justify the exclusion of review by reference to the Administrative Review Council's guidance document entitled What decisions should be subject to merit review?

The committee also considers that the instrument provides for significant elements of a regulatory scheme that are more appropriate for parliamentary enactment under scrutiny principle (j). This includes defining key terms such as 'eligible applicant' and 'eligible property', which are matters essential to determining whether a Help to Buy arrangement under the Help to Buy program can lawfully be made.

In addition, the committee considers that the Help to Buy program is a program of national significance. Accordingly, the committee is seeking the minister's advice as to why it was considered necessary and appropriate to include these significant elements of the regulatory scheme in delegated rather than primary legislation.

Additionally, the committee is pleased to conclude its examination of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Safety) Regulations 2024 in this monitor. This instrument aims to ensure that offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage activities are undertaken in a way that reduces the risks to the health and safety of persons at or near offshore petroleum and greenhouse facilities to a level as low as reasonably practicable. The committee has been engaging with the Minister for Resources since monitor 1 of 2025 in relation to several scrutiny concerns. The committee thanks the minister for her recent undertaking to amend the instrument's explanatory statement to include advice she previously provided regarding the exclusion of independent merits review and the justification for including significant penalties in delegated legislation under scrutiny principles (i) and (j).

This parliament, the committee is continuing to monitor the implementation of outstanding undertakings. The committee is pleased to advise that nine undertakings have been implemented in this monitor's reporting period, while 17 undertakings remain outstanding for more than 90 days. I advise the chamber that I will be taking the opportunity at the beginning of the parliament to write to all ministers and agency heads to inform them about the committee's work and draw their attention to all outstanding undertakings within their portfolio or department, noting that the committee expects such undertakings to be implemented in a timely manner.

I would also like to take this opportunity to continue to raise awareness of the committee's scrutiny principles and expectations outlined in Senate standing order 23. In previous tabling statements, I have discussed principles (a) to (d). Today I would like to discuss principle (e), which relates to clarity of drafting. Under this principle, the committee scrutinises each legislative instrument as to whether the drafting is defective or unclear. The committee is particularly concerned with instruments that contain errors or unclear drafting which are likely to affect the meaning or interpretation of the instrument or where instruments do not clearly define key terms. This is of particular concern as unclear drafting or errors may affect the meaning or interpretation of an instrument in such a way that it may prevent persons, including those directly affected by the law, from understanding their rights and obligations.

Under principle (e), the committee expects that instruments and explanatory statements are drafted in such a way that they are clear and intelligible to all persons and that individuals' rights and obligations are clear. Further, key terms including specialist terms and legal terms should be clearly defined in the instrument and its explanatory statement. Where the definition of a key term is sourced from other legislation, the source provision should also be cited in the instrument's explanatory statement.

I am pleased to note that the committee raised concerns under principle (e) a total of seven times in 2024, which is a decrease from 11 times in 2023. However, the committee has recently identified two instruments which contain errors in their explanatory statements which may affect the interpretation of the instruments. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to emphasise, at the commencement of the 48th Parliament, the importance of accurate drafting for instruments and their explanatory statements. While concerns regarding clarity of drafting and drafting errors are relatively infrequent, noting their potential to impact the interpretation and understanding of the law, the committee will continue to monitor this issue and draw attention to its expectations under principle (e).

If I can speak in plain Aussie straight talk: in the work that the committee does, we seek to make sure that Australians who are affected by the laws that we create are able to go and find out all about how the law works to be able to understand it and to be able to access the information that they need at that point to progress in the way that the law accords. That's what it's about: making sure that access to law is available and that the law is clear, particularly with regard to delegated legislation. That's our purpose. It's in service of the nation, and I'm delighted to be chair of the committee with a very illustrious group of senators alongside me to do this important work.

With these comments, I commend the committee's Delegated legislation monitor: monitor 4 of 2025 to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

I present the government response to the report of the Education and Employment Legislation Committee on its inquiry into the provisions of the Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Bill 2024 and seek leave to have the document incorporated into Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows—

Australian Government response to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee report:

Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Bill 2024 [Provisions]

MARCH 2025

Committee Recommendations

1. The committee recommends that the bill be passed.

The Australian Government accepts the recommendation. The bill passed both Houses on 26 November 2024 and received Royal Assent on 10 December 2024.

Greens Recommendations

1. That the Australian Government amends the bill to fully fund a 25 percent wage increase for early childhood educators.

The Australian Government does not accept the recommendation. A phased wage increase of 10 per cent in the first year, increasing to 15 per cent in the second year is an economically responsible approach which also provides an historic pay increase for Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) educators.

2. That the Australian Government invests in improving educator working conditions.

The Australian Government accepts the recommendation and notes the significant investments it has made to improve educator working conditions, including through this ECEC Worker Retention Payment.

3. That the bill be amended to extend the wage increase beyond the sunset provision until the Fair Work Commission decision is operational.

The Australian Government does not accept the recommendation and notes that the ECEC Worker Retention Payment is an interim measure while the Fair Work Commission finalises its gender undervaluation review of priority awards.

4. That the Australian Government commits to fully funding the Fair Work Commission decision on early childhood wages.

The Australian Government does not accept the recommendation and will not pre-emptively commit to future decisions of the independent Fair Work Commission.

5. That the Australian Government allocate extra funding for administrative expenses associated with the workplace instrument.

The Australian Government notes the recommendation and is providing $10.0 million from 2024-25 for the ECEC Worker Retention Payment Engagement Program to support services to meet the requirements and conditions of the grant, including the workplace instrument.

6. That the Australian Government increase transparency on grant calculations for providers in the grant guidelines.

The Australian Government does not accept the recommendation. The ECEC Worker Retention Payment provides funding to cover a 10 per cent wage increase for all eligible workers from 2 December 2024, an additional 5 per cent wage increase for all eligible workers from December 2025 and a minimum of an additional 20 per cent, calculated against the wage increase, for on-costs. If services do not receive sufficient funding to cover this, they may apply for a funding review.

I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning online gambling, the review of public sector board appointments, the 2025 incoming government briefs, Workforce Australia participation suspension notices and incoming government briefs.

I table the following documents:

Particulars of proposed expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 2026.

Particulars of certain proposed expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 2026.

Particulars of proposed expenditure in relation to the parliamentary departments in respect of the year ending on 30 June 2026.

I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the documents.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the documents be referred to legislation committees for the consideration of the estimates.

Question agreed to.

I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

AGED CARE AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2025

I move that this Bill be read a second time.

I introduce the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025.

This Bill makes technical, transitional, and consequential changes to support the commencement of the Aged Care Act 2024.

The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety which released its expansive final report in March 2021, shocked Australians with its damning assessment of a failing aged care system.

The first recommendation of the Royal Commission was the development of a new Aged Care Act to put rights of older people at the centre.

The Aged Care Act 2024 passed the Parliament in the last term.

I recognise the immense contribution of my ministerial colleague, Anika Wells, now Minister for Communications, in steering these landmark reforms through the Parliament last term.

I also want to acknowledge that the reforms passed through the Parliament with bipartisan support, and I recognise the constructive role that the Opposition and members of the crossbench played as these reforms were considered.

It's a timely reminder that the wellbeing and dignity of older people, and the importance of delivering respectful and person-centred care, should be above politics.

The Aged Care Act 2024, which commences on 1 November 2025, which replaces the Aged Care Act 1997, will deliver on this recommendation and establish a new rights-based framework for the delivery of aged care in Australia.

The new legislative framework follows so many other improvements, including:

The new Act puts the dignity of older Australians first and foremost with the statement of rights. Underpinned by Australia's obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

It is important we get this once-in-a-generation reform right.

That's why the Government chose to defer the start of the Aged Care Act 2024, and the new Support at Home program. As we said when the deferral was announced, the Government decided it was appropriate to give more time for aged care providers to prepare their clients, support their workforce and get their systems ready for changes.

This Bill provides further support for our ambition to transform the experience of older Australians receiving care.

The Bill also includes amendments to the Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2024 and other legislation that supports the aged care system.

Aged Care Act 2024 Chapter 4 amendments

The Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 makes a number of transitional changes to ensure that subsidies are paid correctly to support the provision of funded aged care to older Australians.

Older Australians are now receiving an additional 6.8 million minutes of care every single day—2.5 million of which are delivered by qualified, registered nurses. Care minutes and related measures were introduced in response to a recommendation of the Royal Commission to ensure older people in aged care homes receive the dedicated care time they need. Amendments to provider-based subsidy provisions ensure that registered providers are supported to deliver this high-quality care while maintaining a sustainable aged care system.

The Bill also contains amendments to support the continuation of accommodation bond arrangements, which are amounts paid to enter and receive care in a residential setting made under the 1997 Act, for people who entered care before 2008.

The amendments also include a new civil penalty provision comparable to the existing accommodation payments framework under the new Act.

Miscellaneous changes

The new Act provided for automated processes to support decisions about classification levels, prioritisation and allocation of places to individuals.

Updated automation provisions are included in this Bill which reflect best practice for transparency and clarity. The updated provisions will support means testing arrangements under the new framework for financial contributions. This will allow the system to remain efficient and keep pace with technological advances and ensure that older Australians get quicker and more robust decisions.

The protection of personal information and the regulation of its use and disclosure, consistent with both Australian law and international standards, remains a key priority. Under the new Act framework, this information is protected information, and the Act provides substantial penalties for misuse.

Amendments in this Bill ensure this information is clearly transitioned from the old framework to the new framework with no confusion as to when and how authorisations to use or disclose this information, for a proper purpose, apply.

Amendments are also being made to the Star Ratings program. The introduction of this program has given older Australians and their loved ones more information about residential aged care homes. But based on public consultation and feedback amendments will be made to better utilise compliance information in determining and publishing a registered provider's compliance with their obligations under the law.

This new Bill also introduces a requirement that the Aged Care Quality Standards are reviewed every five years, to ensure that the standards of care we expect for older Australians are regularly considered against and aligned with best practice.

Consequential amendments

The Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 will make consequential changes to legislation that reference the Commonwealth aged care system. These amendments will ensure that funded aged care services are provided in a manner consistent with other Commonwealth legislation. Amendments will ensure that existing exemptions to the application of the GST remain in place for aged care services. Amendments to the treatment of means testing and income support payments will ensure they continue to operate as intended. Specifically, that aged care accommodation payments and certain compensation payments are not considered income, and that certain exemptions continue to apply to payments made to injured veterans.

Concluding remarks

To conclude, this bill builds on the new and enduring foundation for the Australian aged-care system from 1 November 2025, and for years to come.

I would like to thank the many people who have contributed to this ambitious reform to date.

In particular, I would like to thank:

Last but not least thank you to the older Australians, carers, workers, unions, providers, advocates and other experts who continue to contribute to an aged care system that puts people first.

I hope the Parliament will come together to support this Bill, to help realise the full potential of these critical aged care reforms.

I commend the Bill to the House.

AGED CARE (ACCOMMODATION PAYMENT SECURITY) LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 2025

I move that this Bill be read a second time.

I introduce the Aged Care (Accommodation Payment Security) Levy Amendment Bill 2025.

This Bill is a counterpart to the Bill I introduced before this, and complements the provisions it contains.

This Bill makes additional technical, transitional, and consequential changes to support the commencement of the new Aged Care Act 2024.

This Bill makes consequential amendments to Aged Care (Accommodation Payment Security) Levy Act 2006 which guarantees certain payments made by older Australians who seek to access funded aged care.

It does so in two main ways. First, it ensures that registered providers under the new Act framework continue to be subject to the Government's guarantee scheme.

Secondly, it provides that the Government may levy the costs of this guarantee from certain classes of registered providers in certain circumstances, such as when there is a default event.

This Bill is an important measure to ensure that funded aged care services remain sustainable, and payments made by older Australians remain protected into the future.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of these bills be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.

I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows—

AUSTRALIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE ORGANISATION AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 1) 2025

The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2025 extends the sunset date of ASIO's compulsory questioning powers by 18 months, until 7 March 2027. This extension will enable the Government to progress reforms to ASIO's questioning powers, and ensure the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) has sufficient time to consider those reforms.

In September 2023, the PJCIS elected to review the compulsory questioning framework ahead of its sunset date, but did not complete its review prior to the prorogation of Parliament earlier this year. This Bill will ensure ASIO retains these important powers to investigate and gather critical intelligence while reforms to the framework are progressed through Parliament, including consideration by the PJCIS.

Closing remarks

I would note that this Bill ensures that ASIO continues to have the powers it needs to navigate an increasingly complex, challenging and changing security environment and deliver on its mission to protect the safety of Australia and Australians. The regime will continue to be subject to extensive safeguards and oversight mechanisms to protect individual rights, including oversight by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.

The Bill reflects this Government's commitment to ensuring Australia's national security agencies have the powers they need to ensure that Australians can be safe, and feel safe, in an increasingly complex national security environment.

DEFENCE HOUSING AUSTRALIA AMENDMENT BILL 2025

I am pleased to present the Defence Housing Australia Amendment Bill 2025, which makes various amendments to the Defence Housing Australia Act 1987 to expand the main function of Defence Housing Australia (DHA). The changes will enable housing and housing-related services to be provided by DHA to those making important contributions to the defence of Australia.

DHA was established in 1987 for the purpose of providing Australian Defence Force (ADF) members and their families with quality, affordable and readily accessible housing. This housing initiative was and still is a key element of ADF conditions of service, which contributes directly to the retention and wellbeing of ADF personnel.

This Bill addresses the recommendation from a 2019 ANAO Report on the management of DHA. The report recommended expanding DHA's functions to also provide housing for foreign exchange and visiting military personnel, and philanthropic organisations that provide counselling and other support services to ADF members and their families.

This Bill recognises that the ADF, in modern times, relies on the support, services and cooperation of a wide range of external partners and organisations, including foreign militaries, who may require housing support in Australia.

In particular, this Bill will directly support our requirement to house personnel coming to Australia as part of Submarine Rotational Force—West under the Australia, United Kingdom and the United States trilateral security partnership—AUKUS.

Submarine Rotational Force-West is part of the AUKUS Optimal Pathway, which was announced in March 2023.

The AUKUS Optimal Pathway will:

The first phase of the AUKUS Optimal Pathway includes the rotational presence of US and UK nuclear-powered submarines at HMAS Stirling, known as the Submarine Rotational Force—West (SRF-West).

From Quarter 3, 2025, a small cohort of approximately 34 US personnel will arrive in Western Australia to prepare for the commencement of the SRF-West. Following this, there will be an increasing number of US and UK military, civilian and contractor personnel arriving in Western Australia over the course of five years, including some families accompanying US military personnel.

To enable the activity, Defence, through DHA, needs to ensure that housing for these US and UK personnel is available in close proximity to HMAS Stirling.

SRF-West is integral to helping Australia and Australians develop the skills and infrastructure to safely and securely maintain, own and operate nuclear-powered submarines.

Providing housing and family support to these personnel while they reside in Western Australia is a critical aspect of enabling SRF-West. Housing stock will be made available through DHA. This will be comparable to the support provided to ADF members and their families.

The Albanese Government is committed to AUKUS and supporting our AUKUS partners appropriately, however we are conscious this should not be at the detriment of local communities.

Further, in the spirit of a true partnership, the Albanese Government seeks to ensure overseas personnel are integrated into local communities in order to provide them and their families the best possible experience in Australia.

Utilising DHA will ensure Australia secures adequate and suitable housing that aligns with Australian Defence Force standards while limiting any negative impacts that may be had on local housing markets.

More generally, there is a need in a range of circumstances to provide housing to people in locations where Defence operates across Australia, including remote areas, to deliver Defence capability.

This Bill will also enable DHA to provide housing and housing-related services to organisations who are integral to Defence business, including philanthropic organisations providing important support services.

The Bill will also provide a mechanism for the Minister for Defence Personnel to determine that DHA can provide housing and housing-related services in the future to broader categories of people to meet the operational needs of the ADF and the requirements of the Department of Defence. This allows for flexibility and the ability to respond to changing circumstances, as and when they arise.

This recognises the changing nature of the Defence workforce, which no longer exclusively encompasses ADF members and APS employees.

Ultimately, this Bill will ensure that Australia's security requirements are met.

The speedy passage of this legislation is an important step in ensuring we can meet our commitments under AUKUS.

These amendments will also enable better support for those who provide assistance and support to the ADF.

I commend the Bill.

HEALTH INSURANCE (PATHOLOGY) (FEES) (REPEAL) BILL 2025

The Health Insurance (Pathology) (Fees) (Repeal) Bill 2025 relates to the fees imposed on the pathology sector for certain categories of pathology applications. This Bill provides reforms for the current charging arrangements imposed on the sector for categories of accreditation applications.

Under the Health Insurance Act 1973, pathology services must be rendered by or on behalf of an Approved Pathology Practitioner (Approved Practitioner), in an Accredited Pathology Laboratory (Accredited Laboratory) operated by an Approved Pathology Authority (Approved Authority,) to be eligible to receive Medicare benefits.

Practitioners (pathologists) are required to sign an undertaking to the Minister that they will comply with the requirements of the legislation and certain administrative arrangements. They must pay an acceptance fee to become an Approved Practitioner. Similarly, the proprietor of a laboratory must sign an undertaking and pay an acceptance fee to become an Approved Authority. Laboratory premises may be approved by the Minister as an Accredited Laboratory following the submission of an application and relevant supporting documentation. This includes an accreditation assessment and payment of the accreditation fee once the premises are provided with an in-principle approval.

The accreditation requirements impose obligations on Approved Practitioners, Accredited Laboratories and Approved Authorities to undertake to meet, or demonstrate compliance with, quality assurance standards for pathology services provided under Medicare.

The Health Insurance (Pathology) (Fees) Act 1991 (Pathology Fees Act) specifies the fees which must be paid for the acceptance, and approval of, applications for the Approved Practitioner, Approved Authority and Accredited Laboratory. This allows approved providers to be identified in the Services Australia billing system of Medicare eligible services. These fees were arbitrarily set to be between $500 and $2,500 in 1991.

The 2022 Health Portfolio Charging Review identified that the fees set against each of these application categories have not been reviewed or changed since the Pathology Fees Act came into force. Further, when investigated, the fees were found to exceed the administrative cost of processing these application categories. As such, this arrangement does not align with the Australian Government Charging Framework (2015).

Removing the fees applied to the three categories of applications through the repeal of the Pathology Fees Act will resolve this misalignment with Government Charging Policy. It will provide fee relief in addition to reducing the administrative burden for the pathology sector.

The consequential amendments included in this Bill remove all references to the payment of fees for these application types from 1 July 2025. In line with this intended commencement date, provisions have been included to allow the refund of fees collected between 1 July 2025 (inclusive) and the commencement date of this bill where the applicant's approval has come into force on or after 1 July 2025.

To preserve the high level of confidence in the accuracy of pathology testing in Australia provided under Medicare, the administrative requirements including accreditation obligations will remain unchanged.

PACIFIC BANKING GUARANTEE BILL 2025

I move that this Bill be now read a second time.

Today I am proud to re-introduce the Pacific Banking Guarantee Bill 2025.

This Bill will help secure access to banking services across the Pacific.

It will help ensure our entire region can stay connected to the global financial system.

Australia's relationship with the Pacific is a special one.

Since coming to office, the Albanese Labor Government has been working hard to be a partner of choice with the entire region.

We've been restoring trust and rebuilding relationships.

Within our first 12 months in office, Albanese government ministers visited every Pacific Islands Forum member country.

To renew our Pacific partnerships, listen to Pacific priorities and deliver on our collective interests.

We've been making record investments, and we are the region's largest development partner.

I pay tribute to the work of the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, Trade Minister and Minister for Pacific Island Affairs.

When it comes to banking in the Pacific, the challenges in front of us are clear, and confronting.

We know the Pacific has seen the fastest withdrawal of correspondent banking services of any region in the world.

We know these vital services help communities access foreign currencies and international payment systems.

And we also know that without them, large parts of the Pacific risk being cut off from the global financial system.

At stake here is the ability of the Pacific to engage with the world.

This pressing challenge was one of the main topics discussed with counterparts at the Pacific Islands Forum Economic Ministers Meeting last year.

That marked the first time an Australian Treasurer had travelled to the Pacific to attend that forum in almost two decades.

It's also the challenge this Bill helps tackle.

This legislation allows the Commonwealth to use its balance sheet to support Australian banks to maintain their Pacific operations.

It will enable the Commonwealth to guarantee an Australian banks' business in the Pacific—either directly or through its subsidiaries—against the unlikely possibility of a default in the region, which may force them to shut their operations.

Eligible Australian banks will pay a fee to the Commonwealth for the guarantee, it is not a subsidy.

It is highly unlikely this guarantee will be needed.

But it is still an important and necessary change to make sure our Pacific family can continue to bank with confidence.

This legislation is just one part of the substantial progress we've already made to secure the future of banking services in the region.

Working with the Commonwealth Bank to establish banking operations in Nauru this year.

Working with ANZ and Westpac to secure their continued presence in the Pacific.

Working with the World Bank and Asian Development Bank to develop digital identity infrastructure and improve compliance with regulations.

And funding our Attorney-General's Department to help build capacity in Pacific countries, to strengthen protections from financial crime and build trust in the system.

We've been able to make all this progress at the same time as also securing access to banking services around Australia.

Because of our efforts, all major banks now have a moratorium on branch closures in regional Australia for two and a half years.

And we've helped secure a number of new agreements to shore up the vital services provided by Bank@Post.

We are standing up for regional Australians, helping to secure the banking services they need and deserve.

More than banking, this is about keeping regional communities, that contribute so much to our national economy, connected and thriving.

Banks have a responsibility to regional communities and we're holding them to it.

We will continue to work with regulators, industry and communities to ensure our regions have access to fit-for purpose and sustainable banking services over the long term.

This includes a focus on sustainable cash distribution and ensuring Australians can use cash to pay for essentials if they want or need to.

This Bill will help prevent the loss of banking services in the Pacific, which is vital to the security and economic development of our region.

But it won't solve the challenge overnight.

We'll continue to work with the banks and our international partners to address this issue.

To make our region safer and more stable.

To make sure loved ones, families and communities can continue to access their money.

And to build a better future for the people of the Pacific.

Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.

Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of these bills be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.

Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paperas separate orders of the day.

The President has received letters nominating senators to be members of various committees.

by leave—I move:

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

Education and Employment Legislation Committee —

Appointed—

Substitute member: Senator Barbara Pocock to replace Senator Faruqi for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill 2025.

Participating member: Senator Faruqi

Electoral Matters — Joint Standing Committee—

Appointed—Participating member [for the purposes of the committee's inquiry into the 2025 election]: Senator Babet

Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy — Select Committee —

Appointed—

Senators Ananda-Rajah and Darmanin

Participating members: Senators Brown, Ciccone, Cox, Dolega, Dowling, Ghosh, Grogan, Mulholland, O'Neill, Polley, Sheldon, Marielle Smith, Sterle, Stewart, Walker and Whiteaker

Question agreed to.

I move general business notice of motion No. 73:

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.

Today, I stand to speak on the general business motion that I have moved in this place. I moved this motion because of my extraordinary concern about the Prime Minister and the government misleading Australians about a crisis befalling our healthcare system at the moment, most particularly a crisis in access to general practice, which is access to primary care. I say this—and I'll provide evidence as to why I'm concerned—because during the election campaign the Prime Minister, the leader of our nation, promised Australians that all you need is your Medicare card, not your credit card, when you visit your doctor. He also said it would be free to see a GP. After he made that commitment to Australians—71 times at least that we can identify—Australians quite rightly expect that, when they see their GP, they will not have any out-of-pocket expenses. That means, when they go to see the GP, they will provide their Medicare card, and that will be the only card that they require.

However, we knew all along this was unlikely to be achieved. We remained very concerned throughout the campaign while the government, particularly the Prime Minister, in his shady stunts, was running around, wielding his plastic card as if somehow that was going to be his whole platform for winning the election. We constantly said throughout the campaign that we believed the Prime Minister was misleading Australians and giving them a false sense that their health care was about to become free. Australians know, as they have experienced it over the last three years in particular, about how much costs for accessing their GP have gone up. In fact, they have gone up on average by 45 per cent; the out-of-pocket costs of going to see a GP have risen.

Immediately following the election we found out, on the incoming government brief, that the Department of Health and Aged Care advised the Prime Minister and advised the government prior to the election that, in fact, there was no possibility every person would be able to see their GP for free. That FOI identified that, even on the conservative estimates of the Department of Health and Aged Care, the department believed that a quarter of GP clinics across Australia will not bulk-bill, despite the Australian Labor Party government's promises to Australians during the election campaign.

This data shows that millions of Australians will still need their credit card, something that the Prime Minister promised them they would not need. So, quite clearly, the Prime Minister's own Department of Health, Disability and Ageing has actually belled the cat on the fact that he not only misled Australians during the election campaign but did so knowingly. But, as I said, the worst part of it is that not only did he mislead Australians about how much money they were going to have to pull out of their own pockets when they go to see a GP; right now, that amount is higher than it has ever been before.

But the other telling thing was, this week, the Minister for Health and Ageing, Mark Butler, on morning television, said:

We never said there'd be a hundred per cent bulk billing.

What I'd really like to understand from the Prime Minister is how, if all you need to visit your doctor is your Medicare card, that cannot mean you're telling the Australian public that they will get their primary health care for free. How is saying, 'It will be free to see a GP,' not telling Australians that every Australian will get to see their GP for free? The Prime Minister knew it wasn't true. He knew it wasn't true when he was saying it. He knows it's not true now. He continues to say it, and yet his very own health minister is quite happy to admit that what the Prime Minister is saying was never actually true.

Quite clearly, what this tells us is that we have a prime minister who is prepared to use a disingenuous stunt that he knows to be not true in order to win an election. He is prepared to use something as important as Australians' affordable access to primary care as a stunt in order to win an election. I think this reflects incredibly badly on the Australian Prime Minister.

The reality is that, while the Prime Minister has been wandering around and waving his Medicare card, in May 2025 alone—that's the first month of the new government's reign; this is not in the previous term but after the Prime Minister had made his promise to Australians—Australians forked out $166 million in out-of-pocket costs when they saw their GPs. In the first month of this government's reign, after that promise, not only have we got the department of health saying it's not possible; we actually have the facts that say, at a time when we've got a cost-of-living crisis and Australians are struggling to meet the costs of everyday life, Australians had to fork out $166 million—hardworking taxpayers' money—despite the Prime Minister telling them that they weren't going to have to pay anything at all. And, in fact, last year it was $2 billion in out-of-pocket expenses. That is the Prime Minister's $2 billion lie. Quite clearly, the facts are the facts, and creating a false expectation amongst Australians at a time when they are under immense financial pressure is not only disingenuous; it's, quite frankly, cruel.

We knew already that this prime minister couldn't be trusted when it came to Medicare. But quite clearly he's prepared to say and do anything to cover the abject failings of our healthcare system as we stand here today. By absolutely every metric, the Albanese Labor government failed Australians on healthcare in the first three-year term of their government. I hope they don't do it in the next three years, but I fear they probably will, because they're much more interested in headlines than they are in actually delivering for Australians.

You say, 'Why do I say that they have failed on every metric?' Despite what the Labor Party will tell you—because quite clearly they're happy to tell you anything to cover up their failings—bulk-billing has fallen from over 88 per cent to 77 per cent in the three years that they've been in government. They'll say to you, 'But those figures were inflated, because, of course, they were figures as we were coming out of COVID.' Well, let's disregard the COVID figures. In 2019, bulk-billing rates were 86 per cent, and they're now 77 per cent. From pre-COVID till now—bulk-billing rates plummeted nine per cent in that time but 11 per cent in the first three years of this government's term.

The other thing is that, as I said, out-of-pocket costs have never, ever been higher. There has been a 45 per cent increase in out-of-pocket costs over those three years. So that means Australians are paying more out of their pocket than they have ever paid before when they go to visit a doctor. It doesn't matter how many times the Labor Party comes in here and tells you a story about how wonderful everything is. Australians know the difference, because they feel it every time they go to their doctor. They feel it in their hip pockets.

But more egregious than that—more egregious than the fact that they're having to fork out so much more when they go to see their doctor, despite the promises of those opposite—is that 1.5 million Australians last year chose not to see their doctor because they said they couldn't afford to do it. They made the very difficult decision of not seeing the doctor because they had other pressures on their family budget—pressures about putting food on the table, paying the mortgage, filling up the car with fuel, paying for their insurance and paying for the stuff that their kids needed when they went to school. Those were the decisions that Australians had to make. They forwent going to a doctor because they had to make those very difficult decisions about how they were going to spend their money. And, as a result of not seeing their doctor, Australians got sicker. We have seen increased pressure on our emergency departments and we have seen ramping accelerate in every state and territory around the country. Not only does that mean that Australians are getting sicker, so it's very bad for Australians; it also means that, by the time they go to see a doctor, the cost to our healthcare system and our hospitals is so much higher, when it could have been prevented if they'd simply had access to their GP.

So, as I said, we've seen an increase in ramping, an increase in emergency presentations, an increase in out-of-pocket costs, an increase in people not seeing the doctor and bulk-billing rates falling. I don't know how this government can congratulate itself on health. They should put down their smokescreen, they should put down their disingenuous stunts, and they should actually accept the fact that we have a challenge and a crisis in our primary-care system and in our healthcare system and that we should be addressing that. Don't pretend it doesn't exist, because that won't solve the problem.

The government's very good at making sure that all they do is denigrate the record of the coalition. Well, let me put it on the record tonight. The disgraceful scare campaigns that have been run by those opposite for the last three elections actually fly in the face of the facts. Funding to Medicare under the coalition government increased every single year, from $18.6 billion when Labor left government in 2012-13 to more than $30 billion in 2021-22 when we were in government. Significantly, bulk-billing was much, much higher when we were in government. It consistently rose the entire time that we were in government.

The other point that's worth making—despite those opposite once again telling the Australian public things that are not correct about the coalition's track record on the PBS—is that we are proud supporters of Australians getting access to affordable medicines. We want Australians to get access to cheaper medicines. In fact, we listed 2,900 new or amended medicines during our time in government. We made a commitment that, if the process through the TGA and PBAC approved a medication, we would list it on the PBS. The last time the Labor Party were in government, back in 2012, they stopped listing medicines on the PBS because, by their own admission, they had run out of money to do so. That is in stark contrast to the absolute commitment from the coalition government during its time to make sure that all medications approved by PBAC were listed on the PBS.

What we saw in the last term of this government, despite the fact this government claims that it's the best friend of our healthcare system, was that they were the ones who, for the very first time, put a cap on the number of medicines that could be listed for a PBAC meeting. In effect, this is another backhanded way of not listing medications that might otherwise have been listed—because, if you can't get it onto the PBAC agenda, it can't be approved by PBAC, so therefore you don't have to list it. So this government continuing to perpetuate its scare campaigns and misinformation and to try to rewrite history and change the facts does not hide the fact that, by every single measure, the Albanese Labor government has been the worst government for Australian's health in history.

In conclusion, there is one other element of our healthcare system that I'd like to draw attention to, and that is the absolute epidemic that we have at the moment in relation to mental health. What this government did in its last term of government, in the three years from 2022 to 2025, is it got rid of the Mental Health Commission and it did not renew the funding for national suicide prevention research. They managed to chase the head of Mental Health Australia out of his position. He ended up giving up being the chair because he said that it was a pointless exercise because the Prime Minister was not listening to Australians who had challenges with mental health and was complete disregarding the sector.

This government, the Albanese Labor government, has failed Australians on health care and failed Australians when it comes to their mental health. And, yet, to this day, as we're standing in this parliament, they are still prepared to come in here, ask questions in question time, do an address in reply and make speeches that continue to perpetuate the lies. It must stop. (Time expired)

In contributing to this debate this evening, I'm going to tackle three key areas of health care which people in the community have said to me are urgent priorities. We must recognise that people in our community are struggling through a cost-of-living crisis, struggling to keep the roof over their heads, struggling to afford the weekly shop—and, yes, struggling to be able to access the health care that they urgently need.

First, let us look clearly at this question of access to general practice, of being able to go and see your GP. If you cannot access a GP when you need it because of cost, there are so many negative health consequences. In my home state of Western Australia, the average out-of-pocket cost for a 20-minute GP appointment is $42.66. Now, to some in here that might sound like not too much. Why are people complaining? Why is that a struggle? If you're a shadow minister, a minister or even an assistant minister, that might just pass off the top of your bank account, and you wouldn't even notice. Well, for most people in the community, for most people in WA, that amount of money is just not doable, not if you are also balancing feeding your kids or paying the rent, or cobbling together enough for the mortgage. You just can't do it.

While it is welcome that the government has introduced bulk-billing incentives, what we see from the Cleanbill report is that what has been done so far is not enough, that about 750 clinics are estimated to have actually increased their rate of bulk-billing. That is nowhere near enough to get to the target of enabling people to see the GP using their Medicare card, which was what was promised at the election—nowhere near enough. So people in my home state are continuing to go without the access to the health care that they need. And they cannot make up the difference between their weekly expenses and paying those prices by making some papier-mache objects to sell, using the press releases that this government put out during the election—and still puts out now—congratulating themselves on what a great job they've done.

People cannot pay their GP using the self-satisfaction of this government nor does it help anyone to sit and listen to a debate where the Liberal Party—who have had a great time this week, eating themselves alive in front of the entire parliament—disingenuously claim that, if they were still in government, Medicare would be better. Give us a break! If you want to join in at this time and be genuinely interested in building the healthcare system in this country, then good. It's about time. And, if you over there, in the Labor Party, want to actually get yourself off your high horse for being part of Medicare's establishment decades ago and actually engage with the reality of the people who need health care and who live and die on the question of whether or not their services are bulk-billed or whether or not they can get to see a doctor, then it's about time. Join in with the rest of us that are actually responding to the community demand for action.

The ability to see the GP for free for everyone—that is what is demanded. That is what is needed. That is what the Greens went to the election proposing to establish. And before anyone asks any questions about how it might have been paid for—by making big gas corporations pay their fair share of tax. Now, if you did that, you may not be invited to be on the board of Woodside or BHP after you end your political career, but I would hope that you would be able to sleep a bit better at night knowing that you put your community first.

We are at a moment in time in 2025 where our healthcare system does not recognise the fact that the mouth is part of the body. Dental care is excluded from Medicare. That makes no sense at all. The Greens have long advocated for the establishment of a universal dental system so that people can live free of dental pain and free of gum disease, and where people can once again eat the foods they used to, so they could be saved from the experiences of diabetes, heart disease and dementia, which we know are so deeply related to poor dental and oral health. I was very proud to lead a parliamentary inquiry in the last parliament that explored, in great detail, what it would actually mean to establish universal access to dental care in Australia. It is clear to anyone looking that this is a change whose time has come. Maybe there are those in this parliament that are not ready to come all the way with the Greens to a space where we have universal access for all in our community. But let us begin.

Between 2010 and 2013, the Greens were able to work—thanks to the support of the community—across the parliament to establish the Child Dental Benefits Schedule. We could expand that scheme to cover all children. We could implement the recommendations of the aged-care royal commission and establish a seniors' dental benefit scheme so that those older Australians who are right now living in perpetual agony, unable to eat the foods that they love and unable to smile without fear of causing fear, could actually live with hope and free of pain again. We could finally close the absurd loophole in Australian cancer rehabilitative treatment which sees every other part of rehabilitative cancer treatment and care covered by Medicare except that related to the mouth, to the teeth, to the gums—the maxillofacial loophole. Let us begin, because people need access to dental and oral health care. They cannot continue to bear the pain, to bear the weight and the burden of having to burrow into their retirement savings, having to siphon off their super to fix their teeth. This isn't okay. This isn't fair or just. Let us get this done.

Finally, in the context of some of the debates we've had this week that have been so hurtful and so unnecessary towards members of our community who are trans and queer folks, let us work together to make sure that Medicare and the healthcare system fully supports trans people, provides what is needed to trans folks to live with pride and dignity, and puts a great big barrier between people's individual health care and the bigoted views of politicians who would seek to whip up hate and fear. It is hard enough being a queer person in this country, a trans person in this country, living every day knowing that you will experience discrimination and you will experience exclusion as much as, if not more than, you will experience love and inclusion, without worrying that the health care that you need will not be accessible, will not exist at all in your community, or will be subject to so many bureaucratic, nonsense, paper-pushing processes that you won't even get it in time. In my state of WA, the situation we have right now with trans health care is a shame. It's a shame on the state government and it's a shame on the federal government. It is so unnecessary and causing so much harm. It's not okay.

Let us work together to build a healthcare system that actually meets the needs of the community. It is not good enough for politicians in this place to set their standard of success at the level of ambition that they personally believe is good enough. We must set our level of ambition and we must judge ourselves against the extent to which we meet the needs of the community, the actual needs of the people who send us here. The resources to do it are there if we would but take them. If we could find in ourselves and in our positions of power the courage to confront powerful vested interests and corporate influence, then we would find enough resources to get this done. Not only would we find enough resources to get it done; we would not have to be in an absurd situation where a government elected on a platform of supporting disabled people in our community turns around, as this Labor government has done, and decides to implement cuts to the very National Disability Insurance Scheme it promised it would preserve.

Today I tabled a petition from 60,000 people who do not and will not cop the cuts from this government to our NDIS that risk the removal of the vital allied health supports, the support coordinators and the plan managers. They will not cop it and will not be silent. They understand the connection between disability supports and Medicare. They understand the commitment that those who sought to keep the Liberals out of power made at the election, and they understand that if you do not intend to keep your word, then there will be electoral consequences for you and your party. But before we get anywhere near that place, at the beginning of this parliament let us come together around some of the most basic opportunities for progress and change—getting dental care into Medicare for seniors, for kids and for those recovering from cancer. (Time expired)

Following the Treasurer's injunction in terms of productivity, the amount of hours that we engage in work here and the output—we've had a very good week in terms of legislative outcomes for the government—I don't propose to make a contribution on this matter, and I understand that there are no further speakers. As it is after 4.30, the advice that we're getting is that we'll need to go to a deferred vote on this question.

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Ruston be agreed to. A division is required. As it is after 4.30, this division will be held over to the next day of meeting, which is 25 August.

Senate adjourned at 16:38