If there is no objection, the meetings are authorised.

by leave—I inform senators that Senator Darmanin will be the Acting Chief Government Whip, in the absence of Senator Sheldon, from 25 August to 4 September 2025.

I rise to speak on the Defence Housing Australia Amendment Bill 2025. At the outset, let me say that the coalition supports the government's bill. We neither seek to refer this bill to a committee nor seek to delay its passing. This bill amends the Defence Housing Australia Act 1987. Under the current act, Defence Housing Australia can provide housing and housing related services to the following: to members of our Defence Force, to departmental staff, to defence contractors and to the families of the aforementioned. This bill expands the categories of persons who can be provided housing and housing related services by Defence Housing Australia to the following: to members of a foreign military, to officials of a foreign country, to contractors engaged by a foreign military or government, to representatives of Australian charities and to the families of the aforementioned.

In more immediate and practical terms, this bill facilitates the accommodation of nuclear powered submarine crews from the United States and United Kingdom on our soil. These crews will operate out of Western Australia's HMAS Stirling on a rotational basis from 2027. Indeed, a small cohort of advancing personnel from the United States will arrive in this quarter, whom we look forward to warmly welcoming.

This bill underpins AUKUS. This bill operationalises AUKUS. This bill strengthens AUKUS. That's why the coalition endorses this bill. With their long-range strike, deterrence and stealth capabilities, nuclear powered submarines are among the most valued assets in the arsenals of our key allies. In the years ahead, they will be one of Australia's most valued assets too.

The secrets of nuclear powered submarines must be closely guarded. This bill will result in a greater presence of foreign individuals on our soil with access to defence facilities. Most of these people will be officials or service men and women of our allies and thus imminently trustworthy. However, when it comes to contractors of foreign countries and charity workers, there are, of course, additional risks. The Director-General of Security said the following during the 26th Annual Hawke Lecture:

Australia's defence sector is a top intelligence collection priority for foreign governments seeking to blunt our operational edge, gain insights into our operational readiness and tactics, and better understand our allies' capabilities.

Targets include maritime and aviation-related military capabilities, but also innovations with both commercial and military applications.

And with AUKUS, we are not just defending our sovereign capability. We are also defending critical capability shared by and with our partners.

Mr Burgess's remarks are a call for greater vigilance. Under this bill, more people will be able to access our defence facilities, and with more access comes more risk.

Accordingly, in endorsing this bill, the coalition puts on the record the following expectation: the government undertake rigorous security checks on all who will be working on or stationed close to our defence facilities. Such screenings are necessary to protect our assets and our secrets, as well as those of our allies. Indeed, were the capabilities of our allies to be compromised on our soil, the fallout would be an erosion of trust of such magnitude that AUKUS itself could be put in jeopardy.

As anticipated, the Greens have proposed an amendment to this bill that would omit the new categories eligible for Defence housing. The Greens want to torpedo this bill, because, well, they want to sink AUKUS. That comes as no surprise to any of us. On this important piece of defence legislation, this chamber has again been given a window into aspects of the modern Greens party—first, their strategic ignorance; and second, their animosity towards our allies, fuelled by their anti-Westernism. The coalition resoundingly rejects the Greens proposed amendment.

This is my first time speaking on a Defence bill in this chamber in my capacity as a shadow minister in the Defence portfolio. In the context of discussing this bill, it's important to make a few points to inform our national debate on defence. Many Australians hear about important defence developments. They hear about AUKUS. They hear about Australia acquiring nuclear powered submarines from the United States and frigates from Japan. They hear about Exercise Talisman Sabre, where our Defence Force trained alongside those 18 other nations. But Australians don't hear often enough why these things matter. Why are alliances important? Why is acquiring cutting-edge defence weapons important? Why is exercising with partners important? Put simply, strength matters—the strength of our alliances, the strength of our capabilities, the strength of our preparedness. Strength helps maintain peace in our region—a peace that has been the motor of human progress. Strength helps deter aggression. Strength helps us to defend our home and to protect our sovereign interests. Make no mistake; strength is paramount to deal with a great danger of our age. And that's the danger posed by the Communist Party of China.

Since the second decade of this century, the Chinese Communist Party has been defined by key features—its military build-up at speed and scale, not for self-defence but to exert power; its willingness to flex its military muscles to intimidate; and its disrespect for the sovereignty of other nations. The Chinese Communist Party has militarised islands in the South China Sea. Its coastguard has harassed the Philippines. Its air force has intruded into Japan's airspace. Its navy has tested weapons off the east coast of Australia without notifying us. We cannot ignore the rehearsal nature of that exercise or the fact that its missiles can strike Australian bases and civilian infrastructure. Its forces have also endangered our servicemen and servicewomen through reckless and aggressive manoeuvres on multiple occasions.

One of President Xi's goals, in his words, is to 'reunify' China and Taiwan. He has not ruled out using force if necessary, and he has instructed his forces to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. Defence specialists, foreign affairs experts and China analysts have repeatedly sounded the alarm not only about the Chinese Communist Party's revisionist agenda but about its desire to dominate the region. If you don't believe the specialists, the experts or the analysts, then President Xi's own words make clear his ambitions.

There's a litany of examples of the Chinese Communist Party causing tensions across our region, but, with his six-day visit to China, Prime Minister Albanese would have Australians believe there's nothing to see here. Moreover, by drawing a false equivalence between the Chinese navy's live-fire exercise in the Tasman Sea and our own navy's activities in the South China Sea, our prime minister did the unthinkable. He condoned behaviours of the Chinese Communist Party that should have been vociferously and publicly condemned. Under this government, there has been a noticeable reluctance to call out the Chinese Communist Party's hostility. If a is threat disregarded, downplayed or left undiscussed by the government, two things happen. First, Australians are unlikely to appreciate the threat. Second, they're unlikely to understand the need for policy responses or, indeed, support them. That's why I will regularly and directly call out the hostile activities of the Chinese Communist Party.

The more Australians understand the dangers posed by the Chinese Communist Party, the more they will appreciate our nation's urgent need to bolster Defence. Predictably, our opponents will accuse us of beating the drums of war or playing politics or fearmongering. But it's not fearmongering to point out irrefutable facts. The government's resort to such smears has become a convenient excuse—an excuse for the Albanese government to not put money where their mouth is when it comes to Defence. Defence spending under Labor remains woefully inadequate at around two per cent of GDP. Projects have been cancelled or deferred to pay for the nuclear powered submarines. Critical capabilities from the government's own Defence strategic review are now not funded at all or are underfunded.

As for the bill before us, it expands Defence Housing Australia's responsibilities, but it comes without any new investment for housing. The shadow defence minister aptly said in the other place:

This government continues to legislate ambition without resourcing it.

The shadow defence minister was also right in his observation:

This bill will be the first operational test of AUKUS on Australian soil.

Indeed, there is a correlation between Australia's ability to house our allies and the success of AUKUS. I fear this government is in denial. They're in denial about the threats to regional stability. They're in denial about what we must do to deter aggression and defend our nation. They're in denial about the urgent need to lift defence spending.

Diplomacy is important, of course, but this government has the naive view that authoritarian regimes will behave like democracies. The Minister for Defence often bemoans that China's massive military build-up has occurred without transparency or strategic reassurance. The truth is, as history teaches us, the best deterrence of aggression is strength: the strength of our alliances, the strength of our capabilities and the strength of our preparedness. It's beyond time for the Albanese government to get serious about strengthening defence, and that necessary resolve is reflected in the second reading amendment circulated in my name.

Our sovereignty is not undermined by alliances; rather, strong alliances underpin our sovereignty. With almost 300 days having passed since the US election, our prime minister must make the effort to meet President Trump. He must put his personal qualms about the President to one side, just as past presidents and prime ministers have done. He must act in our national interest and re-energise the alliance. If this government truly believes in a free, open and stable Indo-Pacific, then it must quickly come to realise which major power stands for those goals and which power wants to shatter those goals.

The coalition have committed to lifting defence spending to three per cent of GDP, and we urge the government to do the same. That's the bare minimum of what's required to deliver the capabilities we need.

In recent weeks the government made one of its few fine decisions on defence. It selected Japan's Mitsubishi Heavy Industries to build the Royal Australian Navy's future fleet of 11 general-purpose frigates. The coalition welcomes this announcement, but this decision should not detract from the urgent need to strengthen our sovereign industrial base. We need to be manufacturing our own missiles in their thousands to deter and to defend. We need to build swarms of drones and counterdrone technologies. We need to be churning out autonomous underwater vehicles. We need to be hardening our military bases, especially in the north. We need to ensure more than 7,000 people enlist in the ADF each year, especially when there are 75,000 applicants. But we can't do any of these things if there's insufficient money behind them. And we can't adequately house our allies if there's no new money behind this bill.

I say it again: it's beyond time for the Albanese government to get serious about strengthening defence. Moving from rhetoric to readiness requires resources. I commend this bill, and I move the second reading amendment circulated in my name:

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

(a) that the strategic environment facing Australia is the most challenging since the Second World War, requiring increased investment in national defence capability;

(b) that the credibility of the AUKUS partnership depends on Australia's ability to deliver housing and infrastructure for allied personnel in a timely and secure manner;

(c) that the Bill expands Defence Housing Australia's responsibilities without any additional funding or a supply-side housing strategy to support defence families or allied personnel;

(d) the importance of strengthening Australia's alliances with the United States and the United Kingdon through delivery—not just declarations; and

(e) the urgent need for the Government to commit to increasing defence expenditure to at least 3 per cent of GDP, and to deliver the enabling capabilities required to protect Australia's prosperity, security, and way of life".

It's good to see you, Deputy President, and it's good to see everyone back here for the upcoming fortnight. I rise today to speak in support of the Defence Housing Australia Amendment Bill 2025, which is currently before this place. The overarching purpose of the bill will allow Defence Housing Australia to provide housing and support services not just for Australian personnel but also for our United States and United Kingdom partners as part of the AUKUS alliance. In fact, the changes will allow DHA to provide housing to foreign military and civilian personnel and their families for the first time.

AUKUS is a cornerstone of the government's national security policy, aimed at protecting our nation's interests and our security. For this reason, the bill that is before us today is an important part of our long-term defence strategy, ensuring that we're ready to meet our obligations under AUKUS and to support our partners here on Australian soil. As chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, I've seen the work that has gone into ensuring that the bill, as well as AUKUS more broadly, balances our national strategic interests with the needs of local communities.

These amendments that are before us are especially timely as we prepare for the establishment of the Submarine Rotational Force - West from as early as 2027, which will see nuclear powered submarines from the US and the UK operating on a rotational basis out of HMAS Stirling, in Western Australia. The US and UK personnel will also be working alongside our ADF men and women, so it is imperative that we support them properly. Utilising DHA will also ensure that the housing meets Defence standards, housing solutions are cost effective and overseas personnel aren't competing with the local housing market, which is an important point that I want to make here today. If these changes aren't adopted, then we risk delays in supporting AUKUS personnel, and that could affect the delivery times of this trilateral partnership.

It's also important to note that this model will support local builders and investors, with work already underway to identify new housing developments. DHA has signed agreements in Rockingham with four Western Australian companies, through the New Builds Volume Leasing Program, to support the delivery of new properties. Suppliers will also offer investors the opportunity to purchase properties off the plan which will be leased to DHA once construction is complete. This model helps keep DHA's upfront costs low, guarantees rent for investors and supports the local construction industry.

As we know, building a skilled trilateral workforce is critical to delivering Australia's future—our future, which means our conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarine capability through AUKUS. While our nuclear-powered submarine program under Pillar I of AUKUS has received much attention in the media, it is Pillar II which I'm quite excited about and which is equally transformative. This pillar focuses on cutting-edge areas such as cyber capabilities, artificial intelligence, quantum technologies and undersea systems. By collaborating in these advanced domains, Australia gains access to next-generation technologies, strengthens and builds the resilience of our defence forces and enhances our ability to respond to emerging threats across the Indo-Pacific. This means faster development and deployment of advanced systems, stronger defence networks and greater strategic self-reliance for Australia in what is an increasingly complex security environment.

On the jobs front, AUKUS will create around 20,000 direct jobs around our nation—and not just in shipbuilding hubs in the states of WA and South Australia. The benefits will also flow through the full supply chain—even in my home state of Victoria and right across the country, including in our regions—strengthening Australia's industrial base from the ground up, which is something that has been missing since the closure of the auto industry.

As we look ahead, AUKUS represents the single biggest investment in the history of Australia's defence capability, bringing record investment in defence, skills, jobs and infrastructure. This bill is about more than just housing; it is about making sure that Australia is ready to take full advantage of the historic and transformative opportunity that exists. It reflects the government's commitment to AUKUS and our confidence in Australian industry and DHA to deliver the infrastructure that is so desperately needed to support the success of the AUKUS partnership. I commend this bill to the Senate.

I rise on behalf of the Greens to oppose the Defence Housing Australia Amendment Bill, which is—at least it was honestly referenced by the government—directly intended to spend the Australian public's money to build public houses for US troops under AUKUS. It is utterly astounding that this is the first public housing bill that's been brought forward by the Albanese government in now—what is it?—three and a bit years of government. The only express public housing bill that they've brought forward in three and a bit years is to build public housing for US troops under AUKUS. You could not make this stuff up.

The Greens sought to refer this bill to an inquiry because we thought the Australian public might have an interest in whether or not it is a sensible use of Australian public money to spend heaven knows how much on building houses not for Australians who can't afford them—for people who can't afford to pay the rent, people living in tents or caravans or people who are in crowded or insecure accommodation—but instead for US troops under AUKUS. This won't surprise you, but the war parties, the Labor Party and the coalition, opposed an inquiry into this bill—no doubt because they have at least some vague sense of the sentiment of the country, which would be to overwhelmingly reject this.

The real nub of why this bill is being presented now is that the Albanese government is rushing headlong with the Scott Morrison plan to build the United States a nuclear submarine base just off Perth. The Albanese government has committed $1.7 billion of public money to build the US their nuclear submarine base off Perth—and they want to have that up and running by 2027—so that the United States can save some money and time by sending their submarines on a shorter route into the Strait of Malacca and into the South China Sea to continue the US's warmaking plans against China. That's what the Albanese government is committed to, and they want this base up and running by 2027. They pretend that it's going to be there for Australian nuclear powered submarines and that's why we have to have it running by 2027. On no-one's plan will Australia have a nuclear submarine by 2027. It is so obviously designed to deliver a US nuclear submarine base—and just a US nuclear submarine base.

If you look at the data and the materials coming from, for example, the individual who's just about to be the chief of the US Navy, and if you look at report after report from the Congressional Research Service or the public evidence about the US shipbuilding capacity, Australia will not be getting nuclear submarines in the mid-2030s. Most of the Australian public is already convinced of this. We know we're not going to be getting nuclear powered submarines, but we're still shovelling billions of dollars into the US—tribute payments to Donald Trump. We know that the UK nuclear submarine project is in complete meltdown; their own audit office says that. If we're not going to get nuclear submarines and there's no realistic pathway for us to get nuclear submarines, why are we spending $1.7 billion of taxpayers' money to build a nuclear submarine attack base off Perth? The obvious answer is that that's all a charade for us to be building yet another US base in Australia.

Even US defence hawks point out that, once that base is up and running, it will be a high-priority target in any conflict between the US and any other peer power. It will be a high-priority target. We are literally putting a nuclear target on Perth. Australian taxpayers are paying the $1.7 billion to put that target on Perth not for our own nuclear submarines but to be providing, effectively, an advance base for the US and their nuclear powered submarines.

If that wasn't obscene enough—far from making Australia safe, that whole project is designed to make Australia a target and to enmesh us in the next US war so that we have no choice but to take part in it—now we have the Albanese government saying, 'Not only do we want to make a geopolitical mistake and put a nuclear target on Perth but we want to build public houses for US defence personnel to help deliver that as well.' The estimates are that about 700 homes will be built. 'How much will that cost?' you ask. 'How much are we going to spend to build housing for US troops in Perth?' That's a fair question. One of the reasons we wanted a Senate inquiry into this bill was to ask the obvious questions: How much will it cost, and where is the money coming from? Is the Albanese government going to take it out of the NDIS budget? Are they going to take it out of other housing initiatives? Where is the money coming from, and how much will it cost?

There are no answers from the government on this—no answers at all. In fact, there's some blithe statement somewhere in the government's papers stating that they don't have a cost for this bill. They haven't put forward a cost. They haven't gone to Treasury and asked how much it will cost. It is utterly reckless for the Senate to be passing a bill to build heaven knows how many homes for US troops without understanding how much it will cost or where the money will come from. But the war parties, the coalition and Labor, are so keen to avoid scrutiny on this bill that the coalition are helping Labor rush it through, even though there's no dollar amount attached to it and no source for the funds. That's what happens when you have a lack of rigour and scrutiny around such a major project as AUKUS. You get dangerous rubbish like this being rushed through the Senate without proper inquiry.

The Greens have a second reading amendment, which I foreshadow. This amendment points out that there is no costing attached to this bill. We don't know where the money is coming from. We don't know if it's going to come from stopping families who have kids with autism from being able to get care for their kids. We don't know if it's going to be coming from stopping mums in Townsville who are living in insecure accommodation from getting access to basic shelter. We don't know where the money is coming from. But I'll tell you what: at the end of the day, that is where the money is coming from—from other essential public services that the country needs. Instead of getting those essential public services, the Albanese Labor government have decided they want to build homes for US troops under AUKUS. It is obscene.

When you look at the bill, it's not just US troops that the Albanese government wants to build homes for. The Albanese government also wants to build homes for international weapons companies' contractors. They want to be able to build homes for the employees of Lockheed Martin. They want to be able to build homes for the employees of Boeing. They want to be able to build homes for the employees of Elbit Systems and Rafael, Israeli weapons manufacturers. They want to be able to build homes for pretty much anybody in the war industry, while they're resisting the repeated calls the Greens have made to build homes for Australians who desperately need them.

And then we get this specious, farcical argument from Labor that AUKUS is apparently all about jobs. We have Labor come forward and say, 'Oh, I love this AUKUS thing, this $385 billion war-making plan for nuclear submarines, because it's all about jobs.' They spout this number of 20,000 jobs, right? There's no modelling to show that. There's no evidence that they present that links to 20,000 jobs. They just make the number up and keep asserting it. I challenge Labor to show us the modelling and the data that it produces 20,000 jobs. But, even if that were true, if you're getting 20,000 jobs for $385 billion, the public is spending almost $20 million a pop for every job.

There is no other program in the history of the Australian nation that sees $20 million per job. It is the single worst argument for AUKUS because what we know from all of the modelling about the armaments industry and about the war industry is that, far from generating economic returns, putting money into weapons and killing, sending it to Donald Trump and giving it to Rolls Royce takes money out of our productive economy, takes money from jobs and takes money from critical services, where it can generate economic and social good and lead to a stronger economy and a better society. It takes away from that. You would be better off employing 20,000 people to dig a hole somewhere and fill it in again. You'd get better economic and social returns for that than you would from spending $385 billion on nuclear powered submarines, houses for US troops and a tribute payment to Donald Trump. There would be a better social return for that.

You see moments in this place where the coalition stand up and say, 'Oh, you know, we have small, marginal criticisms about Labor. We're going to complain about how much they spend on defence, but we're going to just push this through without scrutiny—don't you worry about that,' and where Labor steps up and starts misdirecting and saying, 'This is all about jobs. Don't you look here. Nothing to see here.' There is something to see. Whenever these two war parties come together to hide the truth, you know they're doing it for the wrong reasons. In this case, they're rushing this bill through because we know what it's about. It's about indicating to Washington and Donald Trump that Labor and the coalition have always got the US military's back, that they'll always build them houses when they need them, that they'll always shovel billions of dollars of Australian taxpayers' money to US weapon systems and that they'll build them a submarine base off Perth. They don't care if it's going to put a target on Perth, and they don't care where the money comes from.

The war parties take their directions from Washington, and that's what this bill is all about. You may as well have the US Secretary of Defense running this thing, because that's who will benefit from this. It won't be Australians. To hear the coalition come in here and say, 'This is about making Australia safe'—in what world does building a US nuclear submarine base off Perth, housing for US military personnel, housing for a weapons contractor's employees and putting a target on Perth make us safe? In the coalition's mind—and it's shared by Labor—their view for Australia is to just become one big US military base. That's why the war parties, Labor and the coalition, have agreed to station nuclear-capable B-52 bombers at Tindal and to extend RAAF Tindal to put US nuclear-capable bombers there, and they won't tell the public whether there are nuclear bombers there.

That's why Labor and the coalition joined together to expand the footprint of Pine Gap, which we know is sending targeted data to the Israeli military and to the US military and their unlawful strikes on Iran and most likely helping identify kill targets in Gaza. That's why Labor and the coalition are keen to expand North West Cape, another US military base designed to communicate with US submerged submarines. If ever the message comes from Washington to press the doomsday button, to fire off multiple ballistic missiles and destroy life as we know it on this planet, it will come through the North West Cape in Australia, aided by the Albanese government and the coalition. The message will go through the North West Cape. It's critical for the US. That's where the doomsday message will go. And far from shutting it down, Labor and the coalition are expanding it, wanting it to be a principal US space communications base. With this, we have Labor spending $1.7 billion plus, plus, plus to build the US a nuclear powered attack base off Perth. It's not in Australia's interest.

Australia has enormous geopolitical and geostrategic benefits where we are. We don't need to be a part of these US wars. We live in one of the most secure parts of the planet. The coalition and Labor want to run scare campaigns to say that we will be invaded by the Chinese Communist Party and attacked by some nefarious global attack against Australia. We live in one of the most secure parts of the planet, secure from these geopolitical conflicts that the US wants to get us involved in, and, far from using our geography to protect ourselves, the coalition and Labor are inviting us into the next US war. They're making us a US base, a target, and enmeshing our military into the United States military so that we will inevitably be involved in someone else's war, just like they got us involved in someone else's war in Afghanistan, just like they got us involved in someone else's war in Iraq, just like they got us involved in someone else's war in Vietnam. That's what they do. They deliver not for the Australian public; they deliver for Washington. That's what this bill does. Houses for US troops, not houses for Australians who need them. We oppose this bill, and it is extraordinary that the Greens is the only party in this place that will be opposing this bill.

():  I rise to speak on the Defence Housing Australia Amendment Bill 2025 and, at the outset, declare that the coalition will be supporting this bill. This is important. It's important that it goes through this place and receives royal assent so that we can get on with the job of providing housing for US and British submariners and their families when they arrive. Interestingly, the primary allocation of these homes will be in my home state of Western Australia.

This is an enormous opportunity for Australia. Australia is in desperate need for AUKUS to proceed, for it to occur with great urgency—to happen as quickly as possible, but thoroughly as well. There is going to be a huge opportunity right across Australia, but in particular in my home state of Western Australia. It's the part of the world where I actually live, which is not too far away from Garden Island, HMAS Stirling base, and that whole area around Henderson where the ships are going to be built. It's an important project, an important development in my part of the world, and it's something that we need to see happen.

Unfortunately, though, with this bill there is no allocation of funding, as Senator Shoebridge was saying. That's going to put significant pressure upon the housing market that exists right now. Homes are already scarce in Western Australia. My brother and sister-in-law listed their home for sale only a few days ago, and, literally within two days, the home sold well above their expectations in terms of pricing. It sold very, very quickly. Homes are extremely rare and hard to get a hold of. There is no allocation of resources in this bill for the development of new homes, and that is the central point that I want to make in my contribution here today—that the government is not doing what it needs to do to step up to the plate to provide for the homes and the housing that will go along with this legislation.

Put simply, all that's going to happen—while I very much support the ability for Defence Housing Australia to be able to provide homes to people that are coming in with their families from overseas to be a part of the AUKUS program—unfortunately there are no new homes that are being developed and built. That is going to put enormous pressure upon an already pressured environment.

I was talking to the Salvation Army in that part of the world, down in Rockingham. They have many clients, many people that they're working with, that are simply living in their cars and sleeping rough. I was told of a family that have the ability, the financial means, to be able to spend up to $600 a week on rent, but they cannot find a place to live in that part of the world or indeed further afield, and they're living in their car—a family with children. This is unacceptable. The concern I've got is that this is just going to add to an already pressured housing situation.

What the government needs to do is step up. I also call upon the state government, the Cook government, to do what it needs to do to make sure that there is fast-tracking of land development and that there is fast-tracking of opportunities for developers to be able to develop homes, for subdivisions to be able to take place and for housing to be able to get in there.

We've got skill shortages. There are so many issues that compounding this problem. By simply making it possible for Defence Housing to make these homes available, the problem is—they would be a good tenant if you are a landlord of course. If you have a big line-up of people to get a home, who are you going to give it to? Of course, you would be giving it to an institution like Defence Housing. What does that mean? That means we're not going to have enough homes out there for people in the general market to be able to take up. So the government needs to step up and do more than simply what is in this bill. While this is welcome, more needs to be done to make sure that the defence housing is available for people coming in from the United States and the UK.

The coalition is enthusiastic. We are very committed to AUKUS. We recognise that this is absolutely vital to our national security, it is vital to our future and existence as a nation and it's something that we need to see continue to be supported. We are absolutely enthusiastic about it. Unfortunately, though, I'm not seeing as much of the required rigour and commitment by both the state and the federal governments when it comes to AUKUS. There are serious limitations in relation to the needs that are required within that area. As I've said, I live in that part of the world, and there are infrastructure needs that are necessary to support the huge development that's going on in that part of the world. We estimate that there's over $70 billion worth of investment into the south-west corridor of Perth, including new hospitals that the state government are building. But all of that compounds to create one massive problem: the need for greater investment in infrastructure in the whole south-west corridor of Perth. It's vital.

For example, there is the road in and off Garden Island. The causeway comes from the island and lands on the mainland on almost a goat track, when you consider it. If you go down there, you'll see that it's a poorly designed and poorly maintained road. It hits a bottleneck in the morning. You've got traffic congested up hill and down dale, and it's a significant issue. An easement was established, under the Stephenson scheme, for a major road to be able to go through—called the Garden Island highway. It was land that was designated decades ago, but there's been no investment in making sure that that road is able to go ahead. With the huge increase in traffic that will come with the construction of projects over on Garden Island and, indeed, the workforce that will be coming and going—there'll be single men's quarters on the island, but the majority of people are going to be staying in homes that this bill is designed to support, and they will essentially be on the mainland. Traffic needs to be able to come and go, and there's not the infrastructure that's required to support that. And, again, there's no plan to do it. This will happen in 2027—and 2027 is just around the corner. If you want a home built by 2027 or if you want a road completed by 2027, guess when you need to start? You need to start right now. You can't just turn it on overnight; you need to have the pipeline. We're not seeing the planning, we're not seeing the investment and we're not seeing what is required to fully enable the opportunities.

There are huge gaps when it comes to skills. We've got young people that could take up wonderful lifelong, generational careers. The children of the young people who could take up these skilled jobs would be able to flourish—and for generations to come—but there's no investment in the skills that are required. There's fee-free TAFE, but none of it is designed to make an allocation for the jobs that actually exist within the AUKUS program. This is a great shame, because there are enormous opportunities that could be enlivened through the shipbuilding and the maintenance and all of the opportunities that are coming with AUKUS, yet there's no strategy. An announcement gets made about a whole bunch of funding and an announcement gets made about the partnerships and relationships with the United States and the UK, but then there's nothing that hits the road in terms of investment or planning. This is a significant issue.

I'm not the only one that is saying this. The former US Navy secretary Richard Spencer said this to the Nightly earlier this month:

I'm sure in their hearts there's a plan, but you know what? That should be started yesterday.

He went on to say:

We need to start moving dirt, putting the infrastructure in, because 2027 is going to be here within the blink of an eye and 2030 will follow very quickly.

It's high time that we got serious about AUKUS. It is absolutely vital to Australia's future, security and prosperity. The opportunities that are there for Western Australians in particular and for people in the south-western corridor of Perth are significant and important, and we're not seeing the government do what it needs to do to ensure that that investment is there. We must play our part. We've got to build the houses and the infrastructure required.

Our allies have given us a golden opportunity, and we must seize it. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity, but we've got to seize it. We've got to put in place the planning, make the decisions, cut through the red tape and drag the councils in. The councils, frankly, are the ones that are in many ways leading the way; we're seeing delays with the state government and delays here with the federal government, not fronting up with the investment that's required. It's not good enough. Our defence capability is at stake and the opportunities that come with it are at stake if we don't act with real determination. This is important for the future of our nation, and it's important, indeed, for Western Australia, so I commend this bill to the Senate.

I, too, rise to speak on the Defence Housing Australia Amendment Bill 2025, a really important and practical piece of legislation. The Defence Housing Authority was established in 1987, under the Hawke Labor government, to ensure that members of the Australian Defence Force and their families had access to quality, affordable housing no matter where they were posted, as Prime Minister Bob Hawke said at that time. That is an outstanding example of our government's fundamental approach—an integrated, comprehensive, consistent and coherent approach, with all sections of industry, all departments and all levels of government making the maximum contribution to our national goals. Today we continue that legacy by providing housing to support our personnel, our partners and the broader network of supporting organisations for our Defence Force. Housing has always been one of the most important conditions of service. A safe, secure, affordable home directly affects the wellbeing of defence personnel and their families, which, in turn, impacts retention, morale and operational readiness.

This bill updates the functions of Defence Housing Australia so that it can better meet the modern needs of our Defence Force and support our national defence interest. It expands the functions of Defence Housing Australia to provide housing for additional classes of persons. This includes our AUKUS partners, civilian contractors and charities that support the work of Defence.

This bill is really important to support the work that is required for AUKUS, which, as Senator O'Sullivan has just spoken to, is so important for my neck of the woods: the southern suburbs of Western Australia. AUKUS is crucial to our nation's security interests but also to the economic future of the southern suburbs of Perth, Henderson, HMAS Stirling and the surrounding area.

Over the next few decades, the Henderson strip will see billions of dollars in investment from the state government and the federal government to support our nation's future security interests. It will support the build of our own conventionally armed nuclear powered subs to replace the Collins class fleet. It will require thousands—more than 3,000, in fact—of skilled workers at HMAS Stirling alone. It's an investment in our future defence industries. It's an investment in developing the supply chain. This will be one of our greatest industrial endeavours in Australia's history, and Australian jobs and Australian industry are at the heart of this investment. It will grow more robust and more resilient supply chains, will strengthen our Defence Force and is crucial to the interests of our nation.

We will see as part of the AUKUS partnership an increasing number of foreign military personnel from our partners as our cooperation with them deepens. This bill is in the spirit of continuing that partnership, giving them the best possible experience here in Australia. This will include the Submarine Rotational Force—West under AUKUS but also the US Force Posture Initiatives, the Australia-Japan Reciprocal Access Agreement and the Australia-Singapore Military Training Initiative.

Each of these brings to Australia more rotational personnel and their families, who will need housing. This bill updates Defence Housing Australia's functions to reflect that reality. It allows DHA to provide housing and housing related services to foreign defence personnel, contractors and civilian staff and charities supporting defence work. It enables the minister to direct DHA to provide housing and housing related services to other categories of persons as required, to meet operational needs. This reform was recommended by the Auditor-General in 2020, who urged DHA and Defence to align this legislation with operational needs and align the provision of housing to defence philanthropic policy. It means that our partners will be able to access defence housing without putting pressure on already stretched housing markets.

A key driver of this bill is the Submarine Rotational Force—West at HMAS Stirling in my home state of Western Australia. From later this year, a small cohort of US personnel will arrive to establish the force. And, from 2027, one UK Astute-class and up to four US Virginia-class submarines will be forward-rotated to Western Australia, supported by thousands of personnel and their families. This initiative involves the rotational deployment of United States and United Kingdom nuclear powered submarines along with their personnel, civilian staff and contractors and their families. Housing for these families during rotations is a strategic enabler, and, without it, capability and readiness are at risk.

Local governments and community groups have rightly raised concerns that increased defence rotations in parts of the country like the southern suburbs of Western Australia could put pressure on the local housing markets. This bill responds to that concern by giving Defence Housing Australia the tools it needs to build dedicated supply. Defence Housing Australia has already signed contracts for 550 new homes near Fleet Base West in the southern suburbs of Perth over the next five years, ensuring secure accommodation close to HMAS Stirling.

We know that this provision of housing is crucial both to operational readiness and to shoring up our housing supply. By using Defence Housing Australia to deliver this purpose built housing, we help absorb the demand, reduce pressure on the local market, support the wellbeing of personnel and their families, support our partners and maintain defence's standing in the community.

We know that housing supply is a challenge right across the country. This bill complements Labor's broader plan to deliver more homes nationwide, from the Housing Australia Future Fund to our new national housing targets and this bill, which ensures the needs of our Defence Force are met. We are doing everything we can—pulling every lever to free up housing in the local market. We're building more homes and helping more young people into their first home, with the Prime Minister announcing just today that we're bringing forward five percent deposits for first home buyers to October this year.

Every lever matters. Every action counts. This allows us to use defence housing for our partners and for other crucial contractors who will make AUKUS a reality, and it does that without placing extra pressure on local housing markets. Stable, secure accommodation for our Defence Force and our partners will allow personnel to focus on their duties, integrate into local communities and maintain the operational capacity required to safely manage the advanced submarines that will come with AUKUS.

This bill is about supporting Defence personnel and their families. It is about strengthening our ties with our partners, which is crucial to our nation's security and to the future of our Defence Force. This modernises the DHA Act, aligning it more closely with operational needs. It will reduce strain on local housing markets and ensure that Defence has the infrastructure it needs to meet our commitments to allies and strategic partners. It is a practical, forward-looking bill that ensures we can deliver on the commitment we have made to the Australian people to invest in our nation's Defence future, to invest in AUKUS, to create jobs, to protect our nation's interests. I commend this bill.

The Defence Housing Australia Amendment Bill 2025 is an admission of failure on two fronts: the housing crisis and our ability to defend ourselves. Defence Housing Australia is the agency tasked with putting a roof over the heads of our Australian Defence Force personnel, the fine people who serve all Australians. This bill will extend that mission significantly to include housing foreign military personnel. This bill is a flow-on consequence of the housing crisis, a catastrophe.

It has been generated particularly out of concern for the situation in Perth. They, like all of our capital cities, are in an acute housing crisis, with a rental vacancy rate of 0.7 per cent, which is frankly shocking. Only Darwin and Hobart are slightly worse. Perth is lined up to cop the brunt of foreign personnel increases related to AUKUS under Submarine Rotational Force West, which is expected to accept thousands of foreign military personnel and contractors in relation to AUKUS preparations. This bill, though, isn't just related to Perth. It extends the ability of Defence Housing Australia to house foreign personnel anywhere in the country.

Concerns have been raised about Defence Housing Australia's ability to take care of our current soldiers. I want to now focus on Defence's wilful, sustained, ongoing lack of care and accountability. 7 News Townsville reported on the story of Mitchell Connolly, a Townsville soldier who has been asking Defence Housing to fix black mould in his house that has been making his children and pregnant wife sick. After being ignored on all proper channels, he went to the media as a last resort and is now facing retribution for raising those complaints. That goes to the key problem with the Liberal and Labor approach to defence. Boats, submarines and fighter jets are all important, yet the people in our Defence Force are vital, and they are spat on by the upper brass.

To demonstrate this point, I want to read parts of a letter from a pilot who can't return to this country because Defence will arrest him for being AWOL after they delayed approving his sick leave for a couple of days. This is from his letter to me:

Dear Senator Roberts,

My name is Daniel Dare and I served for more than eleven years as a pilot in the Royal Australian Air Force.

I am writing to ask for your help and to place on the parliamentary record how senior Defence officials handled my case after a serious abuse of administrative power by my Commanding Officer (CO).

My immediate aim is a simple: To be able to return to Australia safely and be with my family and support network, so that I can recover, as I have not been able to return to Australia for over eighteen months.

I am not seeking to excuse my conduct.

I am asking Parliament to consider whether the response was appropriate, proportionate, consistent with what Defence leaders tell Australians about empathy, prevention and member wellbeing.

Like many other ADF members, I joined straight after school.

I deployed in flying and non-flying roles overseas and at home, including the Middle East and support after bushfires, floods and cyclones, and work during Operation Aged Care Assist.

I am grateful for those years and for my colleagues.

My concerns are not with them but with a leadership culture that, when confronted with an avoidable problem, chose escalation over resolution and appearances over duty of care.

In March 2023, after more than a decade of unblemished service, my CO accused me of expressing a negative view of the Squadron to another member.

The allegation was based on a text message I did not write, disseminate, or even know existed. An extremely flawed "fact find" was conducted, which did not include interviewing me.

On that basis the CO attempted to impose a twelve-month formal warning and cancel an already-approved flying instructor posting, despite lacking the authority to cancel the posting and despite the Air Force's desperate need of flying instructors.

Through later freedom-of-information requests I learned that legal advice was sought by the CO only after the punitive action had begun. The effort was abandoned only when I retained a civilian solicitor: Cameron Niven, of Soldier's Legal Counsel, who persuaded the CO's direct superior to drop it due to the deficiencies.

But by then the damage was already done. The episode was plainly maladministration.

It shattered any trust I had left in the organisation, leaving me completely disillusioned and was the point at which my mental health began to deteriorate.

Rather than pursue a medical discharge, I first tried to leave in a way that protected the taxpayer and kept me available if needed.

I applied to transfer to the Air Force reserves from December, totalling twelve years of full-time service, and agreed in advance to repay any service debt.

My new chain of command supported the application.

A delegate in the Directorate of Personnel—Air Force, denied it without even bothering to ring me and initially refused to return the application with his written reasons, in an apparent attempt to prevent me from redressing the denial.

My lawyer Mr. Niven was once again required to intervene, simply to get a document that should have been provided in the first instance. That became the pattern: stonewalling, delay and an aversion to transparent decision-making.

By late 2023 I was on medical sick leave. The grievance and review processes dragged with little substantive progress. As 31 March 2024 approached, being the date for medical review, I requested an extension of sick leave and, as a contingency, applied for long service leave from 2 April.

The application for long service leave was refused, and I was directed to report for duty on 2 April despite documented medical concerns.

Returning under those circumstances would have breached basic work health and safety obligations.

In the absence of a timely decision on my sick-leave extension, I made the difficult decision not to present for duty on 2 April in order to protect my wellbeing.

The response was senseless.

Military and civilian police were sent to my home to arrest me and return me to base in handcuffs, but I was overseas by this point.

The next phase escalated further.

An international pursuit was coordinated, drawing on ADF, Australian Federal Police, DFAT and foreign law-enforcement resources, all at the taxpayers' expense. Group Captain Maria Brick, then Director of the Strategic Incident Management—Air Force section, coordinated actions; a five-year arrest warrant was issued by Air Commodore Bradley Clarke, Commander Air Mobility Group,

I do not contest Defence's power to enforce discipline.

I question the appropriateness and proportionality of deploying such resources against one unwell member whose recent maladministration, attempt to voluntarily discharge and medical circumstances were known to the chain of command.

One act in particular crossed a line.

Air Marshal Robert Chipman, then Chief of Air Force, now Vice Chief of the Defence Force, wrote to my private overseas employer in his official capacity disclosing personal information about me and notifying them that I was subject to an arrest warrant under military law.

That letter is now the subject of a complaint to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner.

It is difficult to reconcile such an approach with what Air Marshal Chipman told the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, only weeks earlier, on the 13th of March 2024 about harm prevention, member wellbeing and empathy in leadership.

Publicly, Air Marshal Chipman emphasised avoiding the conditions that lead to ill-health and named empathy as the most important attribute of command.

Privately, he chose the most harmful and destructive punitive options available.

A key fact also emerged through Freedom of information.

Although my sick-leave extension was undecided on 2 April 2024 when I did not present for work, Defence medical approved a further six weeks on 6 April. That determination was not disclosed to me—

isn't that deceit?—

No effort was made to de-escalate or correct the record. Instead, the pursuit continued as if I had no medical status at all.

With salary withheld and my employment prospects damaged, I had little choice but to pursue medical separation.

That process itself became an unresolvable ordeal.

I was told I needed a Defence medical officer assessment to support approval of sick leave, which would resolve the absence, but I was denied telehealth access while overseas.

If I returned in person to obtain it, I would be arrested and incarcerated before I could be seen.

In April 2025 a medical delegate determined that I was unfit for further service and should be medically separated, with sick leave until separation.

Five days later a separate administrative process was initiated to involuntarily separate me, relying on the record of absence that had already been resolved by the medical decision and commencement of sick leave five days earlier.

Defence appeared to be weaponising the military justice system to maximise harm.

I continue to seek review of that administrative decision, at my own expense through the federal court.

This will unfortunately also cost the taxpayer as Defence will undoubtedly seek to fight it.

My matter was referred to the Director of Military Prosecutions, Air Commodore Ian Henderson, for trial before a Defence Force Magistrate towards the end of 2024, with the prospect of up to 12 months' imprisonment.

The human cost has been real.

During this period my great-uncle, Leslie, became gravely ill in December 2024 and passed away a few months later.

I asked to return home safely to see him, as we were close and he was dear to me.

This request was denied.

Given the existence of warrants and the charges, it was clear that if I returned, I would be arrested on arrival and held to face a DFM proceeding, without ever seeing him.

I spent Christmas alone overseas and later grieved his death, again alone and far away from family and support.

I am not seeking pity.

I am asking Parliament to consider what this says about the system's priorities when a member is plainly unwell and clearly trying to resolve matters lawfully.

I also want to be clear about responsibility.

Failing to present for duty on 2 April 2024 was my decision.

I am not seeking to excuse it.

I ask that it be seen in context: an earlier abuse of administrative power, an irrevocable breakdown of trust and disillusionment, deteriorating health, a documented medical basis for leave, and a year-long pattern of escalation rather than resolution.

A response that ignores medical evidence, amplifies risk, and privileges appearances over problem-solving is neither good administration nor good leadership.

I have also raised a concern, currently the subject of an FOI request, that the Air Force may have interfered, formally or informally, with civilian hiring of ADF pilots, namely at Qantas, to manage retention issues.

If true, this would mean that even those who have completed their obligations can face covert barriers to employment.

This matter deserves inquiry and formal answers.

Pilots who serve their country should not be disadvantaged by secret arrangements once their service is complete.

Across the period of my ordeal, I made extensive work health and safety reports about the impact of management actions on my wellbeing, no less than 27 individual reports.

Decisions consistently increased risk and pressure, and the cost was shifted to the member and, ultimately, to the taxpayer.

I am not exaggerating when I say that, due to how this situation was handled by Air Marshal Chipman and his subordinates, it cost the Australian tax payer millions.

On 13 August 2025 I was discharged. In the lead-up I asked for a short administrative extension so I would not be left without income while DVA and CSC claims were processed.

This request was refused. As I write, I am navigating those claims from overseas without income, after a year of withheld salary.

I wrote to both Matt Keogh and Richard Marles, on several occasions, seeking an intervention grounded in reasonableness.

They ignored it.

This is not only about one member.

It is about the credibility of Defence leadership before Parliament and the public.

The ADF cannot rely on deterrence theatre, secrecy and maximal punishment to solve cultural problems.

Strength in leadership is restraint, fairness and good judgement. When the system confuses severity for strength, it looks weak—

it is weak—

It wastes public money, undermines morale, and deters good people from serving.

It also undermines recruitment and retention by signalling that members who become unwell or seek a lawful exit will be treated as problems to be crushed, rather than people to be supported and transitioned safely.

ADF members deserve better processes than the ones I encountered. Taxpayers deserve better stewardship than funding unnecessary pursuits that serve the egos of senior officers, rather than Australia's interest. The public deserves a Defence organisation whose leaders model the empathy and prevention they commend in public.

Yours sincerely,

Daniel Dare.

This is what we have to fix if we ever want to have a hope of defending ourselves and housing our defence forces. We have to take care of the Australians who choose to put their life on the line and wear the flag on their shoulder. Thank you, Daniel, and thank you, every member and veteran of the Australian Defence Force. You all deserve far better.

One Nation will be supporting this bill because, without the help of allies, we are completely unable to defend our own country. That's what's happening in this country. We need a sovereign defence capability, and that starts with valuing our members—care, not systematic abuse; accountability, not bullying to cover up; and honouring Australian values, starting with mateship, a fair go and being fair dinkum. All we want is some fairness, integrity and truth.

The coalition will be supporting the Defence Housing Australia Amendment Bill 2025 because we support AUKUS and, of course, we support our defence forces, who do an incredible job for our country. But this issue of defence housing is, of course, linked to the broader issue of housing, because the people who are serving in our defence forces and in our kindred spirits' defence forces also require houses to live in when they are serving our nation. This bill doesn't make any provision for the additional resources which are required for housing the defence forces, and that is no surprise to me, because this is a pattern that we see across the board with Labor's housing commitments. A very good way of describing it is 'all feathers and no meat'.

What we've seen, over the weekend, on the back of the economic summit, is a litany of promises and puff pieces about what the government is going to do on housing, but let's just be clear on the record so far. This government has presided over the biggest surge in population growth since the fifties and a consequent, similarly big collapse in housing completions over the past few years. We have a larger population, the largest population that we've ever had, and a massive collapse in housing construction. Over the last three years of the Labor Party's tenure on the treasury bench, we have seen endless discussion about housing, and we see the Minister for Housing brag about the $40 billion that the Commonwealth is spending on houses—great, $40 billion on housing for fewer houses than were built under the last government. Under the last coalition government, we saw an average completion rate of 200,000 houses each and every year. Now we are down to 170,000 houses a year after three years of Labor's brainless bureaucracy.

And the incoherence of their housing agenda is just so clear. Today you see the government promising to expand the Home Guarantee Scheme. Over the weekend, they were saying they wanted to cut red tape, and now they want to become the largest mortgage insurer in the country. The government either wants to be the world's biggest bureaucracy or it doesn't. This is absolute incoherence. Either you want to cut red tape and you believe in the private economy delivering for Australians or you don't. So I am very confused; I'm extremely confused. Now, maybe it's because I'm not very intelligent. It could well be the case. But just to step through these few issues from the weekend is very hard to follow, extremely hard to follow.

We see a commitment to cut the National Construction Code. Okay, that's good; it sounds like a reasonable idea. It is very complex. There are thousands and thousands of pages and gobbledegook in it. This was the policy the coalition had at the last election. We said we'd freeze the NCC because it's complex. It is a lot of red tape. It is hurting the building sector. Builders, tradies and developers find it extremely hard to comply with. It has increased costs because of the changes that were made in 2022. So we said, 'Let's pause the NCC for 10 years.' The government said, 'That's a terrible idea,' and the Minister for Industry and Science at the time, Mr Husic, said this 10-year freeze would result in 'shoddy hotboxes'. They pooh-poohed that; they said, 'That's a bad idea; the coalition is stupid.' And now we see that the government has adopted the policy we had just a few months ago at the election of freezing the NCC, albeit a shorter freeze—it's a one-year freeze, not a 10-year freeze—and they have committed to making some changes to the code in this calendar year. I'm not sure what those changes will be. From the government's point of view, they're promising the Australian people less red tape, but, in order to deliver that, they're going to change the code in 2025 and then have a freeze until 2029. That's the first thing.

The second thing they announced on the weekend was that they would try to push housing approvals through the EPBC Act. That is a very good idea. Again, this was a policy that we had at the election because we recognise that the way that the government has administered the EPBC Act over the last three years has resulted in fewer houses being approved and developed. In fact, in one development that I visited in Queensland—one of the largest in Australia, which has been releasing lots of land since 1989—last year was the first year they hadn't released any lots, because of the EPBC Act. A parrot flew over a block of land in 1971 and now we can't have any houses there. It's the administration of the EPBC Act which has been causing a loss of housing supply, so we welcome the view that the government now has, that it will try to use the EPBC Act to push through approvals and supply. We welcome that.

Then we see the government has today announced plans to expand the Home Guarantee Scheme. As I say, it is incoherent at best to be arguing that you want to cut red tape and help the private economy get houses built and help people get into houses while also arguing that the way to do it is for the government to become the largest mortgage insurer in the country and to become a property developer. These are the two policies announced during the last campaign, which Labor won. Labor said that they would become the largest mortgage insurer and that they would develop 100,000 houses. This is from a government that has a $10 billion scheme, the Housing Australia Future Fund, that, in two years, with $10 billion of the people's money, has built 17 houses. It has been running for two years and has built 17 houses. We think it's 17. The minister said 17, zero, 2,000—who knows? Either way, even if it were 2,000 for $10 billion after two years, it is not a very good return.

The idea that Canberra is going to solve the nation's housing crisis by becoming a massive property developer and insurer is crazy. When you look at the idea of expanding the Home Guarantee Scheme, which was initially designed to target low-income earners, to everyone, it means that the children of billionaires can now use the Home Guarantee Scheme to fund their first house purchase, which is bizarre—at the least—mistargeted and very dangerous. What about the size of the contingent liability that the taxpayer now faces? How big is that? Tens of billions of dollars, I imagine, because the taxpayer is now funding these insurance products for wealthy Australians. Why are the taxpayers of Australia funding a mortgage insurance scheme for wealthy Australians? I don't know the answer to that question, and I'm not sure the government knows the answer to that question. I think they like the idea of putting out press releases and puff pieces about how well they're doing on housing, when the stats on the scoreboard are very clear: more people and fewer houses, and that is why we have a massive housing squeeze.

First home owners have never faced a larger cliff. Offering a five per cent deposit scheme to middle- and high-income earners is not the right policy for Australia. The taxpayer should not be required to fund that. The Australian people ask themselves why we now look at 10 years of budget deficits. This is one of the reasons. This idea, that the taxpayer should be funding a huge amount of middle- and now upper-class welfare, is a sick proposition that the Australian people should not have to fund.

When you ask about housing and you look at the Defence Housing Australia Amendment Bill 2025 before the Senate today, the point is really on supply. These demand-side endeavours, if targeted, can potentially make some improvements for low- and middle-income Australians. But the proposition that is facing the Australian people is really one of a lack of housing supply. Until the government is able to better understand what is holding back the supply, by talking to builders, developers and tradespeople, then they will never solve this crisis. Unfortunately what we now see are more bandaids, more press releases and more puff pieces, and, frankly, an incoherence. Either the government believes that cutting red tape is a good idea or it believes that the Commonwealth government should be the provider of all services. It can't be both.

We want the government to be better. Our job is to work very hard to highlight the deficiencies in policy whilst we develop our own credible solutions. So we welcome the idea that the EPBC Act could be improved in terms of its administration. We are quite relaxed about the idea of a home guarantee scheme targeted at low-income people. And, as I say, we supported the idea that the NCC was too complex and was causing massive problems for people on the ground. So we are open-minded to supporting sensible ideas, but we don't think the bureaucratic approach of having housing boondoggles like the Housing Australia Future Fund and then guaranteeing mortgages for children of billionaires is the way to go. We think that that is a problem. That is a problem that I can't explain to anyone on my side of this parliament. We hope that in due course the government will be able to explain why it believes that the taxpayer should be funding mortgage insurance schemes for people with very high incomes.

Until we know the answer to that question, I'm not sure the government will be to make any headway on housing. So far, the scoreboard is that there are more people than ever and, frankly, fewer houses than we've seen at any time in the past decade.

I rise to speak to the Defence Housing Australia Amendment Bill 2025. This is the first major housing bill of the new parliament. Does it help aspiring homeowners to build their first home? Does it wind back the unfair tax handouts to wealthy property developers or fix the structural inequities in our housing market? Does it directly invest in public housing that Australians desperately need: our nurses, our teachers, our retail workers—those who live in Mildura and Mount Gambier and in all our country towns and regions that can't get housing for their police force or their doctors?

Instead this scheme builds public housing for foreign troops and foreign contractors, under the deeply flawed AUKUS pact. That's right—this government has deemed US troops and US contractors more worthy of public housing than people in Australia who desperately need a roof over their heads. Over 170,000 Australian households are on public housing waitlists. Homelessness in this country is the worst in living memory, according to the many advocacy groups who knock on the door of all of us in this place. What is the government doing? Rushing through a bill that would allow for hundreds of new homes to be built without delay but built for US troops and US defence contractors. The fact that this is the government's priority beggars belief. So much for 'no-one left behind'. So much for 'tackling the housing crisis from every angle', as we've heard the Minister for Housing say in recent days.

This contradiction exposes the rot in Labor's housing priorities. We're in the middle of a national housing crisis, including a severe lack of public housing. The message is clear from this legislation: if you're an American soldier or an American defence contractor, the government will build you a home; if you're an Australian worker, fend for yourself or join the long queue of people looking for public housing. While our homelessness queues grow and there are tents in my own city's national and state parks, funding goes in an unspecified amount—we don't how much—to support other countries' militaries.

The Greens have many issues with this bill. Defence Housing Australia currently provides around 20,000 homes to defence personnel in Australia and their families, and it makes a profit on the housing scheme. However, this bill would expand Defence Housing Australia's main function to include the ability to provide housing and housing related services to foreign government and defence personnel. The government argues that the intention of this bill is to reduce strain on the housing market, but it just paints a clear picture of hypocrisy. Rentals in Perth have become amongst the most expensive in this country—and that's really saying something, if you look at the price of renting in Canberra or in Adelaide. When the Greens urgently call for investment in public housing, the government refuses to act. But, when the US asks, suddenly it's not impossible for governments to build houses anymore, this time for non-Australians.

The scope of changes in this bill is really worrying. In addition to foreign personnel, Defence Housing Australia will also be able to provide housing to foreign military organisations, foreign governments and foreign military contractors and subcontractors. It also allows the minister, by legislative instrument, to add further classes of people to whom Defence Housing Australia may provide housing and housing related services. These broad provisions are one of the many reasons why we needed to see, wanted to see and should have seen an inquiry into this bill. Minister Keogh has said he wants to see the speedy passage of this legislation. Well, that explains why Labor and the Liberals teamed up to veto an inquiry into this legislation in the last sitting fortnight. Now, it's being rammed through the Senate. There is no financial impact statement. It's incredible. We have no idea how much public money Australia will allocate to build homes for the US military in Australia.

This bill will give a blank cheque to the US military and Donald Trump as part of AUKUS. It's deeply concerning that, in a housing crisis, Labor would sooner—would prefer to—provide housing to foreign troops than provide it to the Australians pushed in every city and town in this country to the brink by their policy decisions. That is thousands of Australians on waitlists for public housing, thousands of teachers and nurses who can't get the houses they need to live near their jobs and the services they depend on. This government is focused on funding the wrong homes. Across Australia, housing costs are rising faster than wages, and our social housing system has failed to keep up with demand. According to Everybody's Home, our proportion of social dwellings declined to just 4.1 per cent of the market in 2024. This decline has forced more people into the private rental market, intensifying competition and driving prices higher across the board. Everyone deserves a safe, affordable place to call home. But, for too many Australians, this goal is now completely out of reach. The government has suddenly remembered, in this bill, that it can build houses directly, but this time for US workers and contractors.

Housing is essential for Australians, just like health care, education and child care. We shouldn't be leaving it to the private market. Decades of profit driven policies have left too many people with skyrocketing rents, substandard housing and long-term homelessness. The declining role of the state in building public housing stock in our country has significantly contributed to the decline in housing affordability for both renters and first home buyers in our housing system. In a housing crisis, the supply of homes cannot be left to private developers whose profits increase the more that house prices and rents go up.

We just need the government to care as much about building public housing for Australians as they clearly do for US troops. Maybe they could take inspiration from the Greens policy for a public property developer and build 610,000 homes over the next decade. Let's have housing for all Australians. This is the kind of ambition needed to fix the housing crisis, not just tinkering, and especially not tinkering in ways, like those of the amendments to the deposit scheme that we heard about this morning that are being brought forward by the housing minister, that drive demand. They will feed demand, push up exploding prices even further and a lock out first home buyers. Less tinkering; more structural change.

Part of the justification for this bill is to provide housing for US troops stationed in WA as part of the AUKUS submarine base in Fremantle. AUKUS is a dud deal. We need to get out of it. AUKUS is supposedly a trilateral partnership, and Australia has drawn the short end of the stick. We bear the brunt of both the cost and the risk. While the US and the UK are reviewing the pact, the major parties have doubled down, committing to a shroud of silence and secrecy.

We know the US or the UK could pull out of the submarine deal with just a year's notice if either nation decides the deal weakens their own nuclear submarine programs, yet we've already sent at least $1.6 billion to the US for their own domestic shipbuilding industry. We're also paying the UK around $4.6 billion to assist theirs. We don't have any clawback provisions. Recent polling shows that most Australians believe we'll never receive the AUKUS submarines, and they can see this dud deal for what it is. Australians have never had the chance to properly vote on AUKUS, something that fundamentally undermines our sovereignty and diverts crucial funds from housing, education and health care. How is this fair? How is it sensible?

I and many Australians are greatly concerned about our increasing dependency on the US, led by an unpredictable bully. We know Australia is complicit in unjust US wars. Donald Trump has effective control of all US marine spy bases, bomber jets and nuclear submarines across Australia. As the US lurches further to the unpredictable right and the costs of AUKUS submarines spiral upwards into the hundreds of billions, now is the time to end the dangerous AUKUS gamble with our security. Instead, we get bills like this which further entrench this pact.

We also get bills like last year's Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2024. That bill, now an act, allows the government to pick any place in Australia as a potential nuclear waste dump without any proper consultation with communities and Indigenous owners. It explicitly listed Osborne, in my state of South Australia, as home to a nuclear waste dump. The local community was absolutely blindsided. They were not informed or consulted. The dump is close to a residential area and right on the waterway, where 30,000 people live nearby. When interviewed on 7.30, Minister Butler said that a dump in his electorate would go ahead 'even if the residents did not want it'. Well, Minister Butler, they do not want it. I've been an active campaigner against nuclear waste dumps in South Australia for a long time, and so have thousands of South Australians. We don't want it anywhere near us. This is not democracy. This is against the wishes of the Port Adelaide Enfield Council, who have resolved to strongly oppose any nuclear waste storage or disposal at Osborne. It's against the wishes of so many South Australians who remember the devastating impact that British atomic testing at Maralinga had on our Indigenous people.

The corrosive AUKUS pact puts the wants and needs of the US above the wellbeing of our communities, and we see that again in this bill. We need to end AUKUS and invest in peace, security and housing for all Australians who need it. Australians want us to develop our own independent foreign policy that defends Australia and does not continue to act as an arm of the US military.

This bill makes it clear that the only public housing Labor and the Liberals really want to spend money on is for the US military and for US weapons contractors living on Australian soil, all while hundreds of thousands of Australians wait for decades on public housing waitlists. Both major parties are not taking the scale of this issue seriously enough. They are tinkering at the edges, and much of their tinkering makes the problem worse by feeding demand and giving enormous tax breaks to wealthy property investors. That tinkering makes things worse for all those first home buyers and young people who are paying excessive rent or unable to get into the housing market.

Both major parties have entered this parliament with a handful of meek offerings that will do little to challenge the massive problems in our housing system. In a wealthy country like ours, housing should not be something Australians struggle to get access to. It should not be something we build for US defence workers and contractors. It is shameful, and we need immediate, big structural reforms on our housing crisis. The options we see from the major parties are clear choices by our governments that compound their mis-decisions of the last 20 years.

This bill shows we can build public housing, and we need to get on with it. But we need to build housing for Australian people in our regions, towns and cities who can't get it right now. While the major parties play politics here in Canberra with housing, people all over Australia are experiencing the devastating reality of soaring rents, crippling mortgage stress, acute homelessness, increased homelessness and a lack of truly affordable homes. This government needs to take the Australian housing crisis seriously, and Labor need to step up and build homes for Australians. Build the public housing we need, not the foreign Defence workers' and contractors' housing that will squeeze out Australians' own need for solutions to the housing crisis.

I too rise to speak on the Defence Housing Australia Amendment Bill 2025. Obviously it's welcome that this government is finally taking some of the first steps required to see AUKUS come to fruition in this country. It is a policy that, in rhetoric, anyway, has been supported by those opposite, the Labor Party, for a significant period of time—in fact, for the entire life of the AUKUS project, which of course started under the coalition government.

However, quite frankly, this is too little too late. It is just reflective of the failure of this Labor government and the state Labor government in Western Australia to seize the urgency of the requirements of AUKUS and make the concrete building blocks necessary to see this come to fruition. I had the current status of Henderson and AUKUS in Western Australia described to me, by someone who knows this very, very intimately, as a debacle under this Labor government, a debacle under the state Labor government in Western Australia, because—for one reason, at least—the building blocks have not been started. Yes, this bill is a positive step, and we will support it; however, the requirement for the US presence at Stirling is for thousands of accommodation units to be available, starting in 2027-28. Passing legislation to start a process to build houses just two years before you're going to need those houses to be finished shows how unserious this Labor government actually is in this space.

I'll give another example—and this has more of a state Labor focus, but the federal government could use its influence to make a difference in this area. The major road into the Henderson precinct, the Australian Marine Complex, the intersection of Rockingham Road and Russell Road, is an intersection where I have stood and watched trucks and cars get banked up for hundreds and hundreds of metres. It is a horrendously dangerous intersection. It's effectively two Ls, with traffic lights at both intersections of the Ls. It's a very slow, very inefficient intersection that has needed realignment for a long, long period of time. It last had significant work done in 2002; that's 23 years ago. Currently, as far as I can tell—maybe there's some work happening behind the scenes—nothing has been significantly planned to make sure that intersection is fixed before the significant naval shipbuilding projects in the Henderson precinct hit their straps, such as the new Mogami build that should be starting in Western Australia this decade. The fourth ship is meant to be built in the Henderson dockyards this decade, and these basic, fundamental building blocks, such as having an efficient road into the precinct, have not even been started yet.

This is an extraordinary failure of leadership. We've had 3½ years of Labor government federally and we've had, sadly, eight years of Labor government at the Western Australian state level, and every single one of those senior ministers, premiers, prime ministers and ministers have talked about their support and the need to actually get these fundamentals in place for my home state of Western Australia to take advantage of things like Mitsubishi Heavy Industries' willingness to come into Western Australia to partner in Henderson to build the Mogami class frigates. They've talked a big game, but they have done literally nothing. Here, we have the federal Labor government trying to pass a bill that will start a process, which will then start a planning process that will let houses be built at some point. This is a very non-serious way to approach the most serious issue in Australia: ensuring that AUKUS is a success.

(Quorum formed)

I rise to briefly speak on the Defence Housing Australia Amendment Bill 2025. While there is obvious contention about this particular Australian Defence Force housing issue, as outlined by my colleague Senator Shoebridge, it's not the only controversial project that this particular government department has been enacting over the last number of years.

We know—I have spoken about this in this place before—about the shocking destruction of ancient woodlands at Lee Point in the Northern Territory. In April last year, there was community outcry as Defence Housing Australia resumed its clearing of Lee Point for housing of its defence personnel and for private rentals in Darwin. I want to point to the fact that this particular part of the world is so ancient, so special and so unique. Some of the trees in this particular area that were bulldozed by Defence Housing Australia were more than 400 years old. These are ancient trees. It is an ancient woodland, and it is home to some of Australia's most endangered species. In fact, not only is it home to some of Australia's most endangered species; it plays a role in the migration of endangered birds, in particular those from other parts of the world. It is a haven for wildlife and endangered species.

The federal government gave approval to DHA to bulldoze this ancient woodland, but they didn't do their due diligence very well. The department was forced to pause the work in 2022 to assess the project's impact on the Gouldian finch, a very endangered bird that lives in this area—a beautiful little bird. It's gorgeous. If you haven't seen it, look it up online. It is a spectacular animal that lives in this area, has lived in this area and has had this woodland as its home for hundreds and hundreds of years, perhaps thousands. There are trees in this area that have played home to the Gouldian finch for over 400 years—because that is how old this woodland is. The department of Defence Housing Australia had to pause its work because of the impact on this particular bird and then had to pause it again, in 2023, following an application for cultural heritage from the Larrakia traditional owners. Not only was the department bulldozing ancient woodland; it was doing so without any approval or consent from the local Indigenous owners. At the time, Minister Plibersek, who was the environment minister, rejected the application by the traditional owners for cultural heritage. That was very disappointing. We now know that the department is back in court because of the discovery and removal of ancient artefacts from the site.

I use this opportunity to say this to the government. It has been found over and over that this particular project has not just been managed badly; it was approved illegally. The bulldozers have been in there illegally. The woodlands are being destroyed. The animals are being killed, and cultural heritage is being ignored. You've lost one court case in relation to this particular project; you're currently in court again. This bulldozing, this project, must be stopped in its tracks. There should be no bulldozing going on while this latest court case is on foot. That's the first thing. It should not be happening. At the very least, take the keys out of the bulldozers, put down your chainsaws and stop. Stop destroying this ancient woodland and the homes of these beautiful animals.

I really do urge the ministers responsible to withdraw the approval for this project in the first place. It was based on rubbish; it was continued on misinformation. I asked the minister several times, both here in the chamber and in Senate estimates, about the unauthorised and illegal application relating to this project. I was told that the information wasn't correct, only to have the court come in and say to all of those who were talking about this project being illegal that this application wasn't done in the right way and that the bulldozers had been started before the process was complete. The court upheld all of that. I haven't had an apology from the minister, by the way. But it's not about who is right here; it's about doing what is right and doing the right thing. The right thing is shelving this project to ensure that it does not continue on what is a pristine, ancient and sacred area. It is sacred to the traditional owners, sacred to the animals and important for that local ecosystem.

Only a number of weeks ago, new footage emerged of DHA bulldozers continuing their destruction despite the very serious environmental and legal questions over this project. In the wake of the federal election and everybody being a bit busy, Defence Housing Australia has sent the bulldozers back in, hoping that no-one would notice. It is not good enough, and it does beg a broader question. If the federal government can't even abide by its own environmental laws, how on earth do they expect anybody else to? There was a clear breech of the law in this case. Do you know what the fine was? For the first breech, it was $18,000. That's just doing business, isn't it? It's just outrageous. It is absolutely outrageous.

The local community in Darwin is deeply distressed by what has happened here—distressed that the community's concerns have been ignored, that this pristine area just 20 minutes drive out of Darwin is being destroyed and that the local Indigenous community has been dismissed. It's time that the federal government and the responsible ministers see this dog of a project for what it is and cancel it. They've already destroyed a significant part of that woodland, and they need to stop before they destroy all of it.

Today I urge the Australian public and the members of this parliament to pay attention to the hypocrisy of this government. Today in the Senate we are debating the Defence Housing Australia Amendment Bill 2025, a bill that has been passed through the lower house without deep scrutiny or consultation from the Australian community. This bill seeks to provide public housing to US troops to support AUKUS military operations from 2027. These military operations centre around a permanent nuclear-powered submarine force, which will require US military personnel to be stationed in Australia, including off the coast of Fremantle on Noongar lands in my state.

If turning Garden Island, Meandup, into a military base and setting up a low-level nuclear waste dump isn't enough, today this bill outlines the Albanese government's commitment to building public housing for US troops who will be stationed in Western Australia. This government is trying to ram through legislation that has not released a financial impact statement, has not gone to a formal inquiry and does not detail how many taxpayer dollars will be put towards housing US troops. And yet, we are seeing their commitment to building public housing and providing a blank cheque to house the troops of the United States of America. This bill is yet another step towards AUKUS in that great journey begun by Scott Morrison, which ends with the complete transfer of our foreign and defence policy from the elected government of Australia to the administration of the United States. They will say, 'Jump,' and we will say, 'How high?' That is what AUKUS means. From day one, this political pact has been rightly criticised as a terrible deal in terms of economic cost and in terms of deliverability. For this government to have already committed to giving billions of public dollars to the United States is a disgrace. And now we are seeing our government go even further in committing to building public housing for US troops as well, all of this at a time when millions of Australians are struggling in the current rental and housing market and at the same time as our government announces further cuts to the NDIS. Yet what is their priority? Public housing for US troops. At the same time as so many in our community are struggling with the cost of energy and paying their power bills, what is the priority of this government? Public housing for US troops.

Last week, as part of the End Child Poverty campaign, I had the privilege of attending my local Centrecare branch in Mirrabooka. Community organisations like Centrecare provide crucial frontline supports to members of our community who need assistance with things like housing, mental health and crisis support. I want to say a huge thank you to you, the workers of this branch, and the workers across the many locations in our community that are supported by Centrecare. Day in and day out, you are dedicated to assisting vulnerable Australians. Your work is indispensable. During my visit, I heard from workers that poverty rates in this country are out of hand. Families are struggling to meet basic needs. We know that the impacts of inadequate and insecure housing on health and wellbeing affect the entire family, and we know that it is often kids that struggle most, that feel it most and that have their outcomes impacted.

Around 53,000 Western Australian households are currently experiencing homelessness, housing stress or living in overcrowded homes. As of May this year, WA has over 22,000 applications on hand for public housing, and the average wait time is nearly three years. Of these 22,000 applications, 7,000 are people on the priority waitlist. These are folks escaping domestic violence, experiencing homelessness or needing urgent accommodation due to disability or illness. Their wait time is dire. Yet let us roll out the red carpet, let us spare no expense, for US troops, for the United States Army, and for Donald Trump!

Australia lags behind other nations in terms of social housing supply. In WA only three per cent of housing stock is available to those on these waitlists, whereas social housing stock in places like the UK and the Netherlands totals 17 per cent and 34 per cent of all housing stock, respectively. Housing peak bodies, tireless advocates and workers in the sector are all saying the same thing: we need urgent action, we need bold intervention, and we need our government to commit to stronger housing policies that not only increase housing stock but also ensure housing is affordable and accessible to everyone. Instead of prioritising having a national conversation on rent caps or rent freezes, we have this bill that only benefits US troops.

Perth used to be Australia's most affordable city to live in, but figures from this year show that it is now the most unaffordable city for renters. Over the last five years, rent in Perth has gone up by 66 per cent. In the electorate of Swan, it has gone up by 72 per cent. In the electorate of Cowan, it has gone by 74 per cent. We saw a video recently go viral online because a rental inspection in Osborne Park saw 92 people lining up to view a single house. This is unacceptable. This is a national disgrace. We have hundreds of people competing for basic rentals. We have families, young people and pensioners all competing in a market that is so slim and so desperate. We have hundreds of people sleeping rough in the area surrounding Garden Island. The government is moving glacially to support them, yet it is likely this bill will move heaven and earth to build public housing for US troops or to house thousands of, in the words of the bill, 'international maintenance and support personnel associated with AUKUS'.

The question on everyone's mind is why the government is finding housing solutions for US troops but saying it's too difficult to find those solutions when it comes to supporting our own community. Why is this government not investing in our community's basic needs for housing, health care, disability supports and education? This is a choice. This is a conscious decision, and it is shameful. So, to recap, we have a government that is choosing to spend upwards of $300 billion on a submarine contract and an additional undisclosed amount in this newest bill to pay for housing developments for US military personnel within the context of a housing crisis that is putting Australians at risk of homelessness, poorer health outcomes and extreme distress.

Let us remind ourselves of this government's commitment to AUKUS in the very first place. A commitment to AUKUS includes parts of Australia becoming nuclear waste dump sites. It includes mass environmental disruption of our coastlines and potential for greater harm to our oceans. It includes a huge question mark over our sovereign capacity in relation to the military direction of the United States and therefore the Trump administration. It requires Australian taxpayers forking out a couple of billion dollars to help the US improve their own submarine manufacturing capabilities without guarantee the Australian government will ever actually receive anything in return, certainly not a submarine. All of this, and the Australian government is actively denying the people the chance to have either the AUKUS decision or the Defence Housing Australia Bill reviewed under inquiry.

The Greens are our community. For years the Greens and the community have been pushing to have this Labor government deliver housing to the community, to deliver supports to the community and to critically analyse AUKUS. It is incredible that the first time public housing is brought up in this parliament, it is not for the benefit of our communities but for the benefit of the US government, who continue to be driven by a US military industrial complex with Donald Trump at the helm.

The Australian Greens will be voting against this bill. We will continue to campaign with the community to see that the billions of dollars in public funds are invested in the healthcare and housing supports and services the community need—to ensure that no person in this country goes to sleep at night without a roof over their head, that no-one fleeing family or domestic violence is ever forced to endure such a situation because the waitlist for a safe home is too long and that no child is ever forced to try to get an education and learn while living in a car. In Australia in 2025, these are our priorities. That is who we would put ahead of the needs of Donald Trump, and proudly so. I condemn this bill. It brings this parliament lower. It sullies us to consider it. It shames this government to be its promoter. You should take a long, hard look in the mirror, the lot of you, and study the reflection you find there.

A quorum having been called and the bells having been rung—

Senator Farrell, you can't leave while the bells are ringing.

(Quorum formed)

The Defence Housing Australia Amendment Bill 2025 will expand the main function of Defence Housing Australia to provide housing and housing related services to those making important contributions to the defence of Australia. This is recognition of the fact 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. It also recognises the changing nature of the Defence workforce, which no longer exclusively encompasses ADF members and APS employees.

In doing so, this bill addresses a key recommendation from a 2020 report by the ANAO on the management of Defence Housing Australia. That report recommended expanding DHA's functions to provide housing for foreign exchange and visiting military personnel and to the philanthropic organisations that provide counselling and other support services to ADF members and their families. That is what this bill does. It also provides a mechanism for a defence minister to determine that DHA can provide housing and housing related services to broader categories of people to meet the operational needs of the ADF and the requirements of the Department of Defence.

As a number of senators have noted in their contributions, one of the early applications of the provisions contained in the bill will be to support our requirement to house personnel coming to Australia as part of Submarine Rotational Force—West, under AUKUS. This includes supporting the provision of housing in close proximity to HMAS Stirling for US and UK military, civilian and contractor personnel arriving in Western Australia with their families.

As was observed by the minister in the other place, the Albanese government is committed to AUKUS. We're committed to supporting our AUKUS partners appropriately and we are conscious that this should not be to the detriment of local communities. The government is also seeking to ensure that overseas personnel are integrated into local communities in order to provide them and their families the best possible experience of Australia. Using DHA to do this ensures that Australia secures housing that aligns with Defence Force standards while limiting any negative impacts that may be had on our local housing market.

Before completing, I want to touch briefly on a couple of matters raised over the course of the debate and address some of the second reading amendments which either have been moved or are to be moved at the conclusion of debate. Senators have asked questions about security screenings. The specifics of security clearance processes are appropriately confidential but require extensive checks to identify and manage risk. The Australian Government Security Vetting Agency independently conducts security assessments for all individuals who require security clearance. These assessments are rigorous and ongoing.

Senators have also asked about costs in relation to AUKUS. Specific arrangements on the housing of AUKUS personnel are subject to ongoing cost-sharing negotiations with the UK and the US. Those negotiations are proceeding under previously agreed trilateral cost-sharing principles for the broader AUKUS trilateral partnership.

The government will not be supporting the second reading amendments that either have been moved or are to be moved. In relation to Senator Lambie's, DHA's core function is to provide housing for ADF members and their families; we acknowledge and affirm that. However, a blanket 'ADF always first' requirement could undermine Defence's ability to meet international commitments or other defence partnerships, particularly in the Pacific and with close allies. More generally, Australia benefits from reciprocal housing and supporting arrangements. There are existing transparency measures through DHA's annual report, Senate estimates and reporting to Defence and parliament. Disaggregated data on housing allocations and waiting times could expose sensitive information about ADF member locations, demand pressure or deployment patterns.

In relation to the amendment proposed by Senator Shoebridge, the explanatory memorandum is self-explanatory and stands on its own terms. In relation to Senator Nampijinpa Price's amendment, this government has made a substantial investment in Australia's national security.

I would like to thank all senators who have contributed to the debate on the Defence Housing Australia Amendment Bill 2025. I commend this bill to the Senate.

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

I move my second reading amendment as circulated:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes that the explanatory memorandum to this bill claims that the amendments in the bill have no financial impact".

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

I move:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to:

(a) guarantee that members of the Australian Defence Force and their families, officers and employees of the Department of Defence and their families, and persons contracted to provide goods or services to the Australian Defence Force or the Department and their families are given priority access to Defence Housing over foreign personnel; and

(b) ensure that the full costs of providing Defence Housing and housing-related services to foreign governments, military organisations and their contractors are fully recovered from those entities, and not subsidised by Australian taxpayers; and

(c) improve transparency by requiring Defence Housing Australia to publish data on housing allocations, waiting times for Australian Defence Force members, and the net financial impact of housing foreign personnel".

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

The question is that the second reading be agreed to.

I have some questions, obviously. My first question is: can you tell me whether or not Defence Housing still does any sponsorship? Is it still spending its money on sponsorship?

Senator Lambie, this is a relatively narrow bill, and it doesn't go to the budget of DHA. It simply goes to a set of amendments to the Defence Housing Australia Act 1987. I don't have, consequently, information with me about the Defence Housing Australia budget, particularly at that level of granularity, and I might need to direct you to the other opportunities in the Senate to ask questions of that kind.

We have just over 61,000 personnel. Apparently, that's the new August number for this year. I think it is 61,229, to be precise. By the early 2030s—I don't know what you mean by 'early'; I'd say 2031 or 2032—you want to grow that to 69,000. How many houses, or married quarters or housing, is DHA going to be required to build in the next five years just to get you to the 2030s, if you are able to get 69,000, or another 7,000, defence personnel into the miliary?

Senator Lambie, thanks for your question. Of course, as I indicated in my second reading contribution, the provision of housing for personnel remains critically important, and it's the core function of Defence Housing Australia. We have spoken in other forums about some of the initiatives that are underway to better understand the housing requirements of ADF personnel and to provision for them. Again, though, I would indicate that the bill before us is actually quite a short bill and that it's also quite narrowly constructed. It has a very limited purpose, which is simply to expand the capacity of DHA to provide housing, beyond ADF personnel, to a limited number of other categories. So I don't have detailed information of that kind, and I think questions about DHA's planning and Defence's budget are best dealt with in budget estimates or in some of the other forums available to senators.

First of all, this is integral because I want to know whether or not you've got enough married quarters and all the rest out there to get where you need to be by 2030 in bringing extras in. So you should have numbers in front of you. That's the first thing. We're going to go over quite a substantial thing because I need to make sure that our own have got housing if they're in uniform. That's what I want to know, and right now, because I've got no numbers and you can't give me any, there is no guarantee. That is my biggest problem. While we're here looking at numbers, can you tell how many members are in choice accommodation, how many are in living-in accommodation, how many are accessing rental assistance and how many are in service residences? I need those up-to-date numbers so you and I can go on with the conversation this morning.

Thanks, Senator Lambie. I will provide the information that I have for you, Senator, but I think one of the things to draw the Senate's attention to is that this bill doesn't ask the Senate to make a decision about provisioning for Australian personnel or for philanthropic organisations, nor does it make a decision about provisioning for foreign service personnel. It simply creates a legislative capacity for DHA to do work of this kind. There are subsequent decisions that will need to be taken about the volume of housing that might be necessary in different places and at different times under the provisions of this bill, if it's passed, but that's not the decision that's in front of the Senate right now. The only decision before us is the decision contained in the legislation, which is, really: as a position of principle, is it okay for DHA to do work of this kind? Obviously, the government is bringing forward this bill because we believe that it is appropriate and, indeed, that it is important. I can tell you though—and I will do my best, where I can, Senator, to get the information you're asking for—that we anticipate an expansion in the order of 30,000 homes by 2040. That's the advice I have before me, Senator.

Minister, you say there's an expansion of 30,000 homes—I'm assuming through Defence Housing—are there estimates of how many of those homes or what proportion of those homes will be for foreign troops and foreign contractors as opposed to Australians?

Senator, I can't add a great deal to the answer I've already provided. The bill before us is relatively narrow in scope. It asks us to allow, in principle, DHA to do work of this kind. Other decisions about how much, where and who are part of the ordinary budget processes of Defence. As you and I know, there are many opportunities to canvass those budget decisions during the budget estimates hearings and in other forums.

I was asking you about the information you brought to the chamber. You say that there is a prediction that there'll be these 30,000 homes built. You're now seeking the committee's agreement to allow an unknown chunk of those homes to be handed to US personnel and to foreign defence contractors. Is it your answer that you can't tell the committee how many of those homes will be now earmarked for foreign defence personnel and foreign defence contractors and that you don't have that information?

As I've indicated, I'm trying to be careful about the information that I provide the committee, because it is important that it be accurate. The bill expands, in general, the capacity of Defence Housing Australia to provide housing for a range of personnel, including foreign personnel. I do have information about the housing demand for the estimated number of US and UK personnel coming to WA for SRF-West, if that would be of assistance. Of the 1,100 expected US and UK personnel, it is estimated that approximately half will be accompanied by their families and approximately half will arrive unaccompanied or are single. That translates into a housing demand of approximately 550 family residences and a combination of 550 one-bedroom apartments and/or on-base single living-in accommodation.

ASA and Defence will work closely together to respond to that. It will of course seek to do so in a manner that is cognisant of any impacts on local communities. That's partly why we're looking to make the changes to the legislation today. Defence Housing Australia have a well-developed business model that sees them work with private providers in the market to bring on new projects. In part, that is the model anticipated to be used to meet some of this demand. It has flow-on benefits for communities—because we have quite a number of examples where arrangements of that kind also enable bringing forward housing development that is then, through the same projects, offered into the private market.

Thanks for that additional information, Minister. I have two questions that flow from that. Is it intended those housing units be in addition to the 30,000 that you've indicated, or are they part of the 30,000 that you've indicated? That's my first question. My second question is: you indicated that the department expects the need to build 550 family homes for US and UK troops in Western Australia; is that what Senator Whiteaker was referring to in her contribution when she said Defence Housing Australia has already signed contracts for 550 new homes near Fleet Base West in the southern suburbs of Perth over the next five years?

My first question is: is that in addition to the 30,000 or part thereof? My second question is: are the 550 homes for US and UK defence personnel you're referring to the same 550 homes that Senator Whiteaker was referring to when she spoke about the signed contracts?

Senator, in relation to whether or not the 30,000 homes includes those homes intended to be used by visiting personnel, the answer is yes. In relation to the contracts that have been entered into by DHA with developers, yes, those contracts have been entered into broadly with the intention of meeting the needs of the growth in workforce, some of whom will be workforce personnel associated with the UK and US.

Minister, what legal basis did Defence Housing Australia have to enter into contracts to build houses for US and UK troops when it signed those contracts for 550 new homes near Fleet Base West? Did they just decide that they weren't limited by the law—that they could just sign contracts to build homes for foreign defence personnel without troubling themselves with having the legal authority to do that?

Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. Defence Housing Australia is tasked with providing housing necessary to meet Defence's operational requirements. These contracts were entered into as part of their ordinary portfolio management. Defence Housing Australia has a portfolio of homes. It includes leasing and constructing, and this is the ordinary way in which Defence Housing Australia conducts its business.

Minister, my hope would be that the ordinary way in which Defence Housing Australia conduct their business is by only entering into contracts to build homes where it is lawful to do so. I ask you again: did Defence Housing Australia sign contracts to build homes for US and UK defence personnel as part of the signed contracts for 550 homes Senator Whiteaker refers to? If so, on what possible legal basis did they do so?

I'll refer you to my answer, Senator Shoebridge; that is the same question as the one you just asked.

Minister, I will give you a third opportunity to identify whether there was any lawful legal basis for Defence Housing Australia to sign contracts to build homes for foreign defence personnel, as Senator Whiteaker and you have now confirmed is the reality. Was there any legal basis for doing so? And, if not, will your government ensure that agencies act in accordance with the law?

For the third time I'll answer this question. Defence Housing Australia maintains a portfolio of properties. They do so under their ordinary obligations to bring forward a portfolio of properties and manage that so it can meet Defence's operational needs. Defence Housing Australia has not entered into an agreement with a foreign military, but they are working on developing the housing requirements that will be necessary to meet the overall workforce demands in Western Australia as a consequence of the SRF—West arrangements.

Minister, there's a proposed DHA development in the north of Lawson, here in the ACT, and the development proposes 443 dwellings on approximately 47 or so hectares of land. A number of community groups and a large number of constituents have contacted my office with concerns that the development will have significant environmental impact. The proposal would have a significant impact on natural temperate grasslands, which form one of the most threatened ecosystems in Australia. Less than 0.5 per cent of the ecosystem remains in good condition across the country; 99.5 per cent of it has either been destroyed or is in poor condition. You can't offset that. You can't offset a critically endangered temperate grassland. We know that Defence Housing Australia have form on this. If you look at their range of projects, they're constantly coming up against the EPBC Act and often just disregarding it. This is a very serious thing that I would expect a Labor government to care a bit more about. Given the potential impact that clearing will have on golden sun moths and striped legless lizards, I'm interested in whether these changes will make it more likely that the Lawson grasslands project will go ahead.

Thanks for your question, Senator Pocock. The broad answer is that we expect Defence Housing Australia to comply with all the environmental requirements in all the jurisdictions in which it operates. I'm not in a position to provide particular information about a particular development in the ACT. I'm aware it's one that you have a strong interest in. There will be other occasions in the Senate program where you can ask questions of officials, including at estimates, about the way they're approaching particular developments. The broad implications of the legislation before us are simply to allow Defence Housing Australia to provide housing support to a broader range of categories of persons than is presently the case under the existing legislation.

Minister, what budget line item did Defence Housing rely upon to sign contracts to build hundreds of new homes for US defence personnel in Perth? Was there a budget allocation for this? If so, what was it?

I think it would assist Senator Shoebridge and perhaps the Senate more generally to talk a little bit about the business model for DHA. DHA doesn't receive funding through budget appropriations; it's self-funded, and that occurs through rents, fees, charges or other revenue earned through the application of its housing portfolio and service provision, and also the sale of any surplus developed land and properties. It is a government business enterprise and it exists to provide support to the Department of Defence, and the particulars of that support are operationalised through a service agreement with the Department of Defence.

Are there any payments being made by the Department of Defence under that service agreement to Defence Housing for these 550 housing units in relation to which this contract has been signed and which we now understand are for US and UK troops?

I've given this answer to other senators and yourself. The legislation before the chamber asks senators to make a decision, essentially. To paraphrase it—you have the legislation in front of you—it's essentially an in-principle decision: should we allow DHA to do work of this kind? The Senate is not being asked to approve budgets, nor is it being offered the opportunity to scrutinise budgets; the Senate makes a very particular allocation of time for that task, and when we do that we bring the relevant officials to the table through the Senate estimates process. I encourage you to focus your questions and contributions on the legislation before us rather than a wider-ranging discussion about the budget, which is more appropriately conducted at budget estimates.

Thank you for that direction, Minister. Going back to your words and your contribution on the bill, you say, on the costs in relation to building the US and the UK troops' housing, 'negotiations are proceeding under previous trilateral cost-sharing principles for the AUKUS trilateral partnership'. That's how you said this housing will be funded—under previously agreed trilateral cost-sharing principles under the broader AUKUS trilateral partnership. Is that true?

I don't have the speech in front of me, but that reasonably accurately describes the words I used in my second reading speech.

What are the trilateral cost-sharing principles under AUKUS?

Those aren't able to be shared in this forum.

So the answer, finally, regarding how these houses are being paid for isn't something neutral like, 'Defence Housing will pay for it itself.' It's not going to come from a specific line item in the budget. It's going to be paid for by Australian taxpayers under a secret trilateral cost-sharing agreement under AUKUS. That's how the houses will be paid for. Is that what we should understand?

I don't think you can conclude that from the advice I've just provided you.

Please explain how I was wrong then.

The minister is not going to add to that answer. Senator Lambie.

I just have a follow-up question to that. Since ours are required to pay for their married quarters, you can't possibly tell me you're going to bring in diggers and commanding officers from overseas and not make them pay what our own are paying. You cannot be serious about that this morning. Please tell me: if they are renting something, if that is how it's going to go, is it going to be paid for? Can you imagine our diggers going, 'Look at these buggers from overseas here, getting free accommodation while we're paying for it.' Come on.

In response to both Senator Shoebridge's and Senator Lambie's contributions, I'll just go back to the advice that I provided the Senate. This is an ongoing discussion within the AUKUS discussions. It is not a concluded discussion, but I've sought to give information to the Senate about the approach we will take. It is subject to ongoing cost-sharing negotiations with the UK and with the US.

Senator Nampijinpa Price.

Minister, what guarantees will you put in place to ensure foreign officials are properly vetted?

Thank you, Senator Nampijinpa Price. I did provide some information about this in my second reading contribution because I had noted your remarks about this in yours. Essentially, the specifics of security clearance processes are, of course, confidential, but they do require extensive checks to identify and manage risk. The Australian Government Security Vetting Agency independently conducts security assessments for all individuals who require a security clearance, and these assessments are rigorous and ongoing.

Given the director-general of security's assessment that 'Australia's defence sector is a top intelligence collection priority for foreign governments seeking to blunt our operational edge, gain insights into our operational readiness and tactics and better understand our allies' capabilities', do you assess an increased risk to our defence facilities?

I have tried to provide some information to you about the screening processes, as you raised that in your second reading speech; however, I think we are now straying well beyond the bill that's in front of us. Of course, the Australian government is highly attentive to any risks that might present to our national security infrastructure. You cited contributions from some of our officials, and we listened to those very carefully. But, essentially, this bill is really not about those matters at all. This bill has a reasonably simple proposition. It's before senators, and we're asking for the Senate's support to pass it.

This bill helps to operationalise AUKUS, and we need AUKUS to help deter aggression in the region and maintain peace. So why is the government so reluctant to be up-front with the Australian people about the threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party's military aggression?

Again—and I thank Senator Nampijinpa Price for her question—it strays well beyond the confines of the bill that's in front of us. Even noting her careful framing to take us from AUKUS into broader questions of national security and our foreign policy, I really think it's a bit of a stretch. I think the government has made very clear our approach to our bilateral relationships with a range of partners in our region, and I would refer you to comments made by ministers about those matters in other forums. This debate is essentially about a quite narrow piece of legislation.

I think the defence of our nation and the threats that are posed to us as a country are all very relevant and speak to the ability to fund housing appropriately as well. It speaks to our spend in terms of Defence, so I think it's all very relevant. How will you ensure new housing when there is no additional funding associated with this bill?

Senator, the answer I will provide reflects the information I have given Senators Shoebridge and Lambie. Budgeting and provisioning for housing requirements for the ADF, and, indeed, for any other housing requirements associated with the operational imperatives of the ADF, are matters for the budget process. This bill is really narrow. It simply says, 'Is it appropriate for Defence Housing Australia to do work of that kind?' As I have indicated to other senators, the government believes that it is, and it is on that basis that we are seeking your support. I note that the coalition does intend to vote for this bill.

While you continue to highlight that this is a very narrow bill, it also speaks to spending in Defence, which is an important commitment. Will the government commit to lifting Defence spending to at least three per cent of GDP?

I am really reluctant to continue to entertain questions from senators that really seek to initiate a broad-ranging discussion about defence, foreign affairs and any other matters that are tangentially associated with the bill. I think it is ordinary practice for the government to come and provide answers that are relevant to the bill that is before us, but questions of the overall quantum of Defence spending really are best prosecuted in another forum. I imagine we will talk about them at estimates, and question time occurs later today. There are other forums where this can be canvassed.

I will provide this in the interest of being helpful, Senator, but I really am not intending to open up a broad-ranging debate, because it's not the approach that we ordinarily take in this chamber. You would know that we are investing an additional $10.6 billion over the forward estimates and $57.6 billion over the decade in Defence. We brought $1 billion forward in the forward estimates in our budget in March. These are very significant efforts to improve both the quality and the quantum of our spend in Defence, and, frankly, they represent an important intervention to tidy up a decade of waste, mismanagement and wrong priorities which unfortunately characterised the approach and the chaos that occurred under your government.

To return the discussion to housing, Minister, you and other Labor senators have indicated that this bill is intended to permit and green-light the construction of some 550 homes for US defence personnel in and around Fremantle. Minister, given the average cost of building on and acquiring the land for a home in Perth is now $750,000, where is the $412-odd million to build those homes going to come from?

I think that this question in some ways misunderstands the existing business model of Defence Housing Australia. This has been canvassed in estimates on occasions when we've been together, but Defence Housing Australia has entered into what is being termed a New Builds Volume Leasing Program agreement in Rockingham. That is with four Western Australian businesses, and that is to support the delivery of new properties. Essentially, the nature of that arrangement is that suppliers will offer investors the chance to purchase off the plan, and, once built, those homes will be leased to DHA. That model essentially incentivises investors by providing some measure of certainty about the likely occupancy of the homes once built.

Who will be paying the leases to fund the $412 million in costs?

As I've indicated in answers to your earlier questions, the specific arrangements on the housing of AUKUS personnel are subject to ongoing cost-sharing negotiations with the UK and the US.

Now we circle back. This is yet more of the secret billions and hundreds of millions under AUKUS. I understand. Minister, there are now 169,000 households waiting to be allocated public housing, with most people waiting somewhere between five and 20 years across this country. What do you say, and what does your government say, to Australians sleeping rough, Australians who can't afford a new home and Australians fleeing unsafe housing? Please explain to them how secretly funding hundreds of homes for the US military is more important than giving them a home.

Unfortunately, that question, once again, as is regrettably characteristic of your party, asks us to make false choices. The Australian Labor Party consider that we have an obligation to invest in our national security, and we intend to do so. We also believe that we have an obligation to address the housing crisis, which has been a generation in the making. For too many Australians—and we acknowledge this, Senator—homeownership feels too far away and being a renter feels too insecure. That is why we have a $43 billion plan to make it easier to buy, to make it better to rent and to build more homes.

I remind senators of the approach that the Greens political party took in this place when we were attempting to legislate part of that agenda. Their approach was to block, delay and defer instead of to bring forward practical solutions for the people that you now, in this debate here, claim to be so concerned about. If you had been genuinely concerned about bringing on new housing supply and about making arrangements to make it better, fairer and safer for the many Australians who are experiencing housing insecurity, you would have voted with us in this place to support the HAFF and you would have supported the other initiatives that we have been bringing forward to try to expand the availability of housing for Australians.

We have the service residences, the member choice accommodation and living-in accommodation—for those people on the outside who don't understand that: military members live in the lines. It's actually cheaper for them, usually. Then we have this thing called rental assistance. Rental assistance is usually for those who do not have families, who are pushed outside, off the base, to live in apartments. That is not a DHA thing. However, it will be a government problem if they cannot give me the figures for those using rental assistance at the moment. Because of the influx of foreigners that you're going to bring in and now put in our married quarters, how much more money is coming from the taxpayer? That will cost the taxpayer. If you haven't got them living in lines or in married quarters, the taxpayer picks up that rental assistance. The taxpayer picks up the difference; that's what it does. What do your numbers look like once this is done in 2030?

Thanks, Senator Lambie. I acknowledge, Senator Lambie, that you have detailed knowledge about not just the policy arrangements for housing personnel but some of the practical implications of it. I think we have spoken at estimates before about the significance of adequate, affordable, appropriate housing for personnel. I think we would acknowledge that one of the features of our efforts to improve both recruitment and retention is thinking very carefully about housing and how we go about providing the housing that's required for personnel.

I don't have a breakdown of the kind that you request, but I would say that the government is very focused on ensuring that we are doing what we can to ensure that people have the housing that they require. Obviously, DHA provides a whole range of services to the ADF. That includes supporting housing solutions in a range of places where we're seeking to deploy personnel.

We have childcare places on base—I'm assuming that we still do. Some of them are just outside the front gate. Is that DHA? Do they actually own those houses that we're using the child care for?

The advice I have is that DHA doesn't operate the childcare services.

I probably didn't phrase that right. I'm not asking you if they operate them. I'm asking you whether they own the buildings that our childcare centres are set up in on base. Are they DHA housing?

The advice I have is no. There may be some individual circumstances where this occurs, but the advice I have before me right now is no. If there's anything different, I will advise you. If there's anything to the contrary of that, I'll let you know.

Thank you. I don't have any more questions after this, but I will state one thing. We're already having childcare issues on base where we've got excess children and not enough child carers. I'm just asking you, while you consider this with the families coming over, that childcare services are provided in those areas, because there are many right now that are not.

Minister, do you want to respond to that? It wasn't a question; it was a statement.

I'd just like to assure Senator Lambie that I will refer that to the minister. Thanks for the contribution.

This is my final question, Minister. You say you can't share the AUKUS cost-sharing principles, because they're secret. You won't answer the actual cost to budget, if there is a cost to budget, for the building of those homes. Perhaps you'll answer this simple question: for the homes that are being built for US troops, will the ultimate cost be paid for by the US government or by the Australian government?

Senator Shoebridge, I have already provided information to you on a number of occasions about how the costs will be determined. I don't have anything further to add to the answer I've already provided.

The minister previously tried to get around the question of defence spending by saying what the government would do 'over the decade'. That money is largely gone to fund the nuclear powered submarine. What additional money is the government willing to commit to defence in this term, including for defence housing?

I've already explained on a number of occasions that I think that questions about the broader defence budget really can be asked in other forums. They're not immediately relevant to the legislation that's before us, and I'd encourage senators to return their attention to the amendments that are in front of us.

Minister, a small cohort of advancing personnel from the United States will arrive in this quarter. Is there adequate housing in place to support these advancing personnel?

The advice I have is yes.

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 3383 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 10 to 12), omit the definition of government.

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 13 to 21), omit the definition of government body.

(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 22 and 23), omit the definition of military organisation.

(4) Schedule 1, items 3 and 4, page 3 (line 30) to page 4 (line 21), omit the items, substitute:

3 After paragraph 5(1)(d)

Insert:

and (e) accredited representatives of registered charities and their families;

I spoke on this in the second reading contribution. This would remove from the bill the ability for Defence Housing to build housing for US and UK troops, for Israeli defence contractors, for employees of Lockheed Martin. I commend the amendments to the committee.

The question is that amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 3383 be agreed to.

We will now move to two-minute statements.

Not often can you combine something you enjoy doing with doing something good for the community, but the members of the Veteran Car Club of Australia, Tasmania division, do precisely that. In Tasmania, there are more than 700 members of this club who meet on a regular basis not only to share their joy and love for all things mechanical and often aged but also to raise some much-needed funds for our community sector. So I want to give that club a shout-out today for the good things they do. There are 700 members around the state who do charitable work while enjoying vintage cars. Once a year, they do a major event. In February of this year, at their major rally, they raised $8,000, of which half went to the Hobart City Mission and the other half went to the Rotary Club of Tasmania.

I want to applaud members of the Veteran Car Club of Australia, Tasmania division, who also produce an excellent newsletter that covers all of the events throughout the state and promotes some very good activities. Again, highlighting the good work they do for charity groups across the state, more of this needs to happen, where volunteers can come together and put in those cherished weekend hours to achieve something good for our community. So I say to the executive and to the members of the Veteran Car Club of Australia, Tasmania division, thank you for what you do. I encourage as many Tasmanians as possible to join this club and enjoy it.

In its first 100 days of a second term, the Albanese Labor government has moved swiftly to deliver on its bold reform agenda, prioritising relief for students, working Australians and families right across the country. One of the most significant actions has been the reduction of HECS and student debt—a long-awaited change that promises to ease the financial burden on graduates. By cutting fees and recalibrating the repayment rates, the government has provided immediate breathing room for tens of thousands of young Australians, including 53,000 Tasmanians. We on this side are empowering people and their careers so that they're not held back by debt.

Boosting wages has been another central focus. Through targeted industrial reforms and close collaboration with unions and employers, the government has overseen a measurable increase in take-home pay. Wages are up, inflation is down, and interest rates are coming down—all great news—under this government.

Healthcare accessibility has been dramatically improved with the rollout of 90 urgent care clinics, centrally located across urban and regional Australia, offering free access to GPs and ensuring families receive prompt care without the stress of out-of-pocket costs or lengthy waits in crowded emergency rooms. All you need is your Medicare card, not your credit card.

Looking forward, the Albanese Labor government has laid out an ambitious plan to boost national productivity through investments in skills, training, digital infrastructure and innovation, and the approach is to lift living standards to strengthen the economy and secure Australians' prosperity for generations to come.

They're our priorities. That's what we're delivering in the first 100 days, building on all that we did during our first term. I'm proud to be a part of the Albanese Labor government.

Why is the AFL bringing in an international artist, a slur merchant, and paying them $2 million rather than backing Aussie talent? The AFL have decided that, rather than putting on an Australian artist for the grand final, they're going to pay Snoop Dogg $2 million to play at the grand final. The AFL is a cultural institution, and cultural institutions like this should be backing the rest of our cultural institutions—our artists, our musicians and our music industry right here at home.

Of course, the AFL has been mired in its own controversy over the last week or so. We know that one of the players, Adelaide Crows player Izak Rankine, was suspended last week for using homophobic slurs—as he should have been. But the irony is not lost on many of us that, while Izak Rankine gets dumped, Snoop Dogg gets $2 million to play his misogynistic, homophobic music on our turf.

We need investment in Aussie talent. We need investment in our music industry, and we need to say that, if it's an Aussie game, it's an Aussie artist playing. I urge the AFL: have the guts to rethink this decision. Use last week's outcry from the Australian community about homophobia and misogyny to dump Snoop Dogg and put in place an Aussie artist. If you need any ideas, the Australian people have a list as long as my arm of all the Aussie bands and Aussie artists that would be better than Snoop Dogg and his misogynistic, homophobic slur merchanting.

In this chamber, we have done as much as we can as quickly as we can—Senator Grogan, Senator McLachlan and I moved a motion—about the algal bloom stuff, but we need more. We need more out there. People need to ask what they can do to help. I note Senator Hanson-Young has made great steps as chair of the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee to bring on the pace of this inquiry, and we will get down there and do what we can do. But when we see Bart Butson from Port Wakefield and see Steve Bowley, an oyster grower who hasn't been able to sell an oyster for over 100 days—that's part of the problem going forward. People are catching or growing seafood and are bringing it to market, but it's not selling.

So I'm here to say help out by getting South Australian fish on your plate now. If it is being sold, it is safe. If you're seeing King George whiting out there, buy it. If you're seeing garfish, buy it. If you're seeing Coffin Bay oysters, get them. Let's get 'boat to barbie' happening to support the industry and to support these people going out there. These people are doing it tough. We in this Senate are trying to see what we can do to make it better, but, out there in the everyday world, when you go to the shops and you go to the pubs, ask for these things. It is a real commonsense way to help these communities out. They're seeing people cancelling holidays. The bad news about this algal bloom is that, while it is troublesome, the negative publicity it is carrying to this area and the seafood industry is really bad. It is safe. It is tasty. It is delicious. So get down there. As I said, they're from boat to barbie. Support your South Australian seafood industry, and we'll be down there to help out soon.

I rise to honour the passing of the life of a very successful and very kind entrepreneur and community minded member of the Central Coast—none other than George Brand. If people looked up George Brand on the internet, they would find out that there is a big company on the Central Coast with six offices that describes itself as a dynamic and innovative property firm based on the Central Coast. But, essentially, I knew him as 'George down the road', who took over the local real estate and built a real estate connection right across the coast, employing hundreds and hundreds of people over the years. In fact, George started that business selling real estate from a caravan in the suburb that both he and I called home for so much of our lives, Copacabana. Out of that caravan, people's dreams of buying a piece of land and building a home came true.

George, as I said, was an incredibly affable gentleman. He was much loved, and his contributions to the surf life saving community right across the coast are something people will remember for a very, very long time. Indeed, a former member of the House of Representatives in the seat of Robertson, Barry Cohen, was a recipient of a very surprising visit from George at one point in time, who declared that he wanted to make a contribution to Barry Cohen's campaign. George was into anything that was great for our community.

Sadly, he has suffered a long illness, and I know that his family—particularly his beautiful wife, Tosca—are grieving him greatly at this point in time. Can I give my sincere condolences to you, Tosca, to your and George's children, to your grandchildren and to the larger community across the Central Coast—to those who've worked for George or were offered a job by George, like I was, in the wonderful work that he did in more than 50 years in business on the Coast.

Australia's long-term productivity growth rate has hit its lowest point in the last 20 years, dropping to 0.9 per cent. Over the past week, there has been a lot of talk about capital deepening and attracting more investment to Australia. But the truth that Labor don't want to acknowledge is that their insane immigration policy is driving this productivity crisis. We have seen record immigration numbers over the past three years, and early data suggest we'll be back up there again.

Labor has flooded Australia with low-skilled workers while industries are stretched thin, unable to invest in the tools, technology or training that is required to boost efficiency. As a result, everyday Australians are competing for less work in a less productive environment, and wages are flatlining. On top of that disaster, this flood of immigrants needs somewhere to live. So the same Australians that are watching their real wages shrink also get to watch the dream of owning a home evaporate in front of them. It's hard to imagine a more demoralising, dismal state of affairs for young Australians. How can the government talk about productivity without acknowledging this critical issue? How do we expect Australians to work harder when we are stripping them of their rewards?

The out-of-ideas government's response was a so-called economic round table—rebranded, of course, from its original 'productivity' title. They were praying a name change could mask their lack of ideas and solutions. Days of discussions have yielded little more than recycled tax proposals and empty rhetoric. Without serious cuts to immigration, the nation faces further economic stagnation and hardship, leaving everyday Australians to bear the burden of a government that prioritises immigrants over its citizens.

Today I rise so the voices of Port Clinton in South Australia and other regional coastline communities can be heard in this place. I add them to the growing list of people deeply concerned about the impact of the devastating algal bloom off South Australia's coastline.

Port Clinton, like many other coastal regional towns, is home to a community of people. Many rely on the sea for their livelihood. Their collective success or failure is intertwined. Last week Michelle from Port Clinton invited me to visit her incredible community to see and hear firsthand how the algal bloom is impacting their daily lives, their businesses, their children and their community. Many of them are at their wits' end. The caravan park is struggling for bookings. It was empty over the recent school holidays, and they're concerned about what that means for the October long weekend and the upcoming Christmas and summer holidays. Commercial and recreational fishermen haven't caught a fish in months. They're looking for direction and a plan from both the state and federal governments. It's fair to say that, so far, they've been disappointed. They want to know if it's safe to go down to the beach and if it's safe to clean up the dead fish, sharks and rays that wash up daily. They want some transparency on how long the bloom will be around. They're already struggling with cost-of-living pressures, and their income, moving forward, is uncertain. They're hoping the upcoming Senate inquiry will provide answers, transparency and a united effort, as they want a plan and a pathway to recovery.

The tourism website spruiking their beautiful town describes it as having 'wide, sandy beaches perfect for crabbing, fishing and relaxing'. Right now those beaches and the community don't know what the future holds. The people of Port Clinton, like so many other communities in South Australia, need our help.

Those of us that have had the privilege to serve in this fine place know how wonderful it is to get out of here and get back to our electorates—I don't mean that rudely—which I have done for the last couple of weeks. I've reconnected with the Kimberley.

I had the opportunity to visit Magabala Books, which is Australia's leading Indigenous publishing house. The beauty of Magabala Books is that it's Aboriginal owned and led. Magabala celebrates and nurtures the talent and diversity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voices. Based in Broome, Western Australia, Magabala publish Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander authors, artists and illustrators from all over Australia. Magabala publish up to 18 new titles annually across a range of genres—children's picture books, memoir, junior fiction, young adult fiction, adult fiction, non-fiction, graphic novels, social history and poetry. They also keep a substantial backlist in print. Their earliest titles stand strong alongside new releases in the trade and are of significant cultural importance.

I want to thank the CEO, Lilly Brown, for inviting me into Magabala to see the fine work that they do and to actually see that Indigenous artists and poets are being rewarded for the effort they put in. I did a video with Lilly. I was wrapped to be there with her. To restate what I said: I encourage every Australian who happens to be up in the best part of the greatest state of the most wonderful country in the world—the Kimberley in Western Australia—to get up there and go and visit Magabala. Park—there are plenty of places to put your caravan—and get in there. Better still, put your hand in your pocket and purchase a book that has been written by an Indigenous author. Good on you, Lilly. Job well done.

After hearing all the concern in the chamber today about the algal bloom, I thought I'd give an event occurring this Thursday in room 1R1 at 12.15 a plug. For those senators who won't be attending the Senate inquiry in South Australia, this is the Parliamentary Friends of the Great Southern Reef. We're holding a briefing with four of the scientists who are on the frontline of this algal bloom. They'll also be joined at this meeting by a delegation of mayors from South Australia, the chamber of commerce, the fishing industry and a number of other stakeholders. Please come along at 12.15 to room 1R1 this Thursday if you'd like to learn more about the algal bloom.

Information is power. It's an old saying, and that truth has never been more important than right now. Those with agendas who can influence or control the dissemination of information can control public debates and policy in parliaments, and they can even control and influence the outcomes of elections. There's never been a more important time than now to look at disinformation. Disinformation is the deliberate peddling of lies and deceptions by those who have agendas: financial agendas, corporate agendas, political agendas and malicious agendas.

The World Economic Forum's global risk reports, for two years in a row, in 2024 and 2025, have identified misinformation and disinformation as being the biggest threat to human society. The United Nations has identified this information as being the biggest blocker to global climate action. That's why I am proud that the Greens have set up a select committee to look at this issue in this parliament in the next few weeks. Keep an eye out for it.

Only in Australia could a prime minister host a three-day productivity summit, and then, right after it ends, encourage Australians to not do any work. Yet, that's exactly what happened last week. Right after the government spent three days talking for hours and hours about how to get this country moving, the PM released a video on his social media boasting about his right to disconnect law—a law that says the boss can't contact staff after hours.

They talked about how businesses are struggling, how inflation is biting and how our economy needs serious reform. But the moment it was over, their colours were revealed. The PM was on X, reminding everyone that he has ensured they have the right to not answer the phone, to not check emails and to not do any work over the weekend. Think about that! A small-business owner can't even text an employee about Monday morning without risking a complaint. On the one hand, this government says it wants productivity; on the other hand, this government brings in laws that discourage stability, kill initiative and make it harder for people to get ahead.

No-one is saying that you should work 24/7. But, if we want to compete globally, if we want to reward hard work and ambition, we can't keep punishing people for doing a little extra. Our country was built by people who went the extra mile. But now we've got a government telling us to clock out and chill—right after preaching about productivity. It is no wonder we're going nowhere fast.

Do you know what the solution is? I keep saying it: the solution is less government, more freedom. There is your productivity boosting measure.

I rise to highlight the positive changes the Albanese government has already made to growing productivity in our country, particularly in relation to competition reform, which is an important part of Labor's pro-growth, pro-productivity agenda.

Economic competition is vital for our future economic success, because it brings down the price of goods and services, it ends up with better products and innovations and it raises living standards over the long term. The last time we saw significant competition policy reform in this country was in the 1990s. And we saw the productivity and economic dividends from that. Since then, Australia has experienced a rise in market concentration and a fall in economic dynamism—both things that hurt our living standards and our productivity.

One of the ways that this has been affected is through the growth of non-compete clauses, or restraint-of-trade clauses, in employment contracts. These clauses were once reserved for highly paid executives who had access to sensitive information, for instance, or had access to client lists. But they have now proliferated through the Australian economy. Data shows that one in five Australian workers have non-compete clauses. These clauses are applied in a range of different industries. This has a chilling effect on the ability of people to move jobs. These clauses are difficult to litigate and to enforce, because their enforceability is often under question and their scope is difficult to determine. They block productive workers from changing employers and securing pay rises where appropriate.

Some research indicates that, with non-compete clauses, workers earn about four per cent less. For someone on the median wage in Australia, that's around $2,500 less per year. Across an economy that results in billions. That's why the government has introduced reforms to end non-compete clauses for those people earning under $175,000 a year. It also stops firms from using contracts to dodge competition, by cracking down on wage fixing and cracking down on no-poach agreements.

I rise to contribute. On 21 August 1991, when Russia had a very different leader, Ukraine declared its independence after centuries of occupation by other nations—most brutally by the former Soviet Union, who starved millions of Ukrainians to death in 1932 through to 1933.

Ukrainians were finally free.

In 1994, Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons, because the US and the United Kingdom and Russia gave them security guarantees. How's that I going for you? In 2014, Russia then took Crimea.

The world kicked Russia out of the G8. Who cares? Russia doesn't! Then, in February 2022, Putin invaded Ukraine. We've done nothing to stop this—absolutely nothing! It was more of a shock to the rest of the world than it was to Ukrainians and to other countries that border Russia. Putin wants Russia to go back to the dark old ages of the Soviet Union, and that's how he wants his borders done; that's bloody rubbish! As the EU foreign policy chief put it last week, Europeans should 'all start learning Russian if Ukraine does not receive further support'. Key European allies say that Russia poses a direct threat to the European Union and that its massive defence spending shows that the Kremlin has 'a long-term plan for long-term aggression'. It's sitting in front of your face; wake up!

Our Prime Minister says it is in our national interest to back Ukraine. I agree, but there is so much more that this country could be doing to help Ukraine. The last time Ukraine got anything off us was last October—disgraceful! For a start, we can pump out more Bushmasters and give our old ones to Ukraine. We can also give them some Hawkeis, and we can take up Ukraine's invitation to learn how to specially manufacture drones at low cost. Isn't this what we're supposed to be doing with our partners out there? Seriously, your government is not doing enough to help Ukrainians and you need to step up to the plate.

I rise today to congratulate the government on holding its economic round table. But I must also appeal for stronger action to protect Australia's crucial small-business sector. Small businesses make up 33 per cent of our national GDP, yet just 20 years ago it was 42 per cent. Rising costs and red tape are driving the decline, and it matters to me personally. My parents both tried to make their own way into their new home, and I know how tough it is to start and to run a small business.

I wasn't invited to the government's round table. That's fine; I didn't expect an invitation. But, watching the coverage, you'd be forgiven for thinking small business had no seat at the table. So I held my own in Perth last week, bringing together the heads of local business associations and chambers of commerce to discuss the problems. But we kept it solutions focused. One of the strongest ideas to come out of my WA small-business round table was to create a tax band system so that the tax burden, particularly for micro businesses, is shifted towards much larger companies. Another great idea was a $100,000 tax-free threshold, along with the need for national harmonisation of payroll tax. We also proposed that second-year tax be paid in instalments, not upfront, so that promising businesses do not collapse before they've even found their feet. We need small-business bodies directly involved in policymaking and consulted in the formation of new rules and regulations. The WA small-business round table endorsed all these measures as sensible and achievable reforms, and I commend them to you.

Sometimes I wonder what the point is of us all flying down to this bush capital and making laws, because so many of the laws that have been made are not enforced, whether that be about incitement or—

We feel like it's pretty good!

I'm glad Minister Ayres thinks law enforcement is tremendous. I make the point that it's disorderly to interject in a two-minute statement, which is not about politics, but I guess he can't help himself. It's all a big game to him.

The point is that I'm very surprised that the government doesn't care about consumers. Senator Walsh and I spent over a year conducting an inquiry into ASIC, which found that, in fact, its law enforcement was pretty deficient and Australians were losing their life savings because of appalling failures by ASIC, including in some cases where they had received warnings which they had lost—or the dog had eaten! Now we find, after 15 months, that the Treasurer has had this ASIC report sitting on his desk and he hasn't bothered to respond to it. Many colleagues across the aisle will be aware that there is another slew of financial collapses where Australians have lost a lot of money—First Guardian, Shield, Lion. People have lost a lot of money here, and it is because of porous law enforcement, which apparently the government doesn't care about, because they won't look at the enforcement record of the corporate crop. Minister Ayres thinks it is all a big joke, but it's not a big joke to the people who have lost their life savings or lost mental health because of lax law enforcement. So we expect better from the government. We want the government to do better, and we look forward to the government doing better for these Australians.

by leave—I advise changes to ministerial arrangements. Senator McCarthy will be absent from question time this week for personal reasons. In her absence, ministers will represent portfolios during question time in accordance with a letter circulated to the President, party leaders and independent senators.

We will now move to question time.

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Last week, the treasurer announced:

… we are going to have another look at the super performance test …

and that this would be done to remove obstacles and impediments to super investing in areas like housing and other areas where there's clearly a national need. The performance test does not stop superannuation funds from investing in any asset so long as that investment stacks up financially. It does, however, protect superannuation members, ensuring that superannuation is invested solely in the members' best financial interests and preventing super becoming a vehicle for a political agenda. Minister, when the Treasurer says that he will be taking another look at the performance test, specifically what tweaks does the government have in mind?

I thank Senator Hume for the question around an issue that came up during the Treasurer's economic roundtable discussions that were held last week. This was an issue that was raised and has been raised by some. It came up under the section of the roundtable that was looking at capital investment, capital flows and how to ensure that we get the investment in Australia that's needed to support the growing needs of our economy and our country.

The Treasurer has said that he will have a look at it, but he has also made it clear that his assessment of any changes that may come will not be around the super objective and responsibility that funds always look for the best outcome for members. He's been very clear about that. This is one of the areas that has come up. It is going to be an area that will be looked at further, but the Treasurer has not concluded his thinking, nor has the government concluded our thinking on that. This is one of a number of areas which we are doing further work on coming out of the economic reform roundtable, but the Treasurer has been very clear, looking at the performance test, about the areas that he is not going to.

Senator Hume, first supplementary?

When the coalition government introduced the performance test, Australians were paying more for their superannuation fees than they were on their electricity and water bills combined. Thanks to the coalition's reforms, super fees are now at record lows, and super fund investment returns have exceeded market expectations every year since. Millions of Australians will now retire with more, so what problem are you trying to solve? Why do you want to make investments in superannuation that would make Australians worse off? (Time expired)

I don't accept that that is what we are doing—the end of Senator Hume's question. I think we're all on a unity ticket around ensuring that fees for members are low and that outcomes for members are high. That is what we seek for anyone who has a superannuation account. There has been a lot of work, and I'll acknowledge the work, Senator Hume, that you did when you had responsibility for the portfolio in looking at issues around fees. This is not around looking at those matters at all. This is an issue that has come up in the context of allowing superannuation to be invested in Australia and some of the barriers to that occurring. The Treasurer has said he will have a look at it. It has been raised. He will have a look at it. But that will not take away from the fundamental purpose of superannuation— (Time expired)

Senator Hume, second supplementary?

This is complicated, but for those who are worried about what this actually means for them, let me explain Labor's plans in plain English. The Albanese government has said that, to increase productivity, Labor will change the rules so that their personal retirement savings can be used to deliver their campaign commitments. Minister, what assurance can you give Australians who have seen time and time again that when Labor run out of money, they come after yours?

It seems that those opposite haven't learnt anything from the last election. Senator Hume, to carry on like that when you know that is exactly—

A point of order, Madam President. Why is it always that the mean girls go personal?

Senator Hume, I am going to ask you to withdraw that.

I withdraw.

I am kind of struck by that, Senator Hume. I expected better. I always expect better from you, but there you go.

Senator Hume, I will just remind the chamber, and you in particular, how you raise a point of order. You stand, you wait for my call and you respectfully put the point of order. What is your point of order?

Relevance, Madam President. I just want to know why it is that Labor come after Australians' money when they run out of their own.

Senator Hume, you are well aware the minister is entitled to take interjections as part of the question, so I suggest, if you want relevance to your question that you believe is not there, stop interjecting. Minister, please continue.

Just to finish on this, Labor is the party of superannuation. We created it, we strengthen it and we've supported it to 12 per cent. The reason people have superannuation in this country is the Australian Labor Party. Those opposite have sought to undermine it every single time they have the opportunity. You never supported it. You never wanted working people to have superannuation. When you've had the opportunity, you have sought to undermine it. That is not what the Albanese Labor government will ever do with your super.

I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the gallery of a parliamentary delegation from the Committee for National Defence, Security and Foreign Affairs of the National Assembly of Vietnam, led by His Excellency General Le Tan Toi. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and in particular to the Senate.

Honourable senators: Hear, hear!

I note that this is not my first speech. My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Housing is an issue that affects every single Australian. In its first term, the Albanese Labor government took important steps to tackle the housing crisis we inherited. How, in our second term, is the government continuing to support more Australians into homeownership?

I thank Senator Walker for that question and for her advocacy for young Australians. We are so very proud to have you here in the Senate with us. You are right; Australians have been waiting for progress on housing for far too long, and for 10 years those opposite did nothing while the housing crisis got worse. They didn't just do nothing; they didn't even have a housing minister in the cabinet for most of that decade.

But those on this side take this issue seriously because we know that housing costs are the source of anxiety for so many Australian family budgets. We know that the pressure of housing costs make it not only harder to get ahead but even harder to plan for the future. That's why this side of politics is investing $43 billion to build more houses and to increase supply. We are making progress. Under Labor, around half a million new homes have been built around the country. In this term, we are being even more ambitious, moving even faster to deliver more help to more Australians. The Prime Minister announced this morning that we would fast-track our election commitment to give all first home buyers access to five per cent deposits. The government will guarantee a portion of a first home buyer's home loan from 1 October 2025 so they can buy a home with a five per cent deposit and not pay for mortgage insurance, because those of us on this side want more Australians to buy their own home sooner, and with a lower deposit. Not only that; we are rolling out our Help to Buy shared equity scheme later this year for Australians on low and moderate incomes so more Australians can purchase a home with a lower deposit and a smaller mortgage, something Australians support but, clearly, those opposite do not.

Senator Walker, first supplementary?

It was great to see the announcement this morning that the Albanese Labor government is fast-tracking its five per cent deposit policy. Given the scale of the challenges in housing, it is important that the government's responses address multiple parts of the problem. What other measures is the government delivering to improve access to housing?

Thank you, Senator Walker. You're right: deposits aren't the only challenge we, and particularly young Australians, face in housing, and, for 40 years, this country hasn't been building enough houses. Lack of supply is a serious challenge and one that has to continue to be addressed. That's why this government is delivering 55,000 social and affordable homes, working with the states and territories, investing $54 million to manufacture more homes more quickly and making it easier for builders across the country to build more homes more quickly by pausing and streamlining the National Construction Code and turbocharging environmental approvals to unlock thousands more homes. That is all in contrast to those opposite, who continue to interject and who seem to believe that it's only those who can really afford a house who should get one and that government doesn't have a role in trying to improve affordability by investing in supply. That is the position of the opposition. (Time expired)

Senator Walker, second supplementary?

How is the Albanese Labor government working to overcome opposition to building more homes and delivering on its commitment to build more houses for more Australians?

Certainly, one thing about the opposition is that they don't learn from an election. They went to the last election trying to block housing supply improvements, having blocked the Housing Australia Future Fund and in fact pledging to scrap it. The build-to-rent laws would support the construction of around 80,000 new homes to rent. This policy will encourage investment, it will encourage construction, and it will increase supply—more houses and more rentals—but Senator Bragg and the opposition have decided they want to block plans to build more homes. This is what they want. This is the hill on which they choose to make their stand: 'We want to stop more houses being built.' They're standing in the way of 80,000 more homes for Australians, and they believe they're a responsible party of government.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. It's not the question you think it might be. After overseeing an historic rise in red tape in the housing sector during its first term, the government has now decided to copy the coalition's policy of freezing the National Construction Code. The question is: why did Labor say this was a bad idea during the recent election but now says it's a good idea?

Senator, I know that it's something that you probably focus on a lot, but do you know what we're focused on? We're focused on delivering all of the policies which will enable more houses to be built and will ensure that we deal with the supply side of housing affordability. That includes our policy announcement on the construction code, which from memory was for a shorter period than you indicated, because obviously there are also other issues which have to be addressed. It is part of a suite of policies which are about more houses, which you're opposed to.

So, if you want to come in here and, frankly, bleat about, 'Well, we had something to say at the last election'—do you know what else you had to say at the last election? 'We're going to abolish the HAFF.' That's what else you had to say at the last election. You wanted to make it very clear to young Australians: 'Actually, we, the coalition—we, the Liberal Party of Australia—are actually against more homes for Australians.' That is the policy you took to the last election. So, Senator Bragg, if you're in the business of actually wanting to reshape your policies from the last election, I would invite you to consider this: Australians rejected your opposition to more houses. So maybe you should discontinue the current position you have, which is to stand in the way of 80,000 more houses for Australians.

Senator Bragg, first supplementary?

Minister, precisely what pieces of red tape will Labor cut from the 2022 National Construction Code in your proposed 2025 iteration?

I am advised that the NCC 2022 will continue to be adopted, including seven-star energy efficiency, better insulation, higher quality glazing, smarter floor plans and liveable housing provisions. I am advised that final advice on the 2025 NCC from the Australian Building Codes Board in the coming weeks will be provided. Following that, ministers will meet to discuss a final position. I'm also advised that that code has been consulted on for more than a year. I'm sure that Senator Ayres has way more information than I on this detail, and I'm grateful to him for providing me with that brief via Senator Gallagher.

But I would make a broader point: your party has been determinedly against every additional supply measure that we have put forward. Australians firmly rejected that. You should explain to them why you have not— (Time expired)

Senator Bragg, second supplementary?

I do appreciate that additional information. The question now is: when will those changes be made to the 2022 code or the 2025 iteration and legislated by the states as is required under the code? The question is: when will it be done?

Unsurprisingly, I'm sure that Senator Ayres, the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, might be able to provide you with a bit more information on that detail, but we are determined to proceed with this in a way that not only is sensible but also enables more houses to be built. I again return to the fundamental proposition: you are proposing to your party that you will continue to oppose additional supply. I know that is difficult to take—

A point of order on relevance. It was quite a specific question about when the changes will be made by the state parliaments as is required under this code.

Yes, and there were others—when changes will be made, and you also referred to legislation. The minister is being relevant to the question. Thank you, Senator Bragg.

I did respond to that in the first point. The point I would also make is that the coalition policy at the last election was freezing every single safety and quality standard in the NCC for a decade—not a position that was supported by most housing industry peaks or by the states. In relation to that, I have indicated to you that we will seek further information. But I would again make the point, Senator Bragg, that you and the coalition have stood against every housing supply measure that this government has put forward. So no-one in Australia takes you seriously when it comes to— (Time expired)

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator Steele-John, we will wait for the chamber to come to order.

My question is to Senator Gallagher in their capacity as Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Let's be clear—autism is permanent and significant. The language 'mild or moderate' has no clinical definition. Previously the NDIS has stated that autistic children who fall in the level 2 or 3 categories of support when diagnosed are eligible for the scheme on the basis that they require either substantial or very substantial support. Can the minister explain what was meant by 'mild or moderate' autism and confirm whether it's the government's intention to remove children with a diagnosis level of 1 or 2 autism?

Minister Wong?

Point of order—I think the senator said 'Senator Gallagher'. Senator Gallagher is able and happy to take it as Minister for Finance. If the question is dealing with NDIS, that would be Senator McAllister. We'd seek some clarity about who you're directing the question to.

Senator Steele-John, you did indicate it was for the minister responsible for the NDIS, and that is Minister McAllister. Are you happy for me to direct the question to her?

Thanks very much, Senator Steele-John. I know that you know this, but there are 5½ million Australians, or in that order, with disability, and our government's intention is to ensure that all people with disability are supported to live their best lives and to meet their goals. Some of those people, as you also know, are supported by the NDIS. It is a critical, life-changing, incredibly important piece of Australia's social architecture and one that our government is very proud of. Many senators will have heard Minister Butler's speech and his remarks over the last week, where he talked about our determination to ensure that the NDIS is here for the long term to play the role that it is intended to play in supporting people with significant and permanent disability to meet their objectives.

What he also said was that we need to make sure that it is not the only source of support for people with disability. Senators will know that we have been working for some years now, with stakeholders and with states and territories, to answer the question that was put to us by the review undertaken by Bruce Bonyhady and Lisa Paul: what should we do about the absence of supports in the broader community for people with disability who may not be appropriate candidates or suitable candidates for entering into the NDIS? That's the question the government is seeking to answer, senators, and Minister Butler made an important contribution last week about that exact issue.

We know that people with autism, autistic people, have— (Time expired)

Senator Steele-John, first supplementary?

The NDIS provides autistic children with therapies and other supports that have transformed their lives. Their access to supports cannot go backwards because of Labor penny pinching. Minister, can you please assure people with autistic kids and autistic people across the country that they will be able to access appropriate supports, including speech pathology, occupational therapy and psychosocial therapy with no out-of-pocket costs under the new program?

Thank you, Senator Steele-John, for the supplementary question. Evidence based, best-practice early interventions can support children with autism and also children experiencing developmental delay. It can help them, their families and their carers better understand and respond to their child's needs. As the review of the NDIS indicated, it is not always the case that the best way to deliver supports of that kind is through the NDIS, through packages of individualised supports. That review pointed to the opportunities before us to find easier pathways and more appropriate pathways for families to obtain that support.

That is what this government seeks to do. It's a conversation we've been having with stakeholders. Many people contributed to the Bonyhady and Paul review. Many people have contributed to the consultation that took place last year in relation— (Time expired)

Senator Steele-John, second supplementary?

Minister Butler has said that after the Thriving Kids program is operational there will be access changes made to the NDIS so that children with what the government described as mild to moderate autism will no longer be accepted into the NDIS. Can the minister please confirm that there will be no changes made to eligibility for autistic adults?

Senator Steele-John, can I apologise for running out of time on each of your previous questions. I have sought to address them comprehensively, but I've realised on each occasion I should have watched the clock more closely.

Minister Butler's speech last week laid out our priorities. They are the same priorities we agreed with states and territories some time ago. We do seek to establish a system of foundational supports outside of the NDIS, and the place we seek to start is looking for opportunities to work with children and young people. That is the work that we have set about doing. It's the work we have been seeking to progress with states and territories. That remains our priority. Minister Butler has also indicated that at some point there will need to be a further wave of reform, and we would work closely with the disability community on any such reforms.

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. The past month has seen the release of welcome economic data, including the third interest rate cut since the election, helping households with cost-of-living pressures. Wages data has been showing real wages growth for seven consecutive quarters. Labour force data shows unemployment is remaining at a low of 4.2 per cent, and women's labour participation is at record highs. With more people in jobs earning more and keeping more of what they are earning, how will the Albanese Labor government continue to help Australians with cost-of-living assistance, including ways to support first home owners to own their own home?

I think Senator Mulholland for the question. It's an important one because it talks about how the government is working to ensure that we are supporting households with cost-of-living assistance but also looking at further ways we can get Australians, particularly first home buyers, to own their own home.

From 1 July we have had a number of measures come in to help with cost-of-living pressures. We've had the minimum wage increase, the superannuation guarantee rose to 12 per cent, PPL has gone to 24 weeks and super is now being paid on government paid parental leave. We've had more energy bill relief, with an extra $150 off power bills for every household and around one million small businesses. We have put in place our bonus for housing apprentices on top of their wages. Our home battery scheme, the incentive for people to take up home batteries to help cut their power bills, is going very, very well. Paid pracs for nursing, teaching, social work and midwifery students are in place. We are also boosting funding into Medicare, ensuring that people can get access to their GP and primary health care without having to pay. We have our instant asset write-off in place. Legislation has been passed on student debt. We have our Medicare urgent care clinics, and bulk-billing will be expanded from November.

In addition to that, the PM and the housing minister have made an important announcement further around the five per cent first home buyers deposit. This will expand an existing scheme which we know will provide some support to first home buyers to get into the housing market. At the same time, we are providing all of that effort into supply and getting the supply of housing in this country where it should be and where it was ignored for 10 years by those opposite.

Senator Mulholland, first supplementary?

How do the outcomes from last week's Economic Reform Roundtable build on that economic record? What were the key themes and priorities identified in the meeting?

I thank Senator Mulholland for asking a question about the economic reform round table. There were a number of outcomes, a number of directions, looking at how we can work together. This is something those opposite don't understand. They find it quite an unusual concept that you would bring together leaders from business, union leaders and community sector leaders in one room and talk to them about some of the challenges that are going on.

Opposition senators interjecting—

We know that's a foreign concept for you, who only like to talk in a closed room to people that agree with you about what you think. That is your approach to reform. Our approach is to pull together people to represent different sectors and to come out with consensus, where we can, on dealing with some of the challenges, whether it be in housing, technology, regulation or any of those areas that are important to the Australian economy but also important to the Australian people.

Senator Mulholland, second supplementary?

Why is it important that the Albanese Labor government continues to engage with business, unions and experts as we continue to strengthen the economy?

The Albanese government is a government that brings people together. It brings people together, sometimes with different views, to talk about what the challenges are and to find a way through. Some of these things are hard, whether it be environmental law, tech regulation, how we build more homes more quickly or engagement across the Commonwealth and the states. These are not easy issues to solve. They require consultation, discussion and, if possible, agreement. That is the benefit of the Treasurer's economic reform round table. I sat in that round table for periods of time over that three days, and I was struck by the level of willingness from good people in this country coming together to talk about national challenges not necessarily in the lane they usually operate in but across the board. That bodes well for our country and our country's future.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services. It's now been two years since the recommendations of the robodebt royal commission were handed down, yet several still remain unactioned—including reinstating a six-year limit on debt recovery. I'm deeply concerned that over 100,000 income support recipients whose debts were levied using the department's ruthless and dubious method of income apportionment may yet again be pursued by the government for historical debt notices, once more placing vulnerable people at risk of financial and personal crisis. The pursuit of years old, sometimes decades old, debts was one of the features of the social security system that underpinned the robodebt scheme. Will this government finally act on the royal commission's recommendation to legislate a six-year limitation on debt recovery and ensure that the most vulnerable people in our society are not being chased for debts that can date back decades?

I thank Senator Allman-Payne for the question. I can assure you, Senator, that, between the Minister for Social Services and myself, we have had a number of discussions around how we respond to the Federal Court case that considered income apportionment. Just to be clear, because parallels are often drawn between robodebt and income apportionment, robodebt was bad policy dreamt up by those opposite to pursue vulnerable people to provide a budget saving and to threaten them with jail if they didn't pay back debts they didn't owe. That's that. Income apportionment was not designed to punish welfare recipients or to claw back revenue; it was about making life easier for people. Let's be clear about the difference between income apportionment and what happened under their watch—the biggest failure of public administration in our country's history, a decision by them over there to pursue vulnerable Australians for billions of dollars they didn't owe, as it turned out.

We are considering our response to that. Debt, the length of time for debt and low-level debts are all part of the work currently before the Minister for Social Services. She has had a number of discussions with me about that and we will resolve them shortly. I'm not in a position to advise you at the moment about any changes to debt waivers or our policy in relation to that, but we are working through the detail and the judgement of the Federal Court and we will provide a response once those discussions are complete.

Senator Allman-Payne, first supplementary?

The robodebt tragedy was only possible because income support recipients were and still are trapped on poverty payments. This made them acutely vulnerable to the actions of the government. I've personally been contacted by constituents on JobSeeker who cannot afford to eat, pay for essential medications or medical treatment, or keep a roof over their heads. Minister, will Labor finally act to raise the rate of all income support payments above the poverty line?

As the Prime Minister has said on a number of occasions, we review payments through every budget cycle. You will note, Senator Allman-Payne, that we have provided additional above-indexation support for those on JobSeeker and indeed for those on other income support payments, like the single parenting payment, and changed the length of time people can take those payments when it comes to the single parenting payment.

Again, on income apportionment and robodebt, robodebt was designed to raise revenue by clawing back debt from people who never owed that money. Income apportionment was about reducing the reporting burden to try and make it easier for people, and about a third of people benefited from income apportionment over time, whereas, as we know, robodebt indiscriminately made people worse off. But we will continue to look at payments, as we do through every budget cycle. That's what we did last term, and we'll continue to do it this term.

Senator Allman-Payne, second supplementary?

I note that, if one-third benefited, that means two-thirds didn't, and it was found to be unlawful. I'll move to my second supplementary, Minister. Why is it that your government can always find money, billions of dollars, in fact, for American submarines but never for struggling Australians?

Well, that's simply not true. A government has to do a lot of things.

Honourable senators interjecting—

I know those over there find it hilarious. The party of robodebt find this question hilarious. That is how disrespectful you are about people on income support payments. We saw it when you were in government. We saw it when you threatened people with jail for debts they didn't earn.

Senator Cash, do you remember that? You would have been sitting around the cabinet table. On the issue of allocation of budget funding, a significant proportion is, as appropriate, provided in income support payments through Services Australia, whether it be JobSeeker, the family tax payment, the single parenting payment or the age pension—all of those. The allocation for the Defence budget is smaller than that. Our priority is the Australian people.

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. When will the Treasurer introduce quantifiable fiscal rules to contain his spending spree?

Isn't it interesting that they're obsessed with fiscal rules when it didn't seem to bother them at all—

Really?

Well, you had a fiscal rule.

How's your spending going?

Here's a fiscal rule! Why don't we harass and hunt down people on income support to provide a saving to the budget, which is actually costing billions of dollars and is still tied up in court? How about that for a little fiscal rule!

Madam President, a point of order on direct relevance. I asked: when will the Treasurer introduce quantifiable fiscal rules?

There's no need to repeat the question, thank you, Senator Henderson. I have reminded you of that frequently. I will remind the minister to answer the question on behalf of the government.

I'll give you another fiscal rule. Do you remember when you promised surpluses every year but actually delivered none? Do you remember that? That rule went very well, didn't it? What about paying down debt when debt skyrocketed under you? That was another rule—'We'll pay down debt,' and you never did. It actually tripled under you.

Madam President, a point of order on direct relevance. The minister clearly does not know what fiscal rules are. Could she please address the question?

Senator Henderson, the previous time you stood, I reminded you not to go off the point of order—and you did exactly that. I will draw the minister to your question and how it relates to the government. Minister Gallagher.

Remember those who went to the last election promising to up everybody's tax? Remember—a tax increase for everyone. There's another fiscal rule from them. We had raise your taxes, never deliver a surplus and triple the debt. That's it. We have fiscal—

Order! Senator Henderson, on a point of order?

Madam President, on direct relevance. I asked the minister to address my question, not go on this absolute rant which has got nothing to do with the question.

Senator Henderson, the commentary is unnecessary. Every time you've stood and called a point of order I have reminded you of that. I have drawn the minister back to the question. I've asked her to answer it from the government's perspective. Minister Wong?

President, I didn't intervene on the last occasion, but this senator has, I think, been quite wilful in her disregard for your rulings and exhortations. You have asked her repeatedly not to repeat the question.

Honourable senators interjecting—

No. It is about respecting the Senate, respecting the President and respecting the standing orders.

Give me a break, Senator Wong.

Senator Henderson, come to order please.

Senator Henderson should stop wilfully disregarding your ruling in relation to how she deals with points of order, and I'd ask you to consider how that can be enforced.

Thank you, Senator Wong. Senator Cash?

On the point of order, the coalition is clearly going to require guidance for the balance of this parliament. Are we now saying—and we would ask for a ruling on this—you can only raise the words 'relevance' or 'direct relevance' with no further context? Because I would suggest that in the previous parliament, when we were in government for nine years, that was not the rule.

Senator Cash, with respect, you have taken me out of context. Order! What I've asked senators not to do is put commentary around the point of order. I have, on every occasion that Senator Henderson has raised the point of order, reminded her of that and have also drawn the minister back to the question. I have been completely responsible in the way that I have responded to the point of order—but I will not have public commentary being made around questions. It's not the opportunity for senators to make commentary; it is the opportunity for senators to raise points of order. I accepted the point of order, and I have drawn the minister three times back to the question. Minister Gallagher.

It appears that Senator Henderson hasn't actually read the budget, because if she had read the budget—it's actually quite early in the budget, and I accept that the budget is a number of books and you probably don't want to read all of it—there is a section of the budget that goes through the fiscal strategy. And in that, the fiscal strategy says we 'will improve the budget position', which we have. We've delivered two surpluses. We've improved the budget position by $207 billion—

Minister, please resume your seat.

Senator Watt, order! Senator Henderson.

Madam President, I would ask that you ask the minister to answer my question in relation to quantifiable fiscal rules.

Thank you, Senator Henderson. The minister is being directly relevant to your question. Minister Gallagher.

Our fiscal strategy includes improving the budget position. We've done that—the biggest fiscal turnaround of any first-term government ever. Our rules also include 'reducing gross debt as a share of the economy'—tick, done that. We've got debt down by $177 billion, and it's expected—

Order! Senator Henderson, I haven't called you yet. Please resume your seat. Order across the chamber. We've just had both leaders on their feet talking about the need to be respectful of my rulings, and just then, in response to the final parts of the minister's questions, those on my left were entirely out of order. If your leader is on her feet that applies to the entirety of question time, not just the bits you choose to take or leave. Senator Henderson, first supplementary?

In summarising key outcomes from the taxpayer funded talkfest, the Treasurer failed to mention the calls made by attendees of the roundtable for budget rules to be put in place to restore fiscal discipline. Why is the Treasurer ignoring the very people he gathered to advise him last week?

I don't agree with that and I don't agree with the imputation on the roundtable at all. I noticed the shadow Treasurer attended it, so I think you're casting aspersions on him and on his attendance at the meeting by that. Can I say that budget sustainability was a session on a published agenda that was released about the Economic Reform Roundtable. It has also been covered in the discussion of outcomes from the roundtable, so I don't know what aspect in particular Senator Henderson is seeking from that, but it was a section that was discussed. It was covered in the outcomes and it's been covered in the media.

Senator Henderson, second supplementary?

What level of spending as a percentage of GDP does the Treasurer believe is in the best long-term interest of Australia?

We think that the quality of spending matters, like how you spend and what you spend on matters. But I would point out to Senator Henderson that, in terms of spending growth, we've kept average real spending growth to 1.7 per cent per year over the seven years to 2028-29—around half of the 30-year average, which was 3.2 per cent. I would also draw your attention to the fact that, whilst you were in government, it was 4.1 per cent and 2.7 per cent pre pandemic. We consider these things through the budget process, but we have a fiscal strategy. We are sticking to that strategy, we are delivering to that strategy and there is more work to do.

My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher, relating to taxation proposals debated at last week's productivity roundtable. The proposal was to force homeowners with a spare bedroom to take in strangers as renters under threat of financial penalty—a tax—if they don't. Why did the roundtable even consider this monstrous idea, and will you now rule the idea out so our elderly can have peace of mind they won't have strangers forced into their family homes?

I thank Senator Roberts for the question. There was a pretty wide discussion on tax and Australia's tax system. I did not attend all of the sessions and I was not at a session where that was raised. There was discussion around housing, as you would expect, and different views were being put around the table.

What I picked up from the two sessions that I attended late on the third day was a view about ensuring that the tax system is efficient. There were certainly views about it being simplified. There were different views around business taxation, and there were discussions around intergenerational equity—about how the tax system is working for different generations. But the specifics of what you've raised were not raised with me by any roundtable participant, and I was not at a session where they were raised as something that people were seeking. It's not something the government has worked on.

Senator Roberts, first supplementary?

Additionally, the roundtable debated a death tax on the family home and a land tax on the value of the property. Are these mutually exclusive taxes, or will this government be introducing all three?

Again, in the sessions that I was a participant at, that was not raised. I think the Treasurer and the Prime Minister were clear in the lead-up to the roundtable that there are no plans to change the taxation of owner occupied homes, and I have not been part of any discussions around that. Part of the discussion that was had was much more high level around how the tax system is working, how complicated it can be and whether or not the system is fair and working in the interest of every generation in this country. There were mixed views about that. But there were certainly no outcomes that went anywhere near what you have been asking about today. The tax reforms we will be doing are the ones we took to the election around standard deductions and income tax.

Senator Roberts, second supplementary?

All three of these new proposals will force everyday Australians out of their homes to make way for the large families and family co-location evident amongst new arrivals. Labor Party aligned researcher Kos Samaras has shown that these new arrivals vote heavily for Labor. Minister, why are you forcing Australians out of their homes to make way for Labor-voting new arrivals, and where are Australians supposed to go?

There was a lot in that. I hope that I have answered your concerns around some of the ideas you say. They were not outcomes. In fact, in the sessions I was at, they were not raised. I don't know anything about that. In relation to housing more generally, we are trying to build more housing. That is part of what we've been doing in this place and will continue to do, and, indeed, the announcement by the Prime Minister and the housing minister today was about how we ensure that owning your own home isn't out of reach for generations of Australians and how we build more supply. In that respect, I hope that answers the second part. In terms of migration numbers, they're outlined in the budget papers.

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Minister, the Australian Financial Review recently reported:

The federal and state government spending splurge has hit the highest level since the end of World War II …

…   …   …

More than half of voters now rely on governments for most of their income, through public-sector wages, welfare benefits or subsidies …

…   …   …

Four in five jobs created in the past two years have been in the non-market sector …

My question is: is our economy just one giant taxpayer funded vote-buying rort?

Well, the answer to that is no. In relation to the creation of jobs, I've heard this used quite a lot by members of parliament and senators about non-market jobs and that, for some reason, they're less valuable than any other job.

No, that's not what's being said.

That's the insinuation I've heard from your colleagues, Senator Cash, and I've just heard it from Senator Babet. They are jobs in aged care. They are jobs in early education and care. They are jobs in disability services. They are non-market jobs, and I think we should have an honest discussion about the fact that we need those jobs. They are good jobs. They probably haven't been paid enough in the past, and we are trying to address that through the work of ministers and my colleagues on this side of the chamber. We've supported wage increases for aged-care workers, and we're seeing increases for early childhood educators as well. We, on this side, do not dismiss non-market jobs. They are good jobs. The services sector is an important part of our economy, and we need to make sure that we are investing in it so that, when you, Senator Babet, are 75 or 80 or 85 or 90, you will get the care that you deserve. That is what we are trying to do in that part of the economy. In relation to the other parts of your question, the answer is no.

Senator Babet, first supplementary?

The same article mentioned:

Federal Treasury warned in a post-election briefing to Treasurer Jim Chalmers that government spending must be cut and taxes increased to put the federal budget on a sustainable footing.

What meaningful budget cuts will the government undertake to ensure that taxes don't have to be increased?

Incoming government briefs raise a lot of issues and draw a lot of issues to ministers' attention. In relation to spending, we are always looking at how we can find savings across the budget. We've found $100 billion in savings over our last budget since we came to government—$100 billion! Contrast that with those opposite—none, zero, zilch. Zilch versus $100 billion that we have found. And it is important because it does a number of things. It repairs the budget, but it also allows us to invest in those areas of the economy where we need to make investments, whether it be in housing, whether it be in defence, whether it be in disability services or early childhood education. You have a budget for a reason, and that's so that you can invest in these areas that are important national priorities. We will continue to look for savings. We went to the election with another $6.4 billion in savings to find from the public service. And we'll continue to do that.

Senator Babet, second supplementary?

We've projected expenditure growth, especially in areas like disability. It is likely that you will eventually run out of other people's money, and you'll probably consider other taxes. Minister, can you please confirm that under this government there will be no increases in superannuation or the GST?

():  The tax policies we took to the election were around standard deductions—making it easier for people to put their tax returns in and to lower income tax. They were the taxes that we took to the election and they remain the government's policy. We consider all of these matters through the annual budget process.

My question is for the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. On Insiders on Sunday, David Speers asked the Treasurer, 'Will we see anything further on tax in your next budget?' The Treasurer replied, 'Well, it remains to be seen.' But on Sky News on 8 August the Prime Minister said, 'the only tax policy that we are implementing is the one that we took to the election'. Minister, who is right—the Prime Minister or the Treasurer?

I didn't catch the Treasurer's interview yesterday—

That's convenient.

Opposition senators interjecting—

They're getting too excited over there. But I read the transcript, so there you go.

Answer the question.

I've just answered Senator Babet's question along similar lines. The tax policy that we are implementing is the tax policy we took to the last election, which is around standard deductions. It's also around income tax reductions. I remind everybody that this mob over here, who are now so concerned about tax, were the ones who went to the last election wanting to raise everyone's income tax. Let's just remember that.

I know. It's a little uncomfortable, isn't it, Senator Paterson? You had to go out and sell it every single day—oh, dear. They're now very, very concerned about this matter, after having a policy which was actually to hike up everyone's taxes. But we've been clear. The tax policy we took to the last election is the one that we're implementing, along with a whole range of other measures that we went to the budget over.

In response to Senator Allman-Payne and Senator Babet, we look at the revenue and spending lines of our budgets through every budget process. That is what we've done in our last budgets and that is what we will continue to do. That's what responsible governments do. They look at where the pressures are. They look at how you fund those pressures. They look at savings. We know that this might be a foreign concept to those opposite, who didn't have that fiscal discipline when they were in government. We've delivered surpluses, we've found savings, we've returned money to budget, we've lowered debt, we've lowered interest on that debt and we've been able to invest in those national priorities that people value, and we will continue to do so. (Time expired)

Senator Paterson, first supplementary?

():  I'm still not clear on whether you agree with the Prime Minister or the Treasurer, but let's persist. Before the election, again on Sky News, the Prime Minister on 1 May ruled out additional tax changes after the election, including changes to negative gearing, saying, 'What we've got is our policies out there for all to see'. Does the Prime Minister's promise to not raise taxes after the election still stand?

The only party promising to raise taxes at the last election was yours, Senator Paterson. That is what the shadow cabinet, with you as a member, decided. I have heard the PM say that before the election. I've heard the PM say it after the election. Our tax policies are the ones that we took to the election—standard deductions and lowering income tax. You were about hiking up income tax, and you took that to the election, and the people of Australia had a look at what you were offering, and they said: 'No. No, thanks.' So we are implementing the policies that we took to the last election, whether they be in tax, health care and investing in Medicare, opening up more urgent care clinics and expanding on bulk-billing rates, or whether they be our investments in education, skills, training or housing. All of those commitments that we took to the election that were costed and released before the election are the ones that we will be delivering upon.

Senator Paterson, second supplementary?

If that is indeed the case, then this should be a very easy question for you to answer: will you rule out any tax changes this term that were not taken to the election? Yes or no?

Whilst Senator Paterson can ask the question, he can't tell me how to answer the question—and that's the way this whole relationship goes, Senator Paterson. So thank you for the question. I refer to my previous answers and also highlight the fact that there were discussions with the states around road user charging and a couple of other areas. We're a responsible government. We consider matters as they arise. The round table was a good and positive thing for this country. I know that you've all decided to ridicule it and diminish it, which is a decision that you can defend. But, from my reading of the discussions around the table last week, it was positive. The amount of people that wanted to lean in and be a part of the discussion and also understand some of the challenges facing our community and economy was real. There was a level of buy-in that we don't get from you.

I ask that further questions be placed on notice.

In question time on 31 July 2025, I undertook to provide further information in response to questions asked of me by Senator Whitten in my capacity as the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship relating to the number of non-citizen visa holders. I've written to the senator to provide additional information, and I have tabled my letter to the senator for the information of all senators.

I move:

That the Senate take note of answers given to all coalition senators' questions today.

I want to start with the last question that was asked by Senator Paterson. What was very telling in the response from Minister Gallagher was her unwillingness to give a very simple response to a question that only required either a yes or a no answer. What we're seeing with this government here, with the charade of the productivity so-called round table last week, is that they're laying the foundation for some changes when it comes to tax.

There's no doubt that this government is laying the foundation to impose higher taxes on Australians because they have no other option but to raise taxes for hardworking Australians—because of their spending. The spending that is going on with this government is out of control, and it is impacting upon the ability of this country to pay for it and afford it. The only way you can do that is if you increase taxes.

It's just like they did in the last term with their so-called Jobs and Skills Summit, where they used that as a method to bring in legislation that wasn't talked about before the previous election. When it comes to industrial relations, they use the Jobs and Skills Summit to be the vehicle to justify significant changes in the industrial relations landscape. I've got no doubt that that is the tactic that they're employing here with their so-called productivity round table, which they held last week as a way of saying some ideas came out of that forum that they could then take on and use to justify changes to the taxation system.

Now, this is not something Australians voted for at the last election. In fact, there were commitments made, and we heard it through the questions that were asked and the statements that were made. The Prime Minister said that there won't be any changes, but we know that the Treasurer is not so convinced. As Senator Paterson pointed to, there was an interview that took place on 24 August where the Treasurer said, 'It remains to be seen,' as to whether or not there will be any increased taxes. What we've got is a real difference between what the Prime Minister is saying and what the Treasurer is saying. The Treasurer knows that the only way that they can deal with their increase in spending, their out-of-control spending, is to increase the taxes that Australians are paying. That is, of course, going to have a significant impact on productivity, the very thing that that whole forum was meant to be about last week—increasing productivity. It's the P-word that this government will not deal with. They will not deal adequately with the significant productivity changes.

I mentioned industrial relations. We're seeing such low levels of productivity in this country because of all the complications that this government has imposed on businesses operating. Productivity is at an all-time low. I've just spent the last week up in the Pilbara. The resources sector is known as one of the most productive sectors of our industry, of our economy, and we're seeing the unions get more involved in workplaces—workplaces that pay the highest possible wages, well above market rates. We're seeing more and more involvement of unions there, increasing the complexity of running a worksite, increasing the complexity of delivering for customers and increasing the complexity of what it takes to deliver a profit, return the profit to shareholders and, indeed, make this country productive.

That's what we're seeing under this government because this government is out of control when it comes to managing the economy. We're going to see the impact of this in time. I have no doubt that they've laid the foundation. They're going through it, and it will only be a matter of time before we see some tax proposed, and they'll say, 'This is what was discussed,' or, 'This was the foundation that was laid at the productivity roundtable last week.' Well, Australians will see through this, and they will hold you to account.

I look forward to making my contribution here, but, for the poor devils who may have just tuned in or been sitting through this painful last hour and 10 minutes, you could quite rightfully ask, 'Are we on the same planet?' We are; we're on the same planet. That mob over there—I don't know what planet you mob are on. I really have no idea.

I won't apologise—I actually come with dirt under the fingernails. I actually worked blue-collar. I actually had my own business. For those over there who've just come through university, joined the Young Liberals, latched onto a senator or a member and then got themselves a good seat, I apologise. It's not your fault; you know no better. But, seriously, through my whole working life, there has been nothing more powerful, whether you are in your worksite or with your workmates, whether there be two, three, four or five of you or hundreds, than when you actually have the ability to engage, talk to your employer and talk with your workmates in front of the employer to put forth ideas about how you improve your workplace, how you improve the boss's profitability—there's no problem with that—how you make it a far safer workplace and how you all share in the spoils of profitability.

The Albanese government needs to be commended. As I was reminded earlier on in question time, there were nine long years, three prime ministers and a rabble where the tail wagged the mangy dog. The tail, the Nats, were wagging to get the mangy dog, the Libs, moving. They prided themselves on secrecy and behind-doors dealings, always behind doors, and then they'd lob it on us. The Albanese government comes up under the brilliant stewardship of the Treasurer, Dr Chalmers, to say to the Australian public: 'What can we do, and how can we do better? What are your ideas? Everything's on the table—it's not a problem. Come and share them. Come to Canberra not for one minute, not for 10 minutes, not for half an hour and not for an hour but for three days. Chuck out all the ideas you've got.' Fantastic; I applaud that.

What they don't tell you is that there wasn't just one productivity roundtable for three days; there were many. There were dozens going on around the nation. All the ministers, as well as the other government members of parliament, were engaging with their communities in productivity roundtables to get ideas to bring back to the government, because we on the Labor side don't sit there like the master-servant side over there, who say, 'We've got all the great ideas, and everyone else is dumb.' We actually want to share and get feedback. And what did we get? It makes me want to vomit—'Sky after dark'. I can't believe I've actually used those words! I must say there are a number on that side over there. I've heard that the Nats' and the Libs' members, the actual grassroots members, tune into 'Sky after dark' so they can work out what the hell their party is on about, because they don't know because they don't get engaged and they don't get included. We want to include.

I applaud the government. I applaud the Prime Minister and Dr Chalmers for having that ability to say, 'Let's get some ideas.' There were all these ideas flagged around. I heard Senator Roberts. I've got the greatest of respect for Senator Roberts. I don't agree with anything that he does politically, but I think he's a very nice, decent human being—I really do. Senator Antic is a real good guy, but we're not on the same page, mate. But you're a decent man, and I know you've got to play up to your constituents at 'Sky after dark'. I get that. But you heard Senator Roberts ask Minister Gallagher three times about something that he's heard or read in 'Sky after dark' or the Murdoch media about how your bedroom's going to get taxed if it's spare. The minister could not have been more clear—not once, not twice but three times—that there's no such tax. Then we hear the regurgitation coming because this lot have read stuff in the Murdoch media, that trash, or 'Sky after dark' that keep wanting to tell lies. It's not happening.

I feel so sorry for the Australian public. I note up in the galleries are school children. Please—we're not all like this. There are actually some decent people here that are absolutely concerned about your best interests and where we go for your future. After all these years, I think I need to take a pill. I need to have a lie down, because this is just getting worse and worse, and it's not just me. I'm actually embarrassed of the standards of the questions that come from the most inept opposition that we've seen in many, many decades. (Time expired)

I'd just like to convey, for having received the lovely feedback from Senator Sterle about me being a very decent human being—it's very true, by the way; I am—that back. You're on the wrong side of the chamber, I reckon. I don't know what you're doing over there mixing with the socialists. You should be over with the good guys, where you belong, because I think you're alright too. That's a lovely moment for the Australian people. But we are here to talk about more important matters than my love for Senator Sterle. We are here to talk about the important matters that were raised by the coalition senators on this side this afternoon.

One of them was a very good question, from Senator Bragg, who asked the minister about the housing crisis. By the way, it's not a storm on the horizon. It's here right now today, and Australians are feeling the pinch of that crisis. Of course, if it were true that those opposite were actually speaking to real Australians, they would understand that in the way that we understand it. Every time I talk to an Australian, be they young or old, they tell me the same thing is on their mind, and that is the state of housing in this country. The minister glossed over the response, I think, to the question. The question was what was driving this. The answer to that is multifactorial. The main one, of course, is the state of the economy generally. We've seen Labor promising working families in this country for a long period of time now a better life, but they're delivering weaker growth, higher energy costs and falling living standards. Household growth in itself is going backwards at a rate of knots, and productivity has flatlined. In fact we know, because we on this side of the chamber have said it until we're blue in the face that Australia's plunged from 13th to 18th in global competitiveness over the last few years. Prices across the board are skyrocketing, and that is affecting the housing market more than anything at all. We've heard them campaigning against this National Construction Code, and now they tell us that they themselves want to freeze the National Construction Code. They really don't understand the nexus and genesis of what's happening. But we have to understand that there is an elephant in the room when it comes to the housing crisis—that is, the mass migration crisis that we're seeing in this country and that we have seen over the last few years.

The financial year 2023-24 saw net overseas migration at around 446,000 new people coming into this country. The previous year was just over half a million—536,000—people coming into this country. That's just over a million people that have entered this country over the last couple of years. Australians are now competing with people from overseas every single day to afford affordable homes to either rent or buy. It's not only the housing market which is under threat; it's also our transport system, our health care and our schools. The fact is that immigration should be doing something for Australia rather than the other way around.

I would suggest that the current model of mass migration is not serving the interests of the Australian people any longer; in fact, it is now doing quite the opposite. The number of times young Australians have talked to me about turning up to rental inspections and being there with 50 to 100 other people—all waiting in line and all looking for their opportunity to rent a property—is the overarching factor over and above the competition and the state of the economy. I know that, at the last two elections, I didn't hear that discussed by the government; I didn't hear this plan to continue to allow huge numbers of people through the gates. I certainly didn't vote for anything of that nature with that in mind, and there are no Australians that I'm aware of that did that either.

This policy is, frankly, tearing at the fabric of this country. It is taking away from Australians what they have an absolute right to expect. We heard, over the election period, Morgan Cox get on Q+A on the ABC and talk about this very issue only for 'how dare he' to be howled at him. This is a man with a young family and a wife—who was born overseas, I think—so hardly the caricature of a person that they like to cast in this. Talk about this very issue, how it's affecting Australians and what it is doing to the very fabric of this nation. That is the overriding issue on the housing crisis, I would suggest.

What a question time that was. We had a question on superannuation from the party who wants young Australians to drain their superannuation in order to get into housing. We had a question on housing, again, from the party who voted against our government's entire housing agenda in cahoots with the Greens. We had a question on the application of fiscal rules from the party who repeatedly fail to follow their own in government. And we had a question on tax from the party who took higher income taxes to the last election as their policy and then were shocked when the Australian people rejected it. What a way to set the agenda in question time. But let's go to housing.

I am deeply proud of our government's housing agenda. As I said, whilst those opposite think the way to solve the housing crisis is to tell young Australians that they cannot both have a meaningful retirement through superannuation and own a home, their policy is—and has been for a number of years—to get young Australians to rip out their super to pay for housing. We have a higher ambition for young Australians. We believe young Australians deserve to have both.

We know that, in Australia, it is simply too hard for too many people to get into a home. This isn't just an issue for young Australians—although it affects young Australians most acutely—who are seeing a completely different intergenerational deal being offered to them than what was offered to the generations beforehand. We've got an opposition party who is coming up with policies which will continue to undermine that and which will continue to affect and alter that intergenerational bargaining by saying, 'You can use your superannuation to buy housing.' What about your retirement? Why can you not have both? We need to have a better ambition for young Australians and a better deal for them.

The fact is, when it comes to our housing market, this is a problem fundamentally of supply. For the past three years in government we have pulled every lever we can to try to increase supply of houses into the market. And the fact is: every single time we walked into this place with a proposal to increase supply and a bill which would increase the number of houses available to Australians, which would help Australians get into the housing market, what did those opposite do? They voted against it. They joined up in the 'noalition' across the benches in this place to vote against a housing agenda which would have made a difference to supply and to young Australians.

But we know the work of our last term of government is not everything. There is still so much more we can do and are doing. We are putting every single idea on the table to unlock more houses into the market to help Australians buy a home because we understand fundamentally what that means to young Australians and what that intergenerational bargain should be. It shouldn't be the case that your parents and your grandparents got to enjoy a different standard of living and a higher standard of living than you could ever hope to as a working Australian. That shouldn't be the case for young people in Australia.

Yes, we held our economic round table, the principle being to bring the best ideas to the table because we are a government that listens, that consults and which thinks we are better when we have more evidence, more facts and more substance to the policy narratives and discussions we are having in this country. We think that makes us a better government, makes our ministers better and makes our policies better, and that means we can deliver more for the Australian people. That's what our round table was about. We will continue to prosecute an agenda on housing focused on the key fundamental challenge before us; that is, supply. We will do it because we are a government fundamentally focused on the founding principle, of all of us as Labor people, of fairness and intergenerational equity. We know that is not the case in Australia at the moment.

Question time today was about trying to undermine a process which would lead to better policy outcomes in Australia. It was about gotcha questions on an agenda which we are running with and the opposition has failed to support for three years—an opposition which would rather see our government fail on delivering more housing to Australians and rather see our government fail on building a strong economy than see Australians benefit from all those things. They are so self-focused on themselves that they would rather us fail. That's not our approach. We're about bringing in the best ideas to create the best policies to be the best government we can be for the generations of Australians to come.

Where to begin? The fact is, whichever way you want to dress it up and whichever way you want to describe it, most young Australians have given up on the dream of owning their own home. It is our desire for young Australians to own their own homes. That's what we have worked towards over many, many periods of government. Our focus isn't on institutional investors. Our focus isn't on superannuation funds. Our focus is, as it absolutely should be, on everyday people, young Australians, who want to own their own homes.

My colleague Senator Antic talked about the fact that young Australians are competing with people from overseas to purchase housing. But they are also now competing with the federal government, with the HAFF purchasing homes as opposed to building them. The government have now purchased more homes than they've built. Why should young Australians be competing with the federal government to buy homes, because they don't know how to build homes? The government's own advice from Treasury has stated that they will not reach the targets they have set for themselves, whilst young Australians continue to struggle not only to buy but to rent. Whilst there was the announcement around opening up the five per cent deposit scheme to everybody—great, but what are they going to buy? Where are the houses that they need to buy? Instead of dealing with those important questions, they continue to point the finger at the opposition. Ultimately, you are in government, and it is up to you to solve that problem.

As we've said over and over, we'll be constructive when we can, but we will absolutely be critical when we see that you have failed to do that. One of those is in relation to the construction code. We took that to the last election. It was bagged by the government—'the shoddy coalition', 'shoddy building', 'shoddy this' and 'shoddy that'. It's highlighted very clearly that the changes that this government made in 2022 to that code have made it harder, made it take longer to build and made it more expensive to build dwellings. Now they're saying that they too will pause changes to the construction code, a code that is some 2,000 pages long. It's three separate volumes. Good luck if you're an Australian small business trying to navigate that.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance to a question I asked today regarding taxation proposals raised at the productivity roundtable.

In public life, there are some ideas that are so monstrous they should never be raised. Last week, Treasurer Chalmers encouraged not one but two monstrous ideas for new taxation. The first is grave robbing. An Australian works their whole life, pays off their home and, on their death, their home is sold to help their children or grandchildren enter the housing market. Some use the money to pay off their HECS debt so they can afford some home repayments. Treasurer Chalmers now proposes we should tax the home and only give the children what's left, forcing the children to sell the home to pay taxes levied. This is being dressed up as somehow helping the housing market. Instead it will take away the only chance many young Australians have of affording a home of their own.

Death duties were first introduced in Australia in 1851. In 1914 some states' duties were as high as 54 per cent of the value of the property, before they were abolished after a public outcry and were never introduced again. Death taxes meant children could not afford to buy their parents' farm and were forced off the land. The Prime Minister has met personally with the billionaires buying and controlling homes and farmland around the world—BlackRock's Larry Fink, who is the new World Economic Forum co-chair, and vaccine king Bill Gates. Is this what they discussed—plundering our homes and farmland?

The other monstrous idea was taxing unused bedrooms. For this each person will need to report to government how many bedrooms are in their home and how many are occupied. That spare bedroom is often being kept for family to visit and stay a while, meaning this policy is designed the deliberately break the bonds of family. A tax on empty bedrooms is an attack on the elderly, and that will force people into retirement homes earlier, the reverse of what we accept as best policy. Will our elderly be forced to take new arrivals as boarders into their own homes to beat the tax—language, culture and religious differences be damned? Minister, rule these monstrous proposals out now.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme to a question I asked today regarding the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

The government's NDIS announcement is discriminatory. It is dangerous, and it's based on spin not evidence. Autistic Australians are being used as a political football, and it is simply unacceptable. Autism is lifelong. I cannot believe that I have to say that in this chamber to correct stigma spread by a government minister. There is no 'growing out' of autism. Terms like 'mild' and 'moderate' in relation to autism have no clinical basis. They are political inventions designed to strip people of the supports that they need. So-called replacement programs don't stack up. Inklings is aimed at caregivers of babies, between the ages of six months and 18 months, and is already facing serious transparency concerns. Thriving Kids feels like a last-minute curveball. Both need more evidence at the very least before being rolled out on such a large scale.

The autistic community has endured decades of exclusion, of harmful therapies and of discrimination and abuse. They deserve real support from their government, not stigma, spin and cuts dressed up as reform. People are scared. This announcement is deeply shameful. It will drive up worse outcomes for our community. Deputy President, my time for this take note is split with my colleague Senator Allman-Payne.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice I asked today.

I rise to take note of the response given by the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services. It's now been over two years since the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme handed down its recommendations. It recommended significant legislative change to remedy the harmful wrongs arising from that scheme. In collaboration with the member for Clark, the Greens will be co-introducing a bill to finally act on the royal commission's recommendations to ensure that this can never happen again.

To date, the Labor government has failed to enact all of these recommendations, and the community is still waiting for change to ensure that this dark chapter of Australia's social services history isn't repeated. The stakes are high. The scheme was at least partially responsible for the tragic suicides of several income support recipients, and the severity of that cannot be overstated. Why would Labor not want to do everything in their power to bring about the end of the structures and systems that enabled such a tragic outcome? What is clear is that our broader social services system is not currently one that is designed to meaningfully help the most vulnerable in our society. Instead, it is designed to degrade people, to grind them down and to leave them hopeless and trapped. Most importantly, it's designed to keep everyone else who has a job scared and compliant.

The Labor Party relies on making you believe that a better world isn't possible and that this is the best you can hope for. Yet, when they talk about fiscal responsibility, they're very happy to find millions of dollars for submarines but not to help vulnerable people. We currently have a situation where one in three big corporations in this country pays no tax. Imagine if Labor put as much effort into getting tax out of the big corporations who are not paying it as they do to chase down vulnerable people. The system is flawed. There are many parts of the system that are still unlawful, and it is time for the government to act by enacting all of the recommendations of the royal commission and suspending the stopping of payment suspensions until they are certain that it is lawful.

Question agreed to.

I ask that, if there are going to be time splits, that the chair be notified in advance. It just makes things a little easier but is not a major issue.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to the following senators:

(a) Senator McCarthy for today; and

(b) Senator Sheldon from 25 August to 4 September 2025.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to Senator Colbeck from 25 to 28 August, for parliamentary reasons.

Question agreed to.

I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 46.

If there is no objection, the business is postponed.

It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death, on 16 August 2025, of Mr Graeme Campbell, former member of the House of Representatives for the division of Kalgoorlie, Western Australia from 1980 to 1998.

I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Education and Employment References Committee for inquiry and report by 5 November 2025:

The quality and safety of Australia's early childhood education and care system, with particular reference to:

(a) the health and safety of children in childcare services across the country;

(b) the effectiveness of Australia's childcare regulatory system, including the performance and resourcing of state and territory regulators and the Australian Children's Education and Care Quality Authority, in maintaining and improving quality;

(c) early learning providers' compliance with quality standards and legislative requirements, including compliance with workplace laws and regulations;

(d) the impact of childcare providers' employment practices on quality and safety;

(e) the role of worker compensation and pay on childcare quality and safety;

(f) the role of private for-profit incentives and their impact on childcare quality and safety;

(g) transparency within the early childhood education and care system, including access to information and data;

(h) the suitability of the Child Care Subsidy system in supporting the provision of high-quality early education and care; and

(i) any related matters.

by leave—at the request of my very dear friend Senator Duniam, I move an amendment to the motion as circulated in the chamber and moved by Senator Hodgins-May.

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Scarr at the request of Senator Duniam be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The question now is that the amended motion be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

I move:

(1) That the following matter be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report by 28 November 2025: The formation of a National Volunteer Incentive Scheme (Climate Army) to respond to the immediate aftermath of natural disasters in Australia, with particular reference to:

(a) establishing targeted initiatives to encourage young people to participate in the National Volunteer Incentive Scheme (Climate Army);

(b) exploring strategies to enhance volunteer engagement, including systems to recognise and compensate volunteers to promote satisfaction and positive culture;

(c) integrating volunteer opportunities within educational institutions to increase student participation in volunteer organisations;

(d) creating a nationally recognised qualification scheme that provides tangible benefits to volunteers and formally acknowledges their skills and contributions across sectors;

(e) investigating whether there are appropriate laws and safeguards to protect the health and safety of volunteers;

(f) the structure and governance of the National Volunteer Incentive Scheme (Climate Army);

(g) comparison of relevant overseas models and best practices; and

(h) any other related matters.

(2) That the committee have the power to consider and use the records of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee appointed in the previous parliament.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Cash, I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984, and for related purposes. Members of Parliament (Staff) Amendment (Providing Certainty and Improving Integrity) Bill 2025.

Question agreed to.

I present the bill and move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.

Leave granted.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

This bill exists for one reason: because Anthony Albanese has used parliamentary staffing as a political weapon.

Let us be clear:

And if Labor votes against this Bill, they're voting to keep a system where Anthony Albanese decides who gets to scrutinise him and who doesn't.

Under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 (MoPS Act), the Prime Minister of the day holds absolute discretion over who gets personal staff and who doesn't.

Mr Albanese has abused that discretion. He has ripped up decades of convention, cutting Opposition and some crossbench capacity, and weakened the Parliament's ability to hold his government to account.

This legislation fixes that. It restores balance, transparency and integrity to a system the Prime Minister has treated like his private fiefdom.

Let's be clear about the problem.

Right now, there are no minimum staffing levels for non-government parliamentarians.

There is no transparent basis for how resources are distributed. There's no review and no appeal. The Prime Minister can reward his left wing friends—as he has done—and punish his critics—even reduce an allocation to zero—and there is no check on that power.

And this isn't hypothetical.

Since the election, Mr Albanese has cut the Opposition's staffing allocation. This has been a deliberate decision that makes the Australian Parliament less capable of scrutinising the Government.

He's done it before, too. In June 2022, staffing for some crossbench MPs and Senators was slashed from four to one, without warning or consultation, and without any reduction in their responsibilities to their communities or to this Parliament.

The Government's own 2022 Review of the MoPS Act recognised the problem: "limited transparency" about staffing decisions, "perceptions of unfairness or political influence", and real work health and safety concerns driven by sustained workload pressures.

In plain English: the system is opaque, it looks political because it is political, and staff are under the pump.

The Prime Minister's answer? He gestures at boosting the Parliamentary Library—a great institution that we all value—while refusing to deal with the core issue: his personal power to dial up or dial down the Opposition and crossbench. That's not good enough.

A Government allergic to transparency

This Prime Minister talks a big game on openness, but when it comes to staffing, he shuts the books. There is no published baseline for allocations, no clear criteria, and no reasons provided when cuts are made.

The stock answers are "Prime Minister's discretion" and "not in the public interest to disclose".

That is not transparency—it is secrecy at its very best under the Albanese Labor Government—and that is dangerous for Australia's democracy.

Transparency is not a favour the Prime Minister does for those he likes; it is a duty owed to the Australian people.

Sunlight is a discipline on all of us—Government and non-government alike.

The only people who fear it are those who benefit from the dark and in this case, it is the Albanese Government.

The choice before the Senate is simple: keep a staffing system built on secrecy and whim, that has been abused by Anthony Albanese or back a law that makes the numbers visible and the rules fair.

If Mr Albanese believed in transparency, he would have done this himself.

Where are the Greens?

And where are the Albanese Government's socialist partners in crime—the Australian Greens in all this? Hiding.

When Senator Fatima Payman sought scrutiny of the Prime Minister's staffing decisions the Greens wouldn't back her push for accountability.

Worse, while others cop the cuts and delays, the Greens have benefited from a newly constructed party room in Parliament House reportedly costing around $886,000. And what is worse—they got angry when a photo was published of it.

That tells you everything about their priorities: special deals for themselves; silence on scrutiny for everyone else.

This bill draws a line under that behaviour.

It places a floor beneath which staffing for non-government parliamentarians cannot fall, while preserving the Government's overall control of total staffing numbers and the Prime Minister's discretion above those minimums.

It does three simple, sensible things:

1. It guarantees the Opposition at least 110 non-ministerial personal staff, or 22 per cent of the Government's total personal staff allocation, whichever is greater. That reflects the Opposition's vital role in holding the Government to account and ensures access to senior capability at comparable proportions to the Government's own structure.

2. It guarantees any non-government party with eight or more parliamentarians at least 25 personal staff, or 5 per cent of the Government's total personal staff allocation, whichever is greater. That avoids the perverse outcome where a party of nine could be better resourced than a party of ten.

3. It guarantees independents and minor parties with fewer than eight parliamentarians at least three personal staff—including one senior adviser—recognising that these members must engage across every portfolio, scrutinise complex legislation, serve on committees and consult widely.

For clarity, these thresholds apply only to non-ministerial personal staff.

The Government's personal staff allocation captures staff to the Prime Minister, Ministers and Assistant Ministers, and any personal staff employed in special offices such as the Cabinet Policy Unit, Office of Government Members' Staff and whole-of-government communications/coordination teams. Staff employed by Government Presiding Officers, Deputy Presiding Officers and Whips are excluded from the Government's personal staff allocation.

This bill doesn't tie the Government's hands on fiscal management.

It doesn't prevent the Prime Minister from allocating more, it simply prevents him from allocating less than a fair minimum. Party leaders still decide how to distribute their allocation internally. The Treasurer still manages the bottom line.

Accountability and responsibility can co-exist—they must.

Why does this matter?

Because a healthy democracy requires a strong Parliament.

When a Prime Minister cuts Opposition and some crossbench staff, he isn't saving money—he's buying himself less scrutiny.

He's making it harder for MPs and Senators to read a 400-page bill, consult their communities, and show up to Estimates with the facts.

He's trading accountability for convenience.

Australians deserve better than a "trust me" staffing system run on the Prime Minister's whims.

They deserve a level playing field where the Government is scrutinised properly and the Parliament can do its job. That is what this bill delivers: certainty, integrity and transparency.

If the Government votes against it, they'll be voting for secrecy, not scrutiny.

They'll be voting to keep a system that lets Anthony Albanese reward allies and punish critics. They'll be voting to keep Parliament weaker and the Prime Minister stronger.

This shouldn't be a partisan question—it's a democratic one.

Parliament is not Anthony Albanese's private office.

It belongs to the Australian people. If you are afraid of the questions, fix your policy. Don't fix the staffing to rig the outcome."

Support the bill. Strengthen the Parliament. Restore accountability.

I commend the bill to the Senate.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

On behalf of Senator Bragg, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) that order for the production of documents no. 28 (the order) agreed to by the Senate on 24 July 2025, requiring the tabling of any documents that detail the aggregate expenditure made from the Housing Australia Future Fund was not complied with, and

(ii) the necessity that the Senate scrutinise the disbursement and appropriation of Commonwealth funds in the interests of transparency and accountability; and

(b) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Housing to attend the Senate on 27 August 2025, at the conclusion of the consideration of private senators' bills and immediately prior to government business being called on, to provide an explanation of no more than 5 minutes of the failure to comply with the order, 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 and shall have precedence over all business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each.

The question before the chair is that the motion moved by Senator Askew on behalf of Senator Bragg be agreed to.

General business notices of motion Nos 62 and 63 from Senator Thorpe have been postponed.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than Wednesday, 3 September 2025, any approval conditions including draft versions provided to Woodside relating to the provisional approval of the North West Shelf extension (EPBC 2018/8335).

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

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, by no later than midday on Tuesday, 23 September 2025:

(a) all documents, including but not limited to correspondence, meeting notes, and briefing materials, relating to the expenditure of the $3 billion secured by the Australian Greens in negotiations for the Housing Australia Future Fund Act 2023, including the $2 billion for the Social Housing Accelerator and the $1 billion in direct spending on public and community housing funding distributed through Housing Australia; and

(b) a document that includes:

(i) for the $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator, a breakdown of the 4,000 planned homes by new and pre-existing dwelling types,

(ii) for the $1 billion on public and community housing:

(A) how much has been spent and where,

(B) how much each state and territory has received,

(C) how much funding has not yet been allocated,

(D) the number of new and pre-existing dwellings, and

(E) the number of allocated, commenced, and completed dwellings, and

(iii) for both the $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator and the $1 billion on public and community housing:

(A) the number of public, community, social, and other dwelling types, and

(B) how much of this money has been spent thus far directly on public housing.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than Friday, 29 August 2025, the referral decision brief for Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation matter 2025/10161—Marine survey of the Bunbury continental shelf.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than 9.30 am on Wednesday, 27 August 2025:

(a) any report or analysis or assessment undertaken by the Office of National Intelligence on the risk that climate change poses to Australia's national security in the period 21 May 2022 to 30 July 2025; and

(b) papers and briefs prepared by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in relation to any such report.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University (ANU), by no later than 9.30 am on 28 August 2025:

(a) all documents, emails/internal correspondence, internal memoranda, meeting minutes and other records of interaction from 1 April to 31 October 2024 relating to the creation, development, approval or implementation of new budgets allocated to ANU colleges (College of Arts and Social Sciences (CASS), College of Asia and the Pacific (CAP), College of Business and Economics (CBE), College of Engineering and Computer Science (CECS), College of Law (CoL) and College of Health and Medicine (CoHM), College of Science (CoS)) midway through 2024;

(b) all budget documents, financial statements, budget allocations, budget revisions, internal reports and associated documentation for each ANU college (CASS, CAP, CBE, CECS, CoL, CoHM and CoS), specifically relating to how each college addressed, managed or implemented decreases in recurrent budget allocations;

(c) all documents, memoranda or briefing notes, emails, meeting notes, internal correspondence and records of discussions from 1 April to 31 October 2024 regarding how the ANU colleges (CASS, CAP, CBE, CECS, CoL, CoHM and CoS) met new recurrent budget targets and any associated budget constraints or requirements;

(d) all documents, memoranda, emails, meeting notes, file notes, correspondence, financial records, transfer documentation and records of decisions from 1 April to 30 October 2024 concerning how funds may have been shifted, transferred, or reallocated from recurrent budgets to other ANU account types including Q accounts, W accounts, S accounts, E accounts or any other account types from all ANU colleges (CASS, CAP, CBE, CECS, CoL, CoHM and CoS);

(e) all documents, emails/internal correspondence, meeting notes, briefing notes, papers from Council, papers from senior management group, papers from relevant committees of Council and records of discussions from 1 April to 31 October 2024 regarding discussions about the impact on core and discretionary services of the colleges (CASS, CAP, CBE, CECS, CoL, CoHM and CoS) as a result of budget cuts or their ability to meet future core and discretionary services and obligations; and

(f) all documents, emails/internal correspondence, meeting notes, briefing notes, papers from Council, papers from senior management group, papers from relevant committees of Council and records of discussions from 1 April to 30 June 2025 regarding discussions and decisions about the impact of over-expenditure of 2024 budget on the 2025 budget of the colleges (CASS, CAP, CBE, CECS, CoL, CoHM and CoS).

I seek leave to make short statement not exceeding one minute.

Leave granted.

The opposition notes the importance of transparency for government entities, including the ANU. However, the opposition also notes that a workplace dispute was, in our respectful view, inappropriately publicised in a 12 August Senate committee hearing. The opposition is concerned that the conduct of that dispute may be impacted by the passage of these motions. The opposition would not wish to deny natural justice to the complainant or anyone else. The ANU is also currently the subject of a self-assurance compliance process scheduled to appear before Senate estimates in October and part of the aforementioned committee inquiry into university governance. These would each be, in our respectful view, more appropriate forums through which to seek more information.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

I rise to say the government will not be supporting these motions today—there are a number of them, from 76 onwards—for similar reasons that have been raised by the opposition. Also, when I look at the nature of the OPDs and the work that would be required in responding to them, I would prefer that ANU, at this point in time, was actually dealing with the issues that we have asked it to deal with in responding to Renew ANU. In addition, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency have been considering the minister's referral and will be appointing an independent expert to investigate those matters very soon. The minister will be briefed by TEQSA on matters relating to the ANU later this week, I understand. I've met with every person who's asked to meet with me about the ANU. I'm aware of the issues that need to be resolved, and I want the ANU to get on and resolve them.

I seek leave to make a one-minute statement.

Leave not granted.

The question is that motion No. 76, moved by Senator David Pocock, be agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University (ANU), by no later than 9.30 am on 28 August 2025:

(a) the complete and unredacted results of the ANU staff survey conducted in March 2023, including all college, research school and portfolio-level breakdowns, demographic analysis and detailed response data;

(b) the complete and unredacted results of the ANU staff survey conducted in September 2024, including all college, research school and portfolio-level breakdowns, demographic analysis and detailed response data; and

(c) all supporting documentation, analysis, and reports prepared by the ANU in relation to both surveys, including any comparative analysis between the two survey periods.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Senators in this chamber and the world out there know quite well that the ANU is rife with scandals, with budgetary mismanagement, with staff being bullied, with secrets being kept from staff. All Senator David Pocock is asking for is budgets; it is a public institution. All Senator David Pocock is asking for is staff surveys; again, it's a public institution, and it is staff that are being intimidated by the chancellor and the vice-chancellor. Here we have Labor and the coalition—and I'm sure Senator Pocock would agree with me—running a protection racket for the executive of the ANU. It is absolutely shameful—absolutely shameful!

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Honourable senators interjecting—

I will take the opportunity to remind senators that the one minute of leave is granted in order for parties and individuals to put their position on motions, not to have a political spray.

It is—Senator Shoebridge, order! It is well-known that it is designed to be able—

Senator Shoebridge! It is designed to enable people to put their positions on motions. I will now put the question. The question is that general business notice of motion No. 78 be agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Chancellor of the Australian National University (ANU), by no later than 9.30 am on 28 August 2025, a copy of any email correspondence sent by the Chancellor to ANU Council members relating to a purported breach of Council confidentiality as referenced in an on campus bulletin on 8 July 2025.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 79 be agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University (ANU), by no later than 9.30 am on 28 August 2025:

(a) all documents, including but not limited to correspondence, emails, briefing notes, minutes, reports, memoranda and records of meetings or discussions, related to or that discuss the ANU budget forecasts for the period 2024-27 prepared in 2023 by the then Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and Provost including assumptions underlying the forecast, and projected revenue growth and expenditure; and

(b) all documents, including but not limited to correspondence, emails, briefing notes, minutes, reports, memoranda and records of meetings or discussions, related to the ANU budget forecasts for the period 2024-27 prepared in 2023 by the then CFO and Provost related to the classification or reclassification from CAPEX to OPEX and vice versa and any documents or advice relating to the reasons for any reclassifications, including but not limited to advice from the Australian Tax Office, the Australian National Audit Office and the ANU auditors.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 80 be agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) that on 23 July 2025, the Senate ordered the Minister for the Public Service to produce the final report of the public sector board appointments processes, and

(ii) the minister has refused to comply with order for the production of documents no. 10, stating that the document has been prepared for Cabinet deliberation and is therefore protected by Cabinet confidentiality;

(b) rejects the claim made by the minister, and notes the guidance of Odgers' Australian Senate Practice that claims of Cabinet confidentiality should relate only to the deliberations of Cabinet itself and not every document that merely has a connection to Cabinet;

(c) further notes that, according to the Australian Public Service Commission's website and in documents released under the Freedom of Information Act 1982, the final report of the review was expected to be published in late 2023, indicating the report was actually prepared for public release and not solely for Cabinet deliberation; and

(d) orders that the report be laid on the table by the Minister for the Public Service, by no later than midday on Tuesday, 26 August 2025.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government will not be supporting this motion. The report referenced in this motion is being used to inform government decisions at a cabinet level, and actual deliberations of the executive council or cabinet are protected from disclosure. In this case the report is a central document for those cabinet deliberations. It has not been previously released or published, and a decision has not been made on these deliberations. Its release prior to the finalisation of this cabinet process would negatively impact those deliberations. I have spoken to Senator Pocock to convey this—just to explain why we wouldn't be providing it—but I have also previously said that, when we complete those deliberations, this report will be released, and it will be.

The question is that motion standing in the name of Senator David Pocock be agreed to.

I remind senators that after 4.30 pm on Thursday 31 July 2025, a division was called on a motion moved by Senator Ruston concerning Medicare. I understand it suits the convenience of the Senate for the deferred vote to be held now. The question is that the motion, as moved by Senator Ruston, be agreed to.

Senator Bragg has submitted a proposal, under standing order 75, today, which is shown at item 15 of today's Order of Business:

The Albanese Government's Productivity Roundtable was a taxpayer-funded talkfest with the only output being an adoption of Coalition policy on the National Construction Code, with no business confidence measures, no strategy to reduce red tape or power prices, and no relief for small businesses and households struggling under Labor's economic mismanagement, while continuing to back superannuation funds as corporate landlords instead of helping Australians own their own home.

Is consideration of the proposal supported?

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

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

The coalition has proposed this matter of public importance because it is of great public interest that taxpayers have funded the talkfest held here in Canberra in the last week, which has resulted in a canful of housing policies and maybe the prospect of improvements to the economy in the future, but all of that is very unclear. What is clear is that the government have continued on their merry way of being the government for vested interests, where they spend more time thinking about what is going to line the coffers of their mates rather than what is going to support Australians to get out of the terrible housing crisis the nation is in, help small business and help families get ahead.

So far, from this taxpayer funded summit, we have seen three ideas. Firstly, there is pausing the National Construction Code for a handful of years, the same policy that Labor, at the election just a few months ago, said was terrible. In fact the then industry minister, Mr Husic, said that it would result in there being 'shoddy hotboxes'. Similarly, the Minister for Housing, Clare O'Neil, said last week that they were very proud of the 2022 changes to the construction code. This is the very same iteration of the code which has made home building a nightmare in Australia, because builders are encircled with Labor's red tape. This is a government that has delivered 5,000 new regulations, 400 bills, which are costing Australians $5 billion in compliance. Now the government say they want to freeze the NCC, which was the policy they pooh-poohed at the last election because it was our idea. So that's one idea—and guess what? They didn't have to have a summit to learn this policy. All they needed to do was to read the coalition's policy document from the last election.

Secondly, there is the expansion of the Home Guarantee Scheme, maybe one of the most bizarre ideas I've heard in my time in this Senate. The Labor Party want to subsidise the children of billionaires so they can buy their first home with no income cap and no means testing. The wealthiest Australians are now going to be subsidised by the taxpayer to purchase a first home. I don't understand why this is a priority. We're already running 10 years of deficits. We cannot afford the programs that are already in the budget. And now the government is saying, 'Oh, we're going to fund the first houses of middle- and higher-income earners.' That's the role of government, they believe. The contingent liability here is likely to be tens of billions of dollars. Why are we subsidising the first houses of the children of billionaires? Again, you didn't need to have a summit to have that idea.

Then there's the Treasurer's favourite idea: how he can help his mates at the big super funds become the corporate landlords of Australians. Instead of fighting crime, which ASIC is hopeless at doing, the Treasurer has forced ASIC to commence a consultation so that the super funds can cover up the stamp duty fees that they pay to their members so it can make their investments into Australian property look more attractive. This is the government for vested interests. I've always said that. And this summit has shown that their priorities are totally warped. They're trying to support the wealthiest Australians to buy their first home—bizarre priority. They're adopting the coalition policy from the last election, which they said was terrible. Again, I'm very confused.

Finally, they're supporting the idea that big corporations own houses, not Australians. On this side of the House, of course we have disagreements from time to time, which is normally healthy. But one thing we all agree on is that individual Australians should own houses, not big corporations. And it's not just trying to bodgie up the numbers in member disclosures; it's also the government's whole agenda on build-to-rent, trying to give foreign investors a tax cut so that they can buy up and build Australian houses—houses that Australians will never own.

So I say to you, Acting Deputy President: the government is confused. It says it wants to cut red tape, but then it says it wants to be the nation's biggest mortgage insurer. It says it wants to cut red tape, but then it says it wants to be a massive housing developer with massive bureaucracy. This government is confused at best, and it really needs a lot of help.

The Economic Reform Round table that we recently had was, at its heart, about addressing the vexed issue of intergenerational inequity. That compact we have between generations has completely broken down. We are aware of that. We hear it every day. We see it every day on the streets of Australia. People are sleeping on our streets—on our footpaths, outside supermarkets—as parents, single mothers with their children, are sleeping in cars, on beaches or in council car parks.

That intergenerational compact has broken down. We see it on the faces of young Australians who have grown up in middle-class homes and done all the right things. They've acquired a skill or trade or gone to university. They've gotten a job. They've worked hard their whole lives. And they feel that they will never own a home. That is what was at the heart of this three-day summit. It was about addressing intergenerational inequity. At the heart of that is housing.

We have a coalition here who has the temerity to shed crocodile tears in this chamber over an issue as significant as housing. We understand the challenge. That's why we have $43 billion on the table for homes for Australia—homes for Australians. Multiple pillars are included in that. There's the Home Guarantee Scheme, which we expanded and tuned up in our first term and which we are now opening up for young Australians so that they can enter the housing market with as little as a five per cent deposit. So acute is this problem that we are accelerating the go-live date. It was going to be 1 January next year; it will now be 1 October.

Already, over 100,000 households have taken up the Home Guarantee Scheme, entering the housing market with as little as a five per cent deposit. In Victoria, that number sits at around 47,000 people—individuals who didn't own a home before we expanded this scheme. And those opposite are criticising us for that. Well, given the level and scale and magnitude of this problem, of course we have to be ambitious. Of course we have to pull every lever, and that is not the only lever that we are pulling.

We brought in the Housing Australia Future Fund, with $10 billion devoted to social and affordable housing. That went live in September of 2024. It could have gone live earlier—maybe a whole year earlier—had the coalition actually passed it in this chamber, in the Senate, but they delayed it. The other scheme that they delayed was the Help to Buy scheme, which enables people on very modest incomes to buy a home with as little as a two per cent deposit, with the government coming in with 30 to 40 per cent equity of that home. It enables them to enter the housing market with a very small deposit and very, very low mortgage repayments. Cleaners would have gotten into the housing market as a result of Help to Buy. Again, that scheme was delayed by the coalition in this chamber. Now they are trying to move another disallowance, this time against build to rent. It's shameful, given the scale of the problem.

Senator Bragg actually said we should have looked up the policies in their LNP policy document. Well, I did. I did look it up in the first term and in the second term, and at the heart of their policy approach to housing is to actually raid your super. Let's drill into that. The median house price in Melbourne is around $900,000. If you need a 20 per cent deposit, it comes out to be about $170,000 to buy a home in Melbourne. In regional Victoria, that number is $572,000, and the 20 per cent deposit is $114,000. The average 30- to 34-year-old man has about $53,000 in his super, and an average woman has about $44,000. It doesn't even touch the sides. It is a fast track to poverty in retirement and homelessness if you raid your super. That was evident not only on the faces of voters in the 2022 election in Higgins, a Liberal blue ribbon seat which I won off the Liberals, but also on the faces of young people at the 2025 election.

So no, we're not going to be taking lectures from the coalition. With respect to the building code, we are not only pausing it but also simplifying it, thereby cutting red tape to enable homes to be built. (Time expired)

The Treasurer's economic roundtable has been held as the climate is breaking down around us, as ecosystems are collapsing and in the middle of rampant economic inequality. Out of that roundtable has come a shopping list of ideas, many of which are of significant concern to the Australian Greens. One in particular is winding back regulations, which we have seen time after time from the Liberal political parties. It means weakening environmental standards and weakening environmental protections. Freezing the building code, as we have just heard—the risk there is it will increase power bills because homes will be built in a less energy efficient way, so people who live in lower-quality housing will end up paying more on their power bills, and it will increase emissions from coal and gas use. Road user charges may, if designed well, actually be very good policy, but the risk there, of course, is that it will just devolve into a tax that disincentivises the uptake of electric vehicles.

To implement the ideas out of this roundtable, the Treasurer has got a choice. Labor has a big majority in the House, and Labor plus the Greens equals the numbers in the Senate. We are up for genuinely progressive reform and will approach that in a collaborative and instructive way. What we need is for Labor to work with the Greens to end things like the obscene tax breaks that property speculators get in this country and the fossil fuel subsidies which are so unproductive to our economy, and to implement a fossil fuel export levy so we can raise revenue to help people struggling under cost-of-living pressures. (Time expired)

A good idea or a popular idea has many parents. A bad idea or an unpopular idea is an orphan. Well, look at this! One Nation came up with the idea of holding the National Construction Code changes—stopping them, suspending them—to save $50,000 per house in construction costs. That was One Nation, before the election! Now we see Senator Bragg taking ownership of it for the Liberal Party. Then we see the Labor Party coming up with the idea at the roundtable. Where did it come from? One Nation. We have a homelessness crisis in this country. Every major provincial city in Queensland has homeless people sleeping in cars. Working mums and dads are sleeping in their cars. They come home to see if their kids are still there. Why? Because the Liberal Party started mass catastrophic immigration under John Howard, and the Labor Party has turbocharged it now with over 500,000 new immigrants per year.

That's what's driving the homelessness crisis. And only One Nation has a comprehensive policy for housing—working on the demand side, working on the supply side, working on the cost side and working on the finance side to reduce demand. To stop immigration, we would deport immediately 75,000 people who were here illegally and deport students who were not in compliance with their visas. On the supply side, we would stop foreign ownership of houses in this country—just stop them! We'd give them two or three years to sell and get out. Free them up. Many of those homes are locked. On the cost side, we would reduce regulations, stop the National Construction Code changes, and end net zero to reduce the price of energy. On the finance side, we would roll HECS debts into home loans and allow access to super accounts to get a deposit. Why can't your super account invest in your own home when it can invest in other people's homes? This is bloody ridiculous!

Last week, the Albanese government held its much-anticipated economic roundtable, which was hyped up to be this enormously grand event that would deliver huge ideas about how to fix Australia's productivity crisis. But after weeks of kites being flown by the unions and the Prime Minister hosing down the Treasurer's ideas, we finally know the outcomes. Or do we? Here's the problem: what did Australians get for their taxpayer dollars? Just like the Jobs and Skills Summit three years prior to that, the roundtable was another Labor letdown. Only this time it was held behind closed doors, so we don't actually know what was discussed in the room. What we do know is that there were no tangible measures that came out of the roundtable. There was no plan for business confidence. There was no plan to reduce red tape. There was no strategy to get power prices down. There was not a single measure to give relief to small businesses or to households that have been struggling with the last three years under Labor's economic mismanagement.

While Labor and the Treasurer were locked up inside this roundtable, Australian families and small businesses continued to do it tough. Let me give you some facts. Fact 1: under Labor, productivity has gone backwards. It's gone backwards by about five per cent in the last three years of the Albanese government. Fact 2: standards of living have gone backwards. They've collapsed by more than six per cent under Labor. That's why if you're feeling poorer, you in fact are poorer. Your standard of living has collapsed. Fact 3: the Reserve Bank has said that living standards will continue to fall under this government unless something is done to address sluggish productivity.

The roundtable, therefore, had a really important job. Australians were promised a productivity turbocharge. What did we get? We got a flat battery. In fact, the only tangible outcome from this summit was the adoption of—surprise!—a coalition policy to freeze the National Construction Code. That's right—after three days of talking and weeks of floating ideas and spin being spun to the media, Labor's big idea was to copy a coalition policy that we took to the last election—a policy that they previously opposed, I might add. Now, don't get me wrong, that freeze is welcome after their first term saw them deliver 400 additional new laws that cost $5 billion. It added $5 billion to the cost of construction. There were 1,500 new regulations in the Treasury and infrastructure portfolios alone, and changes to the National Construction Code in 2022 made it harder and more expensive to build new homes. That deepened the housing affordability crisis in Australia.

So it's nice to see that Labor has had a change of heart, but, unfortunately, a one-year delay is not a comprehensive freeze. More needs to be done, particularly in housing. This government has overseen the biggest growth in population in Australia since the 1950s, but it's also presided over a housing construction collapse. Over nine years under the coalition government, we averaged 200,000 new homes built every single year. Under Labor, there have been 170,000. But instead of supporting Australians into homes, Labor continues to instead support superannuation funds acting as corporate landlords. On this side of politics, we fundamentally believe that individual Australians and Australian families should own their own homes. We don't think big corporates should own your homes for you. We certainly don't think big super funds should do so.

That leads me to one of the other outcomes of the productivity round table; that is, that Labor will now review the superannuation fund performance test to—wait for it—remove obstacles or impediments to super investing in housing and other areas where there is clearly a national need. Let's be very, very clear about this: there is nothing stopping superannuation funds investing in any asset but it has to financially stack up, otherwise it robs you, the superannuation fund member, of the best financial outcome you can get. We certainly don't want the performance test to become a superannuation fund vehicle for Labor's political agenda. But you can trust Labor to emerge from a round table with changes to unlock the performance test as the key to unlocking economic growth; heaven help us! Could you not come up with something better than that to really move the dial on productivity, lower energy prices, genuine tax reform, more flexible industrial relations and a step change in our educational standards? That's all Labor came up with—a change to the superannuation performance test. It looks like the Treasurer got so carried away sitting in the Prime Minister's chair at the cabinet table that he forgot about the real purpose of this meeting.

Australians deserve a government that understands that productivity isn't just an opportunistic slogan. Productivity might not sound like a sexy topic but it is the secret weapon to better living standards in Australia. To improve our living standards, we need to see real action from this government, not just talk.

I rise to speak against the motion moved by Senator Bragg. Senator Bragg has moved his motion as a matter of public importance. It is a motion that, of course, attacks the productivity round table. It attacks all the people who attended the round table—businesspeople, unions and, by extension, even his own parliamentary colleagues like the member for Fairfax. He goes on to attack industry superannuation funds—I guess that was pretty predictable; the great old nemesis of Senator Bragg, those pesky superannuation funds, is helping to secure the future of millions of Australian workers. But, really, this motion feels a little bit like a cry for help.

I'm prompted to ask Senator Bragg, 'Are you okay?' His motion looks a little bit like someone who didn't get an invite to the big dance. There it was, the big productivity round table in Canberra. Who was there? Well, the member for Fairfax was there—but no invite for Senator Bragg, or 'Braggy' to his friends on that side of the chamber. I get it; that stings a little bit when you're the thinking person on that side of the show, and you've waited by the mailbox to get your invite that just never came. But it's okay; those opposite were ably represented by the man who brought us such big reform ideas like the LNP nuclear plan that was roundly panned by the Australian people at the last federal election. It is intriguing to see the LNP seeking to attack the round table. It was a positive, constructive discussion of stakeholders. Perhaps if those opposite had spent more time speaking to people, they might not have taken some of those disastrous policies to the last federal election.

What those opposite missed is the incredible work this government has done to turn the economy around after years of neglect under the coalition. When we came to government, we inherited massive deficits, a trillion dollars worth of debt and years of low-wage growth for Australian workers. By contrast, our government has put the runs on the board. Headline underlying inflation is around four-year lows, annual real wages have been growing for seven consecutive quarters, the economy is still expanding, interest rates have been cut three times in the last six months, more than 1.1 million jobs have now been created since we came to government—a record for any government in a single term—and the average unemployment rate is the lowest of any government in 50 years. At the election, Australian people voted for higher living standards, higher wages and secure, well-paid jobs. But the job is not finished, and that is why the Treasurer convened the round table—to continue to drive growth.

So, while the Albanese government has been working to improve the living standards and productivity of Australians, it's been pretty disappointing to see those opposite refuse to come to the table and work towards solving the issues that matter most to Australians. In fact, over the weekend the Liberal National Party of Queensland held their annual convention, which is a staple of the Queensland political calendar—not one to be missed. It's always nestled up against the shadow of the Ekka; that's when the LNP circus always comes to town. Of course Senator McGrath was there handing out his showbags. There was plenty of merchandise on offer, even LNP branded Crocs and yellow and blue Converse shoes.

But, rather than focusing on how they can gain back the trust of Queenslanders, the LNP spent their time discussing some pretty wild and woolly ideas—things like cancelling medical checks for drivers over 75, creating a new 'office of space' for the Queensland government and abolishing the eSafety Commissioner, to name but a few. They doubled down on their efforts to divide Australia. We even saw the LNP membership and a number of people opposite vote with an overwhelming majority to abandon their own commitment to Australia's net zero 2050 target. The opposition leader spoke about the coalition's need to modernise and broaden their appeal. However, this clearly is a task that they find impossible. Instead, they are actively becoming more extreme in their policies and further seeking to disenfranchise themselves from the Australian people.

I am proud that on this side of the chamber we have been working with stakeholders to collectively solve the nation's productivity challenges and lift living standards. The roundtable showed that there is far more in common than conflict and that tackling big ideas and challenges is best when we do it together.

After months of spin about lifting productivity, Labor's roundtable delivered little for renters, workers or the environment and ignored a major barrier to productivity—lack of access to quality child care. High quality, affordable early childhood education enables women to participate in the workforce, supports children's development and delivers substantial long-term returns. A universal, low-cost system could grow our economy by over $100 billion, yet nearly one in four Australians live in areas with almost no access to child care. Reports of neglect and abuse highlight that the system is not consistently safe or high quality. As Labor continues to tinker at the edges, it gives fossil fuel corporations like Woodside a seat at the table, rather than families and parents.

That's why we've established a Senate inquiry into the safety and quality of early childhood education. The inquiry will examine the role of for-profit providers and the failures of the market driven model. It will also give families and educators a well-deserved voice at the table to share stories and demand change.

Labor's much vaunted productivity summit concluded last week, and, I must say, I'm none the wiser about what it actually achieved. I listened very closely when Senator Mulholland asked Senator Gallagher, the Minister for Finance, who was a participant in all three days of the roundtable, what was achieved, in what's known as a dorothy dixer. Here was her opportunity to tell us all how much consensus had been reached, how the gravity of the moment had been seized and how opportunities had been grasped.

But, instead, we got a series of bromides. These are just some of the things Senator Gallagher had to say. She said:

The roundtable was a good and positive thing …

She said people wanted to lean in and be part of the discussion. She said there was a high level of buy-in. Now, that all sounds very worthy, but a high level of buy-in to what? What was achieved? What was discussed? We had 29 hours of discussions. Apparently we had 327 different contributions from participants. We had three days of talks with many of the government's most senior ministers. We have a 14-page transcript of a concluding press conference that the Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, held, but we are none the wiser as to what has been achieved. In fact, what has been achieved and what the government has paraded as an achievement is underwhelming, to say the very least.

Let me hone in on one particular element of this summit—fiscal sustainability. This was meant to be the entire focus of day 3 of this summit. The warning signs on this issue had been flashing brightly for some time. We had the incoming government brief from the Treasury department, the Treasurer's own government department, warning that there would need to be either significant spending reductions or large increases in taxes to restore the budget to a sustainable position. We had the former governor of the Reserve Bank, Philip Lowe, urge the government last week to restore the fiscal guardrails, saying that the government had no budget discipline. We had, apparently, former secretary of the Treasury Ken Henry in the room last week, speaking about the importance of the Charter of Budget Honesty from 1996, a Howard and Costello innovation, and lauding the fiscal rules that were adopted by the Treasurer's own former boss, Wayne Swan.

But, apparently, the Treasurer and the government were having none of that. According to the Financial Review:

There was widespread agreement—

Amongst participants—

at the roundtable that expenditure growth was on—

or is on—

an unsustainable trajectory.

But a spokesperson for the Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, said that claims that fiscal rules should be re-instituted are not worth the paper they are written on. What have we got in their place? We've got no fiscal rules. We've got no fiscal guardrails. We've got no budget discipline. We've got no expenditure discipline. When you've got a treasurer that makes Wayne Swan look like a fiscal hawk, you know that this government has absolutely no discipline whatsoever. Wayne Swan introduces fiscal guardrails; Jim Chalmers's spokesperson says they're not worth the paper they're written on. Wayne Swan, a fiscal hawk—I never thought I'd see the day, but so it has come to pass.

So what have we seen achieved—some discipline imposed here on government spending? No—a big doughnut. Have we seen any significant cutbacks on regulation? No—a big doughnut. Instead we've seen a tax on electric vehicles floated; adoption of a coalition policy, a freezing of the building and construction code; and mooted changes to the super performance test so that superannuation funds now need to invest their members' money in government policy projects, not where it would deliver the best returns for their members or look after the interests of their members.

Australia's economy is stagnant, our living standards are deteriorating, our business conditions are terrible, and our productivity is going backwards—this was the burning-platform scenario that we were presented with as the foreground to this so-called productivity and economic reform roundtable. We had some of the best minds in the country there. We had business leaders, economists, think tankers and others, who were willing to share their ideas and willing to make some suggestions, but the government was unwilling to take any of them. So instead, after three days, after 29 hours of discussions, after 327 different contributions and after about a dozen press conferences by Jim Chalmers, we're left with a tax on electric vehicles, a coalition policy and changes to the super performance test. This does not rise to the gravity of the challenge that the Australian economy faces right now.

The time for the discussion has expired.

The Senate will now consider the proposal, under standing order 75, from Senator Lambie, which is also shown at item 15 on today's Order of Business:

The cost of living crisis, fuelled by unfair practices from banks, energy and telecommunications companies posting record profits, exposes a broken system and the urgent need for fairer tax and economic reforms.

Is consideration of the proposal supported?

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

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

Interest rates have gone down by a little—hallelujah!—and there are some financial commentators saying that we might be seeing green shoots for the economy. That might be true for some, but, for those doing it hard, it means absolutely nothing—zilch. If you speak to charity groups and food banks, they will tell you that millions of Australians are still struggling to pay their bills and put food on the table.

The latest report from Foodbank confirms that food insecurity in Australia has reached a critical point, with 3.4 million families either skipping meals, reducing their portion sizes, going entire days without eating or eating spoiled or expired food. According to the Salvation Army's 2025 report, the rate of food insecurity 'was more than six times higher than the national average'. We've had years of price hikes on food and power, and, of course, rents have never been higher. According to Anglicare's 2024 cost-of-living report, a full-time worker on a minimum wage has just $33 left, if they're lucky, after rent, food and transport are covered. The head of Anglicare said in June, 'It's really frustrating for people to hear speculation on whether the cost-of-living crisis is over, because millions of Australians are still struggling to afford even just those basic essentials.'

While low income Australians are struggling to make ends meet, our energy companies, on the other hand, our banks—what's new with our banks?—and big tech are making an absolute motza. They could shower us all in their cash. Research from The Australia Institute late last year shows just how much Australia's two biggest energy retailers are gouging from Aussie customers. More than a third of what Australians pay AGL and Origin for electricity is pure profit for those companies. The research, using the companies' own data, shows that an average AGL customer forks out over $750 a year directly to the profits of the company. AGL made a billion dollars last year, by the way—what a disgrace!—off the poor butt of Australians. They have no conscience. Origin Energy customers pay nearly $600 a year into the company's annual profit. Good on them; they should make Australians shareholders. Origin Energy's profit last year was $2 billion. It's the same story with gas. The average Origin customer pours $410 into the company's annual profit. An average AGL gas customer hands over $400 each year in pure profit for that company.

I have never been a fan of privatisation. This just shows how badly it can go for Australians. Australians need to look at this and listen, because privatisation is nothing ever good. Once we privatise something, we have no control over it. That's why you are paying those big bills. We sold out on you. We sold out on Australians—not me, but these two major parties. That is why Australians are paying these energy prices. They're saying, 'We don't know why this is happening,' but I'll tell you why it's happening. It's because they sold you out years ago. If it wasn't the electricity companies they sold out, it was the wires and poles. That's where we're at. It's an absolute disgrace. You are now paying for that—good on you, Australia—and you're not even a shareholder. What a disgrace! What is the government doing about it? I'll tell you what it's doing.

Then there are the banks, like the Commonwealth Bank, which is just another asset we privatised and sold off. That's money we could have been making and putting back into health and education. Do you Australians understand how it happens now? These two major parties go and privatise over the years they're in, and they do you completely over. All those profits those companies are making should have been coming to us, because we should have kept owning them. That's where the problem lies today, but Australians still keep voting for them. While your energy costs are going up, you can have a good look at yourselves and who you are voting for, because these two majors have done you over year in, year out, for a very long time now by privatising stuff. That's where it comes from.

According to Sydney University, it is estimated that the five big tech giants operating in Australia had a combined record profit of $15 billion. We weren't quick enough to work it out and do Commonwealth tech companies and make the money. Instead, somebody else is getting in before us. That is lack of will. You have to ask yourself, Australia: do you have the right people representing you up here? They have sold you out cheap, and they've been doing it for years. That's what the Liberal and Labor parties do to you. Good luck to you if you're wondering why those energy prices are so high. They can go around and blame anything they like, but the only ones to blame are themselves. They have done this to you because they let it go and privatised it. Good on them.

Pursuant to order, I now call Senator Walker to make her first speech. Senators, I ask that the usual courtesies be extended to her.

I acknowledge the traditional custodians of this land, the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples, and thank them for their care of this country. This is technically my first speech, although I have now spoken in this chamber on multiple occasions, and the results have been whack. As the youngest ever Senator, I have received a lot of media attention about what I have said and what others have said about me, including some who really haven't liked what I've said. They say I don't have enough life experience. I replied that I have 21 years of life experience. What I bring to this parliament is the experience of young people today, and I know what a privilege it is to do so.

Young Australians aren't a side issue. We aren't a future issue. We are Australians now. It's hard to explain what it feels like to be a young person today, not because we lack the words or the insight but because so often, when we speak, we're told we're too sensitive, too entitled or too distracted by our screens. We are told we spend too much time looking at our phones—although sometimes the person saying it has only just stopped looking at their own phone! We're told that we're too young to understand how the world really works. But we do understand, because we're the ones living in this world others built and we're facing a very different set of challenges than any generation before us. Homeownership, for instance, is increasingly out of reach. A dream once seen as an expected milestone of adulthood is now something many of us feel we may never achieve. And renting is now a lottery. I have friends who still struggle to find properties they can afford and others who have submitted over 50 applications before being accepted to just get a home. We're told the solution is to cut out smashed avocado toast or skip a daily coffee—or, in my case, a daily hot chocolate. But no amount of budgeting advice will fix a system where the price of a home has completely outstripped wage growth. The uncomfortable truth is that we live in a wealthy country but that that wealth is not being evenly shared between generations.

The first time I spoke in this parliament, I was proud to talk about what the Albanese government is doing to ease the housing crisis. However, we also know there is a long way to go. Today's announcement on the early start of our five per cent deposit scheme will be a big help to many young people, allowing them to turn their rent money into mortgage repayments.

We're told we're an anxious generation, but we live with the ever-present threat of climate change. It's clear to almost all young Australians that you've got to be working hard on closing your eyes to convince yourself that climate change isn't a threat, yet some still do. I can't imagine how they look at the catastrophic weather events, the fires and floods we're experiencing, and say to themselves, 'Nothing to see here.' I can't imagine them standing on the street in Lismore, with boarded-up houses from flood damage, and telling those residents, 'Nothing to see here.' I challenge them to visit the World Heritage Ningaloo Reef, which has just had its first-ever widespread bleaching event from a hot ocean, and say, 'Nothing to see here; no need to reduce emissions.'

Maybe they just lack the empathy to understand how these rapidly escalating climate events evoke in our generation a real fear of what is yet to come later in this century. After all, in 2050 I won't be in my late 90s, like some who want to abandon net zero; my friends and I will be in our 40s, and we demand an inhabitable planet. Right now, South Australians are walking on beaches and seeing dead fish, rays and octopuses from a climate change induced algal bloom. The algal bloom is smothering ecosystems that until now have been virtually pristine, and it is threatening our valuable fishing and aquaculture industries. Both the state and federal governments are working hard on supporting businesses and funding scientific research. So much needs to be done to support environmental climate resilience into the future so our coast can bounce back. Our beaches and the ocean are very much part of our way of life in South Australia.

Just in case you missed it, those internet trolls won't stop me from demanding that we act on climate change. Young people today are more informed, more passionate and more determined than ever. We care deeply about our future, and we demand a seat at the table where decisions are made. In parliament, I sit alongside colleagues who are dedicated and experienced, but they weren't born in this millennium. They didn't learn in digital classrooms. They didn't grow up with social media. They didn't come of age during a COVID lockdown or a climate crisis. And they can't fully understand what it means to be a young person right now—and that's okay; no one generation can fully understand another. But what we can do is listen to each other. The voices of young people are not a threat to experience; they are the next step forward.

Being given the opportunity to stand for the Senate is a privilege that still seems unreal. By preselecting the President of Young Labor, the Australian Labor Party was making a statement that we care about the voices of young people. I am so proud to stand here as a member of South Australian Young Labor, particularly Young Labor Left. I want to acknowledge the number of you that have travelled all this way to watch this speech.

Getting involved in Young Labor is one of the best things I've ever done. Growing up, I didn't have friends who were interested in politics—I'm actually thankful for that now!—but finding the Young Labor Left was like finding my home. These are the people I've spent many hours with out on prepoll and doorknocking, but, most importantly, these are my friends. I stand a little taller in this place knowing I have all of you behind me. I hope I make you all proud. A particular thanks to Billy Fay and Zara Smith. They make sure we turn up on time, and are responsible for controlling a large room of rowdy activists.

But it is my experience before joining Young Labor that has led to my own passions and determination to speak up. Lots of people think I am in parliament because of the privilege I was raised with—how I went to private school, so things must have been handed to me on a silver platter—but, of course, the story is a little more complicated than that. I grew up in regional South Australia. Yankalilla and Normanville seem idyllic to many because a lot of wealthy Adelaideans have their holiday homes in the area. But my family was not there on holidays. We weren't wealthy, nor was much of my community.

Regional South Australia has social complexities: fewer job options, higher rates of youth drinking and drugs, high road fatalities, rural suicide rates and domestic violence. I recall being puzzled when classmates were pulled out of school because their mother had to get them away from their father. To a child, the fact that your friend disappears from netball because she is scared of her dad is really distressing. Then, as I got older, I overheard the way young men at the pub and in sports clubs talk about women.

The Australian Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commissioner has now said we are seeing the first generation to grow up exposed to violent pornography and misogyny online, and we know that, when these views of women are normalised, it creates environments where violence is tolerated, minimised or ignored. Last week South Australia's royal commission report was released. It was written by a former young senator, Natasha Stott Despoja, and I note that she talks about the importance of looking at both the experience of children and the need to change community conversations. Domestic violence is a deep shame in our community, and I want to talk about it. How do we better recognise the experience of kids exposed to violence, and how do we change those conversations in the pubs and sports clubs?

Personally, at school I experienced another challenge that hurts so many kids: bullying. The bullying was enough to force me out of my local public school in year 4. The only option was to go to private school. Mum scraped by, paying private school tuition fees and not buying things for herself, to support me and my brother. We rarely took holidays, and, since starting this job, I think I've probably flown on more planes than our whole family has combined during my life. I got my first job at 14, as soon as I could, because I wanted to help out with all of my personal costs: stationery, camps, pads, tampons—you name it. We weren't poor, but we didn't have a lot of money. But what we did have was love.

My mum, Liz, is one of the bravest people I know. She put up with so much that she shouldn't have. She did it for us, to protect us kids. Words can't fully account for the sacrifices she made for us. Mitchell is the best brother. We fought a lot as kids, as kids do. As we've gotten older, we've realised that we have a lot more in common than once thought. He's way cooler than me, but don't tell him I said that!

Like many families, my parents' breakup was hard on everyone involved, and a lot of what happened really hurt me, but I didn't start to realise the impacts of this until I was older. When I was 18 years old, I spent lots of time at the doctor trying to figure out why I wasn't sleeping at night—blood tests, medication, suggestions of a sleep study—but deep down I knew what the root of the problem was, even though I wouldn't admit it to myself, let alone the doctor. It was depression. I had spent years skirting around the issue. I was in denial. The effects had been long-lasting, compounded by guilt. I spent months dreading waking up in the morning. I often wondered if I wanted to go on—if there was any point in me being here. The first step to my recovery was admitting that I needed help. I remember leaving my first therapy appointment feeling a tiny bit more positive about my life. In sharing this today, I am telling all of you some of what I've only told a handful of people.

I don't tell people about my depression because of the deep shame I feel about it and because of the perception of being damaged goods. But, whilst that experience has undoubtedly cost me, it has also given me more understanding and empathy for what some families are going through—particularly for what happens to the kids going through this type of thing. During my term in parliament, I want to shine a light on how childhood experiences like mine can continue to affect your mental health into adulthood and I want to explore meaningful ways to address this.

I was also recently diagnosed with a genetic heart condition called familial hypercholesterolaemia—something we probably should have seen coming given my family history. It affects about one in 200 people and can lead to early heart attacks, even in very young people. However, thanks to my fabulous bulk-billing doctor and the treasured Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, I know about my condition and I can take the lifelong medication I need to prevent heart damage.

I've already spoken in this parliament about how valuable the PBS and Medicare are. I hope I can contribute to our improvements to Medicare—something only a Labor government takes seriously. I also want to look at how we can harness new technologies to ensure early diagnoses for people with conditions like mine so that, regardless of your financial situation, you can have the best opportunity to manage these health conditions. My life until now was shaped by some challenges that, whilst they sometimes held me back, do not define me. What helped me get through were the people who stayed—my friends—and I want to take this opportunity to thank them.

Firstly, for my two closest friends, Isabella and Jemma, I was going to tell some stories about what we got up to together, but I decided that our teenage years probably don't need to be aired here! Jemma and I have a friendship where we share many interests, hate all of the same people and are brutally honest with each other. I can genuinely say it's a low-maintenance and high-reward relationship. Isabella and I have known each other since we were in year 4. Her family became a second family to me.

When I was planning this speech, my mother suggested that I should tell the story of how my family came to adopt our beloved cat, Gerald. She thought you would all be touched by the compassion Isabella and I demonstrated in heroically rescuing two abandoned kittens found during a hike in Deep Creek National Park—kittens that we both took home to look after. But there is something about that day that I've never shared. Actually, I've shared it with a lot of people, just not my mum. Mum, perhaps now is the right time to admit that the story wasn't true. I just really wanted a cat. Isabella and I were at work and one of our colleagues had somehow acquired a few kittens—as you do. She wanted them to go to a good home, so we decided that we would take the kittens. I only lied because I thought that, if you knew the truth, you'd make me take him back. So, Mum, Isabella and I conspired, as usual.

I'm also lucky to have another friend from school here today, Kane. In year 12, I had the honour of being elected school captain. I initially didn't think that I had what it took until my head of school convinced me to have a crack. I didn't want to; I was really scared of failure. So, with significant hesitation, I pieced together a speech and was elected alongside Kane. Today, Kane is serving in the Australian Defence Force and is in ADFA. It's pretty cool to have him just down the road here in Canberra.

But the person who now knows me best is my partner, Matt. Matt and I matched on Tinder—controversial, I know. After a few days, I was at a birthday party and I didn't want to pay for an Uber home, so I decided to try my luck and see if Tinder Matt would drop me home to save the 30 bucks. He lived nearby and agreed. We started talking, and, before we knew it, four hours had passed and it was 3 am. It was pretty clear that we were a good match and it was only a matter of days before we decided to go on an actual date. If you ask Matt, though, he would say that I should not have done that. Frankly, it's not safe to let a random guy off Tinder drop you home. But better him than some other dude, he says. Thank you, Matt, for all of the support you've given me to get here. I couldn't ask for a calmer or more supportive partner. He is truly my better half and one of the smartest people I know. I am so lucky to have you by me on this wild ride that you probably didn't anticipate.

My friends, my family and my partner are the human anchors in my life. They have allowed me to pursue the opportunities that have brought me here. However, the groundwork for my passion has come from being brought up with Labor values. My maternal grandparents, Diane and Peter, were both rank-and-file ALP members. They never asked for anything, but they turned up on election day because they understood the importance of what a Labor government would do for this country. It hurts me that neither of them is around to see me today. We lost Peter in 2007 to cancer, but not before I learned how to wear a Kevin 07 T-shirt. We lost Diane in 2015 to heart failure. I can't articulate the way that I think they would feel to be seeing their 21-year-old granddaughter standing in the Senate. This belongs to them just as much as it belongs to me. I hope they're proud. I'll do this for them, and I hope I'm able to support the sort of government they always worked towards.

Thank you to my uncle Tony and my aunty Meredith, who are here today and would talk to me about the Labor movement at family functions. Tony is a proud organiser for the United Workers Union, which is ably led in South Australia by Demi Pnevmatikos. Meredith organises the extraordinary International Women's Day breakfast which is held in Adelaide each year and, despite having more than 2,000 tickets available, sells out each year in just hours. Together, Tony and Meredith have modelled union and feminist politics for me all my life.

Thank you also to the other members of my family who've come all this way to celebrate with me today. I know lots of people dread having to spend time with their random aunties, uncles and extended family on Christmas Day, but I certainly don't. It's a supportive family with great values, and they passed those values onto me, which eventually led me to work for state parliament and then the mighty Australian Services Union.

I'm so excited that the ASU national executive have joined me here today. Particular thanks to SA and NT secretary Abbie Spencer, as well as and Ella Waters, Scott Cowen and Declan Price-Brooks, who have all not only shown faith in me but given me the support I need to transition to this new role. Abbie, Ella and Scott took a chance on me, and they have backed me in all the way. I think all senators can probably think back to the people who got us here, because they guided us through the crazy political maze.

My time at the ASU instilled in me a deep commitment to protecting workers' rights—a commitment I now bring with me to the Senate. Today, workers' rights face a new kind of challenge. The emergence of artificial intelligence is creating new opportunities for productivity and growth, but, alongside that potential, we must ensure that workers are not left behind. The ASU represents technology and administrative workers amongst others. As the national secretary of the ASU, Emeline Gaske, has said, we 'can't resist AI any more than we could've resisted the internet'. AI systems are increasingly handling tasks that were once performed by people, often by those just starting their careers. These entry-level roles have long been essential, not only for earning a living but for developing skills and building a career. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't change with AI, but it does mean we must plan carefully to ensure that, as technology advances, so do the opportunities for workers.

As the ASU and the ACTU put to last week's productivity summit, we must make sure that the productivity benefits of AI aren't just increased profits. Workers need to benefit too, so that we don't lose so much that is precious about being Australian. That means ensuring workers are involved in implementation and investing in training and education so we can adapt and grow with these tools. This transition must be about both innovation and inclusion. We need to make sure the future of work is not only more efficient but more equitable, more human and more just.

I also very much want to thank all my Labor colleagues that I worked with on the campaign trail. Thanks to Josh Rayner and Hamish Richardson for your fun campaign directing, for the sound advice and for the memes, both the ones that got up and the ones that got put in the bin. Your dedication to my campaign and the whole campaign was invaluable. Thank you, Penny Wong and Karen Grogan, for mentoring me and helping me navigate this place. Thanks also to Don Farrell, who allowed his skilled staff to help me with media inquiries.

I join this parliament with the Labor class of 2025, which has 31 new senators and MPs, over 65 per cent women. I know I stand on the shoulders of many great feminists, like Minister Penny Wong, who pushed for the affirmative action rule in the ALP and who, despite being the longest ever serving Australian female cabinet minister, is still working to bring more women into the room. I'm also lucky enough to have some smart sounding boards outside this place. I'm grateful to Bec Lightowler and Zara Smith for giving me a place to offload and reflect.

I am acutely aware that I am the youngest member of the Labor class of 2025 by a long way, and I have so much to learn. It has already been a steep learning curve for me and my whole office. We've learnt that the computer clocks don't necessarily change when you change time zones, so someone is either always half an hour late or early. We've learnt that buying a stapler, weirdly, seems to involve at least two government departments. We've learnt that there are lots of parts of parliament you aren't allowed to film Instagram reels in. And, if you do, you get a letter from the Usher of the Black Rod and you have to take a very popular post down. We've learnt that when the media tells your staff what they want to talk to you about—well, let's just say that they're probably not telling you the whole story. And we've learnt that this first speech can come a long way down the list of speeches we've quickly put together.

But we've also had the opportunity to discuss so many important policy issues—from net zero to HECS debt reduction to the Langhorne Creek Discovery Trail. Last week I even pulled a beer whilst promoting the excise freeze. I didn't mention that I'm not a beer drinker, although it was pretty clear to the staff at the Exeter Hotel that I had never pulled a beer before. I am so honoured to be learning all of this with an amazing office team. Catherine Mullighan, Zoe Stangoulis, Lockhart Tyne, Kylie Potts and Lois Boswell—I'm lucky to have you. Thank you for all of the hard work, laughter and loyal defence.

I have said much about how it feels to be young today, but I want to stress that what also comes with youth is a desire and passion to actually change the world, and we know this will mean doing things differently. I pledge to be a fierce advocate for housing opportunity, universal and affordable health care and education, youth mental health, domestic violence prevention, regional opportunities, workers' rights and effective climate change responses. I know that we can support a real future for the young Australians of today without taking anything away from our older generations—a future where stability is not a privilege but a right, and a future where hope doesn't feel naive. I would be honoured if my term in this place acts as a symbol that we are no longer telling young people to be quiet, to wait their turn and to work harder, and that, instead, we are all asking ourselves: how can we build a socially, economically and environmentally sustainable and fair future together? If the future truly is ours, then we deserve to be heard, we deserve to be included and we deserve a fair chance to build lives that are not just sustainable but fulfilling.

Regarding the MPI put forward today by Senator Lambie, that 'the cost-of-living crisis, fuelled by unfair practices from banks, energy and telecommunications companies posting record profits, exposes a broken system and the urgent need for fairer tax and economic reforms', the Albanese Labor government is 100 per cent focused on relieving cost-of-living pressures felt across the country. That's why our government has had a laser focus on this issue during our first term and we continue to do so in our second term. We on this side believe in wage growth, which is why we have supported increases to the minimum wage twice and secured those increases for some of Australia's lowest paid workers. That's why we on this side have delivered for the care economy's workers, with a 14 per cent pay rise for people working in aged care. That's why we have secured a 15 per cent pay rise for early childhood educators, something I've campaigned on for many years, in both the early childhood education area and aged care.

What a week to be in the Senate, when we will be debating one of the most important issues and pieces of legislation—that is, securing penalty rates for 2.6 million Australians, a commitment we took to the election and we will deliver in the Senate this week. It's always a good week in Canberra when a government is improving pay and conditions for working people. So I look forward to speaking on that legislation again to protect people's rights to penalty rates—to protect workers' rights to penalty rates. On this side of the chamber, we are the party of government, and any economist or politician who understands how our economy and our society work understands that we need strong banks because they provide security to our nation. We need strong banks to have rating agencies know that Australia is a place to do business and that a triple A credit rating is essential.

I want people to not forget history. The fact is that headline and underlying inflation are at a four-year low thanks to Australians who have been doing the heavy lifting over the last four years. Further to this, annual real wages have been growing for seven consecutive quarters. The economy is still expanding. The fundamentals of our nation's economy are strong. Interest rates have been cut three times in six months, taking pressure off households and mortgage holders. More than 1.1 million jobs have been created since we came to government, a record for any government in a single term. The average unemployment rate is the lowest of any government in 50 years, so the comments made by Senator Lambie by bringing this motion are absolutely unfounded, but it's very easy to come in and throw statistics and have a rant—which is what it was—about banks and this government not doing anything.

But the budget is what tells the story. We've turned two Liberal deficits into two Labor surpluses and halved the deficit in our third year. The budget position has improved by more than $270 billion, and we are still delivering tax cuts to hardworking Australians. Debt is $177 billion lower in 2024-25, saving $60 billion in interest cost as a consequence. We've found more than $100 billion in savings, whereas our predecessors had none in their last budget.

I'd like to also remind the chamber and Senator Lambie that headline inflation was 6.1 per cent when we came to office, and now it's 2.1 per cent. You can't deny that, Senator Lambie. These interest rate cuts mean a household with a $700,000 mortgage is saving about $330 a month, or $4,000 a year. Australians appreciate that. They acknowledge that. We are delivering what we said we would at the May election, rolling out billions of dollars worth of responses and support from 1 July. The national minimum wage and award wages increased by 3.5 per cent. We will stand by our record and we will continue to do all we can to assist Australians through these challenging times.

I rise to speak on this important issue that Senator Lambie has brought before the Senate. I thank her for bringing it to us today. Senator Polley referred to Senator Lambie's speech as a rant. I would say it was an impassioned call for this government to take action on some very important issues. This is an important issue, and I thank Senator Lambie for bringing it before us.

The cost-of-living crisis has become synonymous with this Labor government. Throughout its first term and now in its second, we have seen Australians braving the ever-declining standards of living. Even now the cost of essentials refuses to come down, with milk, bread, electricity and gas all rising. The ugly truth that this government continues to shy away from is that their approach simply has not worked. Throwing temporary energy bill relief at households has not brought the cost of energy down. As we are seeing in my home state of Western Australia, now that the state government energy relief measures have been lifted off the bills, we are seeing those costs go up significantly. The latest ABS data, unsurprisingly, shows that once government funded energy bill relief ended, electricity costs rose in June 2025 across all household types. Now, with household energy prices up 40 per cent over the past two years, and a further increased forecast this year, this Labor government is a few watts short of powering a solution. With no real plan to address the issue and the demand on the grid only increasing with the rise of artificial intelligence, Australians can only expect their wallets to feel an even tighter squeeze under this government. What Australians need is a lasting cost-of-living relief, not one-off election commitments. Housing, food and non-alcoholic beverages were all included in the list of main contributors to the rise of costs of living in this quarter. Under Labor, rent is up 20 per cent, insurance is up 35 per cent and food is up 14 per cent. The fact is that this Labor government has not delivered on its alleged priority of helping Australians with the cost of living, and Australians are suffering as a result. Our young people are struggling to build their futures. Our senior citizens are shielding their life earnings from the government's superannuation tax. And our families are dreading the delivery of those windowed envelopes in the post.

We are now seeing many millennials in a position worse off than their parents were in at their age. As a result, family planning has been put on the backburner as Australians delay the inevitable cost of raising children. Australia's 2024 fertility rate stayed at 1.5 children per woman, which is well below the 2.1 replacement rate needed to sustain population growth and workplaces. Recent KPMG analysis confirms the declining birth rate is largely driven by compounding economic pressures that Australians are facing, including rising rents, mortgage payments and limited parental leave. I believe the conversation on alleviating childcare costs must include important measures like income splitting for families. Families should have a choice to access the kinds of care arrangements that best suit their needs, including alternative options that currently receive no government support at all.

This is exactly the kind of tangible cost-of-living relief that this government would never consider, but it is something that we should consider as a parliament. It's not a flashy headline, and it does not come with a dollar sign. A measure like this would bring real financial change for Australian families. This is the kind of tangible change that Australians want and need. They don't need another three-day, invite-only get-together for bureaucrats in Canberra which produces no more than he-said, she-said from journalists. When will the government stop desperately sweeping the nation's economy under the proverbial rug and face it for what it is?

The cost of living has not come down. The standard of living has in fact not gone up. Productivity growth is slower than it has ever been—or certainly in a long time. The Australian dream of homeownership, unfortunately, has become a fantasy. Australians are tired of watching the cracks in our economy widen at the hands of the Albanese government. I call on the Prime Minister to deliver real change—change that will make a difference for the millions of Australians that voted for him yet, sadly, are seeing the results of failed action by this government.

Of course, there's a cost-of-living crisis in Australia, and of course it is being fuelled by corporate greed and price gouging from banks, supermarkets and energy companies. But it is also being fuelled by a tax system that is rigged to reward the wealthy. The clearest example of our tax system being rigged to reward the wealthy is the capital gains tax discount. It is the most regressive, unfair tax break on the tax books at the moment in Australia. It is turbocharging inequality, because it makes it easier for a property speculator to buy their seventh or sometimes their 70th investment property than it is for a renter to buy their first home.

The Prime Minister has been clear that this is not on the table for reform in this parliament. But I say this to the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Labor Party. They took a position on the stage 3 tax cuts to the last election but won, and then they came in and, under pressure from the Greens, community groups and millions of Australians, they actually did change the stage 3 tax cuts—and rightly so. They removed some of the most regressive elements from those stage 3 tax cuts. News flash for Labor: the capital gains tax discount is more regressive than the stage 3 tax cuts were in their original form. For the stage 3 tax cuts, 75 per cent of the benefit went to the top 20 per cent. For the capital gains tax discount, 82 per cent of the benefit flows straight to the top 10 per cent of income earners. Think about that—82 per cent to the top 10 per cent. It is way more regressive than the stage 3 tax cuts.

Labor said they couldn't change the stage 3 tax cuts until they did. They said the stage 3 tax cuts were untouchable until they touched them. Everything can't be reformed until it can be reformed. We have to reform and scrap the capital gains tax discount. If reforming stage 3 tax cuts were possible, scrapping the capital gains tax—which is even more regressive—is absolutely possible. (Time expired)

One Nation puts Australians first. We put the interests of Australia and Australians first. Under the Albanese government, Australia's standard of living has gone backwards. Families are struggling to make ends meet. Everything from a beer at the pub to groceries at the supermarket costs more than it ever has before—especially electricity bills, under the obsession with net zero. A serious debate can't be had on the cost of living without looking at record immigration under Labor, which is driving rampant rent and housing prices for everyday Australians. In my home state of WA, we are seeing rental vacancy rates at 0.7 per cent while locals compete with the flood of new arrivals. Perth's rents have risen more than anywhere else in the country—up 7.6 per cent this year alone and up a staggering 72 per cent since 2020. So what does Labor do? Drive up demand by increasing quotas of international students along with near-record net overseas migration.

One Nation knows there are many levers available that the government can pull to provide virtually instant cost-of-living relief. The government won't pull them. One Nation will. We plan to eliminate about $30 billion a year in federal government taxes and wipe out $10 billion from Australia's cost of living; that's $40 billion more in the pockets of Australians. One Nation's cost-of-living relief will temporarily reduce petrol and diesel fuel excise by 40c a litre; eliminate the excise on alcoholic beverages sold at hospitality venues; resource and empower the ACCC to better police profiteering and collusion in supermarkets, airlines and insurance; increase the Medicare rebate to better sustain the system and promote bulk-billing, partially paid for by eliminating Medicare fraud, estimated at $1.5 to $3 billion a year; and reduce electricity bills by at least 20 per cent by amending the national electricity market rules to promote 24/7 use of baseload power sources like coal and gas.

Affordable and reliable energy is absolutely essential for Australian households and businesses. Australia has the highest average household electricity prices in the world outside of Europe. Household electricity costs have increased by up to 40 per cent in the last two years. Under the Albanese government, the obscene push for renewable subsidies and premature closures of coal and gas power plants have directly led to huge increases in our energy bills and looming energy shortages. This makes no sense in a country like Australia, where there is an abundance of natural energy resources. One Nation's energy policy aims to leverage this competitive advantage to generate cheaper, more reliable power.

The total cost of renewable energy subsidies is over $1,500 per household per year on their electricity bills. There are 10.3 million households in Australia. Abolishing these subsidies will save $15.6 billion each year. The cost to Australian taxpayers of the renewable energy transition is estimated at $1.5 trillion. One Nation does not subscribe to the impractical pursuit of net zero through the destruction of Australia's economy, environment and prime agricultural land. One Nation will abolish the department of climate change, along with related agencies, saving $30 billion per year. We will eliminate the woke agenda from government bureaucracy, including ESG and DEI programs and funding. We will eliminate the federal Aboriginal industry and provide direct assistance to those who need it, which will save approximately $8 billion per year in direct grant funding.

We will review the functions and costs of the Department of Education and eliminate duplication with state departments, saving $1 billion per year. We will review the functions and costs of the department of housing and amend or abolish the national building code mandates on costly compulsory requirements like ensuring all new homes are wheelchair accessible. We will return the NDIS to its original purpose of providing reasonable and necessary disability support. We will abolish the TGA and roll its essential functions into the department of health. One Nation will also establish a review of $3 billion worth of medications approved for the PBS. We will withdraw Australia's membership from the United Nations, the World Health Organization and the International Criminal Court. This will save about $1 billion a year. Reducing foreign aid and redirecting foreign spending based on need rather than geopolitics will save about $3 billion per year. Only One Nation puts Australians first.

While I respect Senator Lambie's passion on these issues and share her concern for Australians under cost-of-living pressures, I cannot support this matter of public importance. We on this side of the chamber do not underestimate the pressure Australian families are under. The cost-of-living challenge is real. That's why the Albanese government has been tackling it since our very first day in office in 2022 and why we've continued to treat it with the urgency it deserves.

The claims made by not just Senator Lambie but other members in the chamber as part of this debate ignore the practical, targeted and meaningful steps that our government has taken on the cost of living. What Australians need right now is not despair and is not political point scoring on this issue. They need practical action that makes a difference of their lives. That's exactly what our government is doing. Helping with the cost of living is our top priority. We're working everyday to make a difference. We've been really clear. We want people to earn more and keep more of what they earn.

Since coming to office, we've led the fight on inflation, and we've made good progress. Headline and underlying inflation are at four-year lows. Interest rates have been cut three times in six months. Wages are finally moving again after a decade of stagnation, because Labor backed a rise to the minimum wage and has delivered pay rises for essential workers like aged care workers and early childhood educators. More than 1.1 million jobs have been created since we came to government—a record for any government in a single term. The average unemployment rate is the lowest of any government in 50 years. We've rolled out the most comprehensive cost-of-living package in decades, and we've done it responsibly—without fuelling inflation and while keeping the budget in good shape.

Every household and small business is receiving energy bill relief, helping to keep the lights on and keep power bills down. In my home state of Western Australia, our partnership with the state Labor government has meant Western Australians have received thousands of dollars in power bill relief in recent years. Another round of power bill credits from our government will be delivered shortly. Families are saving thousands on child care with our cheaper childcare policy, which means families are receiving higher subsidies and which will soon see families receive three days of guaranteed subsidised care.

We're making health care cheaper too. Medicines will soon be capped at $25 a script—the lowest it's been since 2004. We've tripled the bulk-billing incentive. We've opened more than 90 Medicare urgent care clinics right across the country, so people can access free health care when they need it. We are undertaking the largest Medicare investment in over 40 years to boost bulk-billing, expanding it to all Australians and providing a new incentive payment for practices that bulk-bill every patient from 1 November this year. Our plan aims to increase bulk-billing rates, making GP visits cheaper and more accessible. Our goal is to have nine out of 10 GP visits bulk-billed by 2030. Cheaper health care is key to our agenda of tackling the cost of living.

We've also made free TAFE permanent across a number of courses in crucial areas where we need skills. We have cut student debt by 20 per cent for everyone who has one—real help for millions of Australian starting their careers. We have also raised the threshold at which graduates start paying that debt back. We've increased rent assistance and boosted working age payments, recognising the squeeze renters and lower-income Australians face. On tax, the claim that our system is broken couldn't be further from the truth. Under Labor, all 14 million taxpayers received a tax cut from 1 July, including three million Australians who would have missed out under the coalition's plan. Labor is putting more money back in the pockets of Australians to help with the cost of living.

What's the answer to Australia's rising inequality crisis? What's the answer to funding key services like the National Disability Insurance Scheme? What's the answer to getting rid of HECS for the hundreds of thousands or millions of students facing those burdens? What's the answer to funding the renewable energy future so that we can protect the climate for this and future generations? What is the answer to that growing inequality crisis? The answer is having a system that starts taxing wealth instead of work. Of course we should. That's not only a sensible economic model but a fundamentally ethical model.

In this country people are getting more wealth and more material support simply because of what they already own rather than the work they do, rather than attending work. Sometimes families have both parents working two jobs, struggling to get by and getting whacked on marginal income tax, while the richest in this country get wealthier and wealthier and wealthier without ever breaking into a sweat. If you want to know one of the most obscene figures about the growing disparity in this country, look at what the Australia Institute highlighted in their recent report on how to switch our tax model from taxing work to taxing wealth. In the last 20 years, the richest 200 households in this country have raised their wealth from the equivalent of eight per cent of our GDP to some 25 per cent of GDP, holding more than $600 billion in assets themselves. If we applied a two per cent annual wealth tax on just those 200 richest families in this country, we would find an extra $12.5 billion a year to fund the things we need. That's just a two per cent wealth tax on just the 200 wealthiest.

We also need to get rid of the rort on capital gains tax put in by John Howard which means that those with capital gains pay half the tax for doing nothing compared to those who actually do the work and do genuine labour. This is guaranteed structural inequality. If we want a fairer society, we need to tax wealth, not work.

We will now proceed to consideration of documents.

I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning the New England Highway, the mutual obligation system, and the National Climate Risk Assessment and National Adaptation Plan.

In respect of the ministerial response to my order for the production of documents for the disclosure of the National Climate Risk Assessment, I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

This is a document that has been sitting in the cupboard, buried by this government, for about nine months now. The No. 1 duty of a government is to keep its citizens safe from harm and danger, and there is no greater threat to community safety, to our way of life, to cost-of-living pressures, to the economy or to nature than the climate crisis. Coal, oil and gas companies are throwing fuel on the flames of the climate crisis. They're making record profits for themselves while they do, and they're putting the rest of us and the planet in harm's way.

Last December, nine whole months ago, the government received the National Climate Risk Assessment, which is a report that catalogues and details all the dangers that the Australian community faces from rising emissions caused by coal and gas corporations. The context of this is that they're about to set their climate targets for 2035—the climate pollution reduction targets that will have such consequence for all of us.

Those climate targets are not just figures on a page. The climate crisis is causing life or death events for people and for communities who are already experiencing worsening natural disasters, climate turbocharged disasters. Australians need to know what is in store for them under the climate future being determined by this government and their unflinching support for new coal and gas projects. But the government is keeping this report, their own analysis of the dangers that we all face, secret. They are hiding the reality of the climate crisis from the community—yet forewarned is forearmed, and people deserve to know what is in this report. They also deserve a government that does everything it can to actually solve the climate crisis, but so far we've seen incrementalism at best.

In any other job, if you were to refuse to produce a report like this, you would probably be fired. There would be serious consequences. Instead the people who are facing the consequences are those who are suffering on the front lines of the climate crisis. People who have seen the contents of this report and who have bravely spoken out and blown the whistle, have described it as 'dire', 'extremely confronting' and a number of other descriptors, which really illustrate exactly why the government is burying this report. It's a bad news story, and they're trying to cover it up.

We passed an order for the production of documents. Today the minister said, 'Soz, we're not going to give it to you.' That's not on. We'll be moving to force disclosure, and we will also be moving for an inquiry into what is in this report.

How can Labor honestly say they are representing the community, when they are hiding a climate report? Which big coal and gas company are they serving today? Is it Woodside, is it Chevron or is it BHP? At least have the guts to be up front, telling Australian people what is in store for them. Members of the government know that their communities are going to face worsening floods, more frequent cyclones and more devastating bushfires, yet they still want to keep people in the dark and in harm's way. Let's be clear about what purposes this is serving. Labor is refusing to produce this reported to cover up the fact that they're about to announce emissions reduction targets that will lock us into more than two degrees of warming and more coal and gas. And boy does that suit the coal and gas donors for the Labor Party!

If you're in a life-and-death emergency, the first thing that you are taught to do is to remove the danger. You get out of coal and gas as quickly as possible. But what does our new environment minister do 16 days into his job? He ticks off on the North West Shelf gas expansion project—a massive climate bomb. What an absolute farce. It makes a mockery of this government's so-called commitment to climate, and they are still burying this climate risk assessment report.

You don't want to show us what's in store, because what it will actually tell us is that we need to phase out coal and gas exports and we need that transition off dirty fossil fuels. That is what Australians voted for, not this secrecy and not this continued kowtowing to coal and gas companies.

The 2035 target has to face up to coal and gas exports, or we are consigned to live in the terrifying future that this very report documents—this dire and extremely confronting climate assessment report. People deserve to know exactly how the climate crisis is making our country less safe, destroying the environment and supercharging climate disasters that are already costing communities. The only reason the government would be trying to hide this report that they don't want you to see is that they're about to announce inadequate 2035 climate targets.

Global temperatures are higher than they have ever been. Global emissions are also higher than they've ever been, yet this government, just like the last, continues to approve new coal and gas projects. Setting an end date for coal and gas exports is the biggest contribution that Australia could make to the world's decarbonising, because we would be setting in place a timetable for the rest of the world to follow—that is, as the second-largest fossil fuel emission exporter in the world. We're actually in quite a powerful position here. Australia has done far too little for far too long, and we now need science based targets that keep warming below two degrees. That requires a monumental effort and it requires reaching net zero by 2035, not by 2050 and not by never, as Mr Barnaby Joyce would have had us believe in the other place earlier today.

I want to wrap up this contribution with an observation about the reason why the government says it can't tell anyone about this disastrous climate risk report, which we know contains cover-to-cover bad news and tells the truth about what we face if this government keeps kissing the hand of coal and gas companies. The government claims that they can't tell us what's in this report that they've been keeping secret for nine months, because it's somehow cabinet in confidence. Well, we've had a look at what the rules about public interest immunity are, and they are not just a carte blanche 'we wheeled it through the cabinet room, so it's okay—we can't tell you'; the document actually needs to detail cabinet deliberations. A document that merely informs cabinet and informs their deliberations is not a document that reveals cabinet deliberations, so this is a completely farcical excuse to not disclose an inconvenient report.

The Senate didn't order a draft; we didn't order an incomplete document. These aren't deliberations of the Public Service. The order for the production of documents sought the release of the final report, so we will move for the Senate to again require the production of this climate risk assessment and to reject the flimsy fig leaf that the government has tried to come up with because they don't like the climate bad news.

The rest of Australia knows exactly what is coming down the line, and, frankly, the government are just trying to use it as cover to release 2035 climate targets that will keep big business happy rather than being led by the science and being based on actually trying to keep us all and nature safe going forwards. Once again the fossil fuel companies, their donors and their promise of lucrative lobbying jobs after politics have clouded the judgement of this government, and the Australian public is sick of it. They voted for something different, and what they're getting is more of the same. They are sick of the favours for Woodside, for Chevron and for BHP, these big companies that are exporting this polluting material, not even paying their fair share of tax, not dealing with people's domestic energy bills, making the world less safe for all of us and trashing nature in the process. What an absolute abomination of a decision by this government, to keep this risk assessment report in the bottom drawer—for shame. We will move again to force the disclosure of this report.

Why on earth would a government try and hide a report or not disclose a report on the risks of climate change to this nation? What possible reason could they have to sit on this report? I raise this in the context that this government has recently supported a select committee to inquire into the impacts of climate disinformation, which we know fills the vacuum out there of information that's important for us to assess the risks of climate change.

The World Economic Forum's global risk reports for the last two years in a row have labelled disinformation as the biggest threat to human society right around the planet and, coupled with the impacts of climate change, the biggest long-term threat to humanity. The United Nations, at the COP coming up in Brazil and maybe the COP that we're going to have in Australia next year, if we get it, is putting climate disinformation on the agenda as one of the most important outcomes from those climate talks because they have identified climate disinformation as being the biggest global barrier to climate action in the parliaments of the world. Did it even occur to the government that, when you're hiding from the Australian people a report written by experts in this area, you just make it so much harder to get the action that we need on climate policies?

We all know that information is power, and it has never been more true than today. Those who have agendas can control or influence the dissemination and publication of information. They can control public debates on issues like climate change. They can control policies on climate change in places like this parliament. And they can even today, thanks to the tech platforms we have, control and influence the outcomes of elections in democratic countries like Australia and the United States.

We know how much money they are putting into the deliberate propagation of lies and deception around climate change. It's not just the good old-fashioned, homegrown climate denial that we see from the likes of One Nation. The information they are putting out on climate change has been very effective in stymieing action everywhere, and we need to work out who is behind this, who is paying for this and how we deal with it in these parliaments.

I honestly, genuinely just do not understand why you wouldn't release this report. These are the experts commissioned by this government to write a report on the risks of climate change. We know we are talking about tens of trillions of dollars a year in damage just from extreme weather events caused by climate change. At the same time as this government is sitting on this report, I noted that the National Farmers' Federation and other farmers' groups have also publicly called for the release of this report. That's because they're under a relentless assault from the National Party and the right-wing culture warriors in the LNP who are also trying to stymie climate action and rip up any chance of getting to net zero in this country.

By the way—just like they always have since the day I stepped into the chamber 13 years ago—they have done nothing but try to disrupt or destroy climate action, and they have been successful, as they have been in the US and as they are doing right now. We are seeing things that I never thought were possible to see in the political universe we live in. We're seeing this mass political psychosis on climate in a place like the United States, with the US President signing executive order after executive order to remove protections for the environment and remove climate change from reports. He's talking about shooting the NASA climate satellite out of the sky. We are talking about Donald Trump, the leader of the so-called greatest nation on the planet.

At this time, when we have a government that is claiming that they are going to act on climate, why would you hide a report? The exact thing we need to be doing is talking to Australians about the risks. If we don't have that open, transparent and honest conversation, if we can't provide that information, how are we ever going to win? We know that there's billionaires, fossil fuel companies and all sorts of dark money and dodgy people promoting climate disinformation, deliberate lies and deception to muddy the debate and make sure they get the outcome that they want, which is ripping up net zero in this country and throwing us and future generations of Australians under the bus. It's all so that they can make more bloody money, hold on to political power or run their political agendas.

I ask the government: please reconsider. There are a lot of good people behind this report that I know want to see this published. They know this is an important document. And I commend Senator Waters and—I don't know if I'm allowed to say this to you, Acting Deputy President—others who have tried to bring this issue up. We need to see this report if we are going to win the fight for climate action. The worst thing we can be doing is burying the evidence from experts. If we believe in the scientists and the experts—and they are our only hope. They are our Obi-Wan Kenobi in this battle. The worst thing we can do is bury the evidence for political agendas. I urge and I beg the government to release this report so we can see what it says and have honest discussions with stakeholders.

I would like to talk to farmers next week. We're having an event at the Press Club with Farmers for Climate Action, and agricultural stakeholders will be there. I will be speaking, as will, no doubt, other MPs and senators. I want to be able to say to farmers, 'I've got the evidence that your future is in jeopardy: the droughts, the pestilence, the extreme weather events—all the things—and the disruptions to food chains, supply chains and food security.' We need to see that evidence. I ask the government to reconsider. Next time the Greens put up an order for the production for documents, let's have a look at it.

The last thing I would like to say is that, when I started in the Senate, I had a similar situation with an order for the production of documents on the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. I remember sitting down with the then clerk of the Senate, Rosemary Laing. I said to the Clerk, 'Clerk, what do you do in these situations when a government won't respect a decision or the will of the Senate?' She got Odgers' out and she showed me the right sections. Unfortunately, I can't remember off the top of my head what sections they were, but I do clearly remember Rosemary Laing saying to me: 'It's your job to disrupt the agenda of the Senate if the government won't provide a document after an order by the Senate. It's your job to disrupt the Senate.' I remind Senators: that is what it says in Odgers'. We might get a different interpretation from the Clerk today, but that is my very clear recollection of her advice: do what you can to get the government to produce this document.

I think it's well worth considering that we entered this parliament with the idea that we would work constructively together with the government on issues like climate change. I thank you for supporting the select committee into climate disinformation, but please realise you are making our life so much harder if you can't release basic, important information, the truth in this really critical debate.

Question agreed to.

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

by leave—I move:

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

Intelligence and Security — Joint Statutory Committee —

Appointed—Senators Cash, Ciccone, Grogan, McDonald and Marielle Smith, pursuant to the Intelligence Services Act 2001

National Anti-Corruption Commission — Joint Statutory Committee —

Discharged—Senators Polley and Walker

Appointed—Senators Darmanin and Ghosh

Question agreed to.

I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the bill, and move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

Introduction

I proudly introduce this legislation, delivering on our key election commitment to protect penalty rates.

The intent of this Bill is simple.

If you rely on the modern award safety net and work weekends, public holidays, early mornings or late nights, you deserve to have your wages protected.

You deserve laws that ensure your pay will not go backwards.

Our laws are working

In our first term, the Albanese Government delivered landmark workplace relations reforms with a clear goal—getting wages moving for Australian workers.

We addressed loopholes that undermine principles of fairness and improved access to secure jobs and better pay. We reinvigorated enterprise bargaining, which results in more cooperative, productive workplaces.

We put gender equality at the heart of the workplace relations framework, helping drive the gender pay gap to its lowest level on record. We improved workplace conditions and protections across the board.

And in every Annual Wage Review since taking office, we've backed minimum wage increases, with our most recent submission calling for an economically sustainable real wage increase. I'm pleased that from 1 July minimum wages have been increased by 3.5%.

These were significant and important reforms, and we fought hard to deliver them because working Australians deserve fair pay and decent conditions.

And we know that our changes to legislation are delivering improved outcomes for working people and employers.

Our Same Job, Same Pay laws have seen thousands of workers receiving up to $60,000 extra in their pay packets each year across Australia.

More than half of employers who responded to a recent Australian HR Institute survey said our Right to Disconnect laws had improved employee engagement and productivity.

The latest figures on enterprise bargaining show that nearly 2.7 million Australians are now covered by current enterprise agreements—the highest coverage on record since enterprise bargaining commenced in 1991.

Our laws are working to deliver real wage increases, improved conditions, and more cooperative and productive workplaces.

Now, we are continuing that work with a Bill to protect penalty rates and overtime rates in modern awards.

Why penalty and overtime rates matter

Penalty rates and overtime rates matter. They are a long-standing feature and a vital part of the modern award safety net, which supports some of the lowest paid workers in our country.

Relative to all employees, award-reliant employees are more likely to be women, work part time, be under the age of 35, and employed on a casual basis.

People like Emily, a retail worker from New South Wales expecting her first child and in the middle of moving houses:

"On my normal rates it's a struggle to be able to afford the necessities, but with the penalty rates, it lets me breathe.

It gives me room to be able to save a little for my bubba, and to help me move to make sure my new little family has a roof over our heads. It also helps in times for when the bills pile up."

Or Eryn, a grocery store worker from South Australia:

"I miss out on time with my children and my husband who works long hours, time spent with friends or family during off days, downtime to rest and recover.

"Earning penalty rates makes it worthwhile being away from family and not taking the day to be able to rest and recover. It is extra money earnt for choosing to work rather than enjoy a day off."

Or Gary:

"Because of the hours I work, I miss out on parts of our family life and being with friends. When most people are at home enjoying their time and doing things with their family, I'm working.

"If I have to work late or on weekends I like to be compensated for the time I miss with my family watching them play sports and growing up."

What's at stake

This Bill is about safeguarding fundamental entitlements for around 2.6 million modern award-reliant Australian workers.

We know that, right now, the modern award safety net can be undermined.

Currently, penalty rates and overtime rates in modern awards can be rolled up into a single rate of pay that leaves some employees worse off.

There are currently cases on foot where employers in the retail, clerical and banking sectors have made applications to the Fair Work Commission to trade away the penalty rates of lower paid workers on awards.

We know the Coalition are all too willing to back these applications. Former Liberal leader Peter Dutton confirmed it when he said "we don't propose any departure from the current arrangements."

We took a very different approach. In the retail case, our Government intervened to argue as a matter of principle the wages of low-paid workers should not go backwards.

Because that's not fair.

And it's not what Australians expect of our workplace relations system.

This legislation will mean that proposals like these cannot be included in modern awards, which act as our safety net, and ensures penalty and overtime rates of low paid workers are protected.

Operation of the principle

This Bill will amend the Fair Work Act 2009 to enshrine protections for penalty rates and overtime rates in modern awards.

The Bill introduces a new section, 135A, which establishes a clear and important principle.

When exercising its powers under Part 2-3 of the Fair Work Act to make, vary or revoke modern awards, the Fair Work Commission must ensure:

This Bill is designed to be simple, fair, and workable.

It introduces a high-level principle, not a prescriptive rule, because we are committed to strengthening the modern awards system without adding unnecessary complexity.

It is targeted to modern award terms that are about the 'percentage' of penalty or overtime rate to be paid and terms that reduce worker's pay by 'rolling up' penalty and overtime rates with other modern award terms into a single rate of pay.

It means modern award-covered workers who rely on penalty and overtime rates as a critical part of their overall pay, no longer have to worry about reductions to those rates.

And exemption rate proposals that diminish workers' take-home pay cannot succeed in the future.

This Bill does not stop parties engaging on ways to make awards easier to use, or ensuring that award terms can adapt to modern working needs.

For example, parties will still be able to put the case to the Commission about appropriate hours of work terms, but where that case involves a penalty or overtime rate the Commission will also need to consider this new principle.

This Bill does not impact individual employment contracts. It does not apply to individual flexibility arrangements.

This Bill will also not affect the enterprise bargaining framework, which is the right place for employers to directly negotiate with employees and their unions to achieve flexibility and productivity gains with appropriate safeguards in place like the better off overall test.

We have consulted closely with stakeholders to ensure these reforms are practical and balanced.

Importantly, the changes introduced by this Bill will not disrupt employers' day-to-day operations.

The amendments will not apply retrospectively. Employers covered by the award system already have an ongoing responsibility to correctly apply the relevant modern award. Where that award provides for employees to be paid penalty and overtime rates, that obligation will continue.

This Bill does not impose new obligations beyond that existing responsibility.

Role of the Commission

We respect the Fair Work Commission's role as the independent industrial tribunal. That role is unchanged.

The Commission will continue to interpret and apply the Fair Work Act, including the new principle introduced by this Bill. This process will be guided by its usual consultative approach, ensuring all interested parties have the opportunity to present their views.

This Bill also preserves the Commission's existing powers to remove an ambiguity, uncertainty or to correct an error in a modern award.

The Bill expressly provides that the principle does not require or compel the Commission to exercise its powers under the Fair Work Act to make, vary or revoke an award.

This means the Commission does not have to exercise those powers, unless it chooses to do so, nor does it have to undertake a review of all modern awards to see whether the principle applies or not.

The Commission also does not have to review penalty and overtime rates in an award, if those terms are not the subject of a specific application before it. We put this beyond doubt in the legislation after listening to feedback from stakeholders.

Interactions with bargaining

The appropriate place to negotiate on entitlements is the enterprise bargaining system.

We want to see enterprise bargaining. Enterprise agreements deliver better deals for working people, better wages and conditions and more cooperative, productive workplaces.

The government has reinvigorated the enterprise bargaining system so that we now have a record high number of employees covered by federal enterprise agreements that are delivering real wage increases for Australian workers. As at 31 March 2025, the Commission approved 9,829 agreements since our reforms, covering nearly 2.5 million employees.

The Average Annual Wage Increase for those agreements is 3.8%, compared to a 2.7% increase in 2022, and the 5-year average preceding the legislation, which was also 2.7%.

As at 31 March 2025, almost 2.7 million employees were covered by a current enterprise agreement—the highest coverage since bargaining began in 1991. And for the sixth consecutive quarter, wage growth in newly-approved enterprise agreements outpaced inflation.

Encouraging workers and business to engage with good faith bargaining gives workers access to improved conditions and can help business owners attract and retain talent. This can improve the relationships in the workplace, facilitating innovation, greater acceptance of new technology and fostering of skills growth for employees—all of which enhance productivity.

Enterprise agreements continue to be subject to the Better Off Overall Test, ensuring that employees are better off overall compared to the relevant modern award. That safeguard remains unchanged.

Conclusion

For many modern award-reliant employees, penalty and overtime rates are not optional extras, they are a critical part of their take-home pay. This is especially true in sectors like retail and hospitality, where work often takes place at unsociable and irregular hours and where workers are among the lowest-paid in our economy.

This Bill is about fairness. It's about respecting the millions of Australians who work those public holidays, weekends, late nights and early mornings to keep Australia going.

And it's about making sure the safety net does what it's meant to do- protect those who need it most.

Debate adjourned.

Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.

As the time for postponements has passed already, I seek leave to postpone business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2, in the name of Senator Bragg, until tomorrow, 26 August.

Leave granted.

The question is that the bill stand as printed.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The question is that the bill be read a third time.

I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill 2025. To be clear, the coalition supports penalty and overtime rates as fair compensation for working unsociable and unpredictable hours. We also support employee choice and flexibility, allowing workers and employers to negotiate arrangements that suit them and best fit their needs. The Fair Work Commission already has adequate powers to safeguard penalty rates through the better off overall test.

So what is the purpose of this legislation? Why is it before our parliament? We have some concerns in relation to this bill, and they are not limited to the fact that it adds significant red tape to small business, which already faces 35 major Fair Work Act changes under this government, 34 of which disproportionately affect Australian small businesses. By constraining the commission, the bill undermines its independence and risks unintended consequences in award variations.

This bill could also operate retrospectively. This is a question that we asked a number of times in the Senate inquiry hearings some two weeks ago. We sought clarity about the retrospectivity of this bill, which would create uncertainty and expose employers to union driven variations to existing awards—not to future agreements, but to existing awards.

I want to talk specifically a little bit around the impact on Australian small businesses. I noted a moment ago that small businesses are being hit with a new compliance burden almost every month under the Albanese Labor government. This is at a time when Australian households are struggling under a cost-of-living crisis. Australian small businesses have also been crushed under a cost-of-doing-business crisis in this country.

This is just too much. This is yet another unnecessary hit to Australian small businesses. Evidence that we were provided during the hearings and that has been available prior shows that small-business owners spend about 15 hours each week on compliance and red tape. That is time taken away from their businesses. And it's easy for me to just say 15 hours, and people say, 'Yeah, well, 15 hours.' But that is 15 hours every single week, week on week. If you look at that 15 hours as a percentage of the average work week—the 38-hour week, Monday to Friday—that's just under 40 per cent of that average week spent in regulatory compliance, the burden of red tape for Australian small businesses.

Australian small businesses want to do the right thing. They don't want to do the wrong thing. They actually want to have fulfilled and engaged and prosperous employees. But they are suffocating under the burden of red tape under this government. Unlike large corporations, small operators cannot absorb extra costs, which leads to fewer jobs and to market consolidations. Employer groups have warned that this bill will discourage employment and drag down productivity. We've just had a productivity roundtable. That was last week, and this week we have a bill before this parliament that is badged as protecting penalty rates, which nobody wants impacted, but it's not really protecting penalty rates; it's protecting the rights of unions to intervene in discussions between employees and the employer.

The minister has no idea how many small businesses will be impacted by this bill, because they didn't do the analysis to find out. What we really need from this government is a clear and focused plan to address the needs of small businesses and our economy, to address the problems of productivity in our country. We need policies that make it easier for businesses to expand, easier for businesses to employ people—to hire young Australians, to give them good jobs and to provide opportunities for them to get a really good foothold in the workplace.

Why do we keep talking about small businesses? Why are we so hyperfocused on them? It is because they are really important. They are the cornerstone of our communities. They're not just economic units. They are family owned. They are community based. They support local jobs and community organisations. They are your local pharmacy, your dentist, your tradies, your mechanic, your tiler, your plumber, your electrician, your dentist, your hairdresser, your real estate agent, your local florist. They are all the different businesses that we go to in our communities that are such a cornerstone of everyday life. Yet month after month under this government we are impacting them. This bill removes choice for workers who may prefer higher base salaries and stability in their income, or flexible arrangements over fluctuating penalty rates. Employees should be able to choose what works best for them.

This bill could also, worryingly, limit work-from-home flexibility, with employers forced into intrusive monitoring to meet record keeping rules. Work from home is such an important part of modern working, particularly in a cost-of- living crisis. Introducing legislation that may potentially make it harder for employers to allow their employees to work from home should give us pause. This is not about being opposed to penalty rates. We support penalty rates. But we support the right to choose and the right to choose the flexibility that matters to you.

Many workers prefer the stability of a higher and more consistent salary. It helps with budgeting, growing superannuation, borrowing capacity and avoiding income volatility in Centrelink payments. I've had a number of women reach out to me about these issues over time. They highlight the problems with reporting their earnings to agencies such as Centrelink and the child support agency, where fluctuating penalty earnings make those assessments and those estimations irregular, often creating a debt burden. Employees should have the freedom to choose pay structures that best suit their circumstances. By forcing a one-size-fits-all framework, the bill locks employees out of arrangements that might better suit them, that might better suit their families, that might better suit what it is that they are looking to do. Even if the majority of employees want a particular arrangement, the commission is prevented from approving it if any hypothetical worker might at some point be worse off under the terms of this bill. This denies employees the ability to strike a balance between financial security and workplace flexibility.

I asked a question about this in our inquiry a couple of weeks ago of one of the witnesses, Professor Chris Wright, specifically around the impacts to people who'd prefer a steady base—a higher base that they negotiate with their employer—versus the fluctuating impacts of penalty rates. I'll read from the dissenting report:

Professor Chris Wright acknowledged these non-wage benefits are real, but argued they are not typically considered by the FWC, which focuses on 'objective' measures like pay rather than 'subjective' measures like flexibility or stability of income …

These are his words:

Things like working from home arrangements are harder to take into account. The other aspects you mentioned in terms of pay versus social security payments are harder to take account of, partly because of the subjective value in some cases and also the matters that go beyond the Fair Work Commission's remit in terms of those social security dimensions.

So what does that mean? These things are not being taken into account, because we're looking at the dollar value only. We're not looking at the benefit of flexibility, the security of that stability and the right to make a choice about something that works best for you and your family. Again, I think it gives us pause, to have a think about what it is that we're asking Australians to do here.

Instead of empowering Australian employees, this bill strips them of genuine choice. I'll say that again: instead of empowering Australian employees, this bill strips them of genuine choice. True reform should expand workplace options, not shut them down. That is what reform is—making things better, providing greater choice and providing greater opportunity, not taking away your right to choose what works best for you.

We're also a little bit concerned about the claim of closing loopholes. We consider that to be misleading. Rolling penalty rates into higher salaries is already lawful. It is already regulated, and it is already subject to safeguards. It is our view that this bill is a response to union hypotheticals, not to real-world cases of underpayment. Evidence to the Senate committee inquiry showed that this government did not want to have it confirmed that the Fair Work Commission already has both the power and proven track record to safeguard penalty and overtime rates. They can already do that; they already do do that. The Fair Work Commission is not only empowered but required under section 134 of the Fair Work Act to maintain a fair and relevant safety net for employees. That means that they have to take into account the need for penalty rates for unsociable hours, the need for penalty rates for people who work weekends, the need for penalty rates for people who work at night and the need for penalty rates for people who work on public holidays, and so they should.

In practice, the commission has consistently upheld penalty rates. The protections are already in place, and they work. But, instead of trusting the independent umpire, this bill predetermines outcomes, removing the commission's discretion. In our view, this weakens the independence and expertise of the commission, which should be upheld, and, in our view, it politicises the decisions that should be based on evidence.

This government should be legislating for the workers of Australia not for some headlines around protecting penalty rates, which are already protected. I say it again: the coalition is in favour of protecting penalty rates. We are not opposed to penalty rates. This is a solution in search of a problem. The system is already working. We believe that there should be a comprehensive regulatory impact statement before the passage of this bill. We believe that small businesses should be exempt from the operation of this bill, and we believe that the Fair Work Commission should keep its discretion to approve higher pay and simpler conditions supported by both employers and employees—their right to determine themselves what it is that they want in their employment agreements, the flexibility that they want and that meets their needs.

I move the second reading amendment as circulated on sheet 3407 standing in my name:

Omit all words after "That", substitute:

"(a) the Senate notes that:

(i) Australian small businesses have been hit with a new compliance burden almost every month since the Albanese Labor Government came to office,

(ii) evidence shows that small business owners spend 15 hours per week on compliance instead of running their business,

(iii) the Albanese Labor Government has refused to prepare a Regulation Impact Statement for this bill and has no idea how many small businesses are going to be affected by this increased burden, and

(iv) instead of developing a clear and focussed plan to address the needs of small businesses within the economy, the Albanese Government seems intent on only applying a larger regulatory burden on them; and

(b) further consideration of the bill be made an order of the day for the first sitting day after the Government tables a Regulation Impact Statement assessing the impacts of the bill".

This debate, on the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill 2025, goes to the very heart of what it means to be an Australian and to live in Australia. We live in a country built not on privilege or inherited wealth but on the simple, powerful idea that, if you work hard, you deserve a fair go. Let me make something absolutely clear to those opposite: penalty rates are not a luxury. Overtime is not a perk. They are the building blocks of fairness for millions of Australians. That's why the Albanese government is moving to strengthen the Fair Work Act—to protect penalty rates and overtime and to ensure the Fair Work Commission cannot be used as a backdoor mechanism to strip away the wages of people who are already earning the least.

Penalty rates recognise something fundamental—that working on a Sunday, on a public holiday or through the night comes at a cost. It comes at the cost of family time, rest, community and sometimes even health. Overtime protections recognise that employers cannot treat workers as mechanisms to be run endlessly until they break. They ensure that, if a worker gives up more of their life, more of their health and more of their energy, they are properly compensated. Let's be very clear. For so many Australians, penalty rates are not pocket money. It is their survival money. Penalty rates are the difference between paying rent and falling into arrears. They are the difference between food on the table and going without.

I want to make it very clear that this fight is personal for me, which is why I am so passionate about penalty rates. I don't come from privilege. I didn't grow up in wealth. I grew up raised by a single mum with two kids, where money was short and every dollar mattered. From the age of 17, I worked every shift and every weekend that I could to pay my rent, to cover my bills and to put myself through my studies.

Sadly, like too many workers, I have been a victim of wage theft at a time in life when I was dependent on penalty rates. My first job was at a big cafe chain, where my employer was deliberately not paying his staff properly. Some weeks he'd blame the bank; other weeks he'd blame an administrative issue. Sometimes he just tried plain old underpaying us. Other weeks, he just wouldn't pay us at all. Let me be clear: that was no accident. It was no mistake. It was his business practice to exploit teenage and vulnerable workers and rely on them to quit and just go somewhere else, because he saw churning through underpaid workers as a way to boost his personal profit margins.

My story is not unique. Millions of Australians rely on the fair pay to make ends meet that workers and unions have fought for under the award system. For families across this country, penalty rates are the line between survival and poverty. So to vote against protecting their basic rights is to turn your back on Australia's promise of a fair go.

We will hear from those opposite the tired, worn-out arguments that reducing penalty rates somehow boosts productivity and that, only if we stripped workers' pay, businesses would thrive and the benefits would magically trickle down to everybody else. This is a dangerous myth. Trickle-down economics has been tested for 40 years across the developed world, and it has failed. It does not raise national productivity. It does not create stronger economies; it creates inequality. You don't build prosperity from the top down. You build it out from the middle and up from the bottom.

Here is the economic truth. When you cut the pay of workers, you are not creating efficiency. You are draining demand from the economy. You are reducing the capacity of households to spend. You are reducing the capacity of families to invest in their children's education and to contribute to their communities.

Workers are not costs on the balance sheet; workers are the economy. They are the very people who shop in small businesses, who pay their mortgages, who buy groceries and who keep local communities alive. When wages stagnate, when rights are eroded, national productivity falls because demand falls. The fantasy of trickle-down economics is this—if you just make the richest people richer, somehow the wealth will flow down. But what happens in reality? The wealth pools at the top. It gets locked into property speculation, offshore tax havens and luxury consumption but does nothing for productivity. Meanwhile the workers, the people who actually keep the lights on, who staff our hospitals, who clean the offices, who pull the pints and who stack the shelves at our supermarkets are told to accept less. That is not an economy. That is exploitation dressed up as economics, and that is exactly what those opposite want. They want to trade away workers' rights like penalty rates and overtime, so their take-home pay goes backwards. They don't even try to hide it. Who could forget that, when they were in government, they described low wage growth as a deliberate design feature of their economic architecture.

This Labor government is here for workers. We're here to grow their wages, strengthen their rights and, in doing so, strengthen our national economy. To even contemplate allowing workers' penalty rates and overtime protections to be stripped away would be unconscionable. It would be an assault on the lowest-paid workers, those who need protection the most.

When those opposite come to cast their votes on this measure, I wanted them to remember something: this is Australia. This is the land of hard yakka and a fair go. This is not North America, where good, honest workers are demonised by billionaires buying their fifth yacht to attend a wedding in Venice or taking a joy flight in space. This is Australia, and we are better than that.

That's why the Albanese government believes in a fair wage for a fair day's work. We believe that productivity comes from empowering workers, not impoverishing them. We believe that protecting penalty rates and overtime is not only good economics; it is the very essence of Australian fairness. And I say to those opposite: if you believe in a fair go, if you believe in hard work being rewarded, if you believe in our national story, vote for this bill. In fact, I don't think anyone can in good conscience vote against this bill. On behalf of every worker who clocks in on a Sunday or on a public holiday, on behalf of those staying back late at night, and on behalf of everyone working overtime to support their family, I will be voting to support this bill to support their rights and their wages.

I rise today to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill 2025. Australians know the value of penalty rates. They know what it means to give up time with family, to work through the night or to spend Christmas Day or Easter Sunday or New Year's Eve at work while the rest of the country celebrates. They know what it means to work long hours to get the job done. Penalty rates recognise this sacrifice. This additional pay is an acknowledgement that time away from family, friends, and community comes with sacrifice and should be compensated.

Yet, too often, employers and conservative governments have chipped away at penalty rates, sometimes through industrial tribunals and sometimes through legislation, but usually because big employers and their peak bodies want to flesh out their bottom lines with wage cuts. The workers who bear the consequences of these attacks are concentrated in low-wage, low-security jobs, including in retail, hospitality, the care sector and the health industry. They are women with caring responsibilities and young people trying to survive while studying. They are people with disability and older workers, all of whom face discrimination in the labour market.

Ensuring that employers cannot rob their workers of penalty and overtime rates is very important. The Greens have consistently defended penalty rates because we know they are not just about fairness; they are about survival. For many low-paid workers, penalty rates make the difference between paying the rent and going without. They make the difference between putting food on the table and missing meals. The Australian Greens support this bill because we know the importance of protecting workers' wages and conditions. But let's be clear: this bill is a defensive measure by Labor aimed at protecting existing arrangements from employer tax rather than advancing new rights for workers fit for a 21st-century labour market and modern life. This is a minimum protective step, not the leap forward that we need for our changing workplaces and workforce.

At a time when insecure work is widespread, the real value of wages is under pressure, and nothing is in the way of employers pocketing the vast productivity benefits of artificial intelligence, returning little if nothing to workers. It's not enough to merely hold the line in this changing circumstance. Workers deserve stronger and expanded protections in a changing labour market and economy. The Labor government has the opportunity this parliament to work with the Greens to deliver real benefits to workers—to move forward. And they could start by working with the Greens to introduce a reasonable right to work from home two days a week for Australian workers.

To this end, I foreshadow second reading amendment on sheet 3411, circulated in my name. It calls on the government to legislate a right to work from home for up to two days a week where it's reasonable to do so. Under this new right, employers would be required to positively consider such requests and may only refuse a request if it would make the performance of the worker's role seriously impractical or impossible. We're calling on the government to work with us to deliver this new right for workers. We have the numbers to deliver this improvement for all workers in Australia. All that is standing in the way is Labor's ambition.

Work-from-home rights in Australia are long overdue. There is wide public support and very strong demand for this change. Its benefits stack up for employers and for employees. Australian workers are doing it tough at the moment. They are on average contributing six weeks unpaid overtime a year to their workplace. They are bringing up kids and battling the cost of living and have adopted all kinds of productivity enhancing technology over the last 20 years. For many Australian workers, talking about productivity sounds like yet another push to work faster and harder by their bosses. In fact, in the last 10 years we've seen the rate of profit increase at twice the rate of wages, despite all the adaptation that Australian workers and their families have done.

The pandemic showed us new ways of working are possible. Up to 40 per cent of Australian workers transferred to working from home during COVID. We saw that many of us can do our jobs from home, saving money and time and getting the flexibility which, in the words of the Productivity Commission, has been fundamentally positive in unlocking value to be shared between workers and their firms. The work-from-home trend has outlived the pandemic. The old rhythms of eight-to-four or nine-to-five in a central workplace are no longer the reality for millions of Australians.

Public opinion polls and extensive research on work from home show us there is strong support and positive benefits to come from it. Most workers know they are at least as productive at home as they are in the workplace, and many of their employers agree. Most workers want a hybrid model, where they work some days at home. The evidence tells us that the average cut in their commuting time is more than an hour a day, and there's research that tells us that workers split this saving with their employer—half to the employer, and half to themselves—and they increase their working time and add to their personal rest and recreation. Working from home is one way in which we can share the benefits of work between workers and their employers more fairly. Lots of people are already doing it and many more want to.

The latest surveys tell us that two-thirds of Australian workers want work that is hybrid in its organisation. Workers say that 60 per cent of their bosses permit hybrid working arrangements. With most workers covered by the national Fair Work Act, the Greens want to see a sensible national approach. One state can't do this and reach workers outside state and local government. Our workplaces are mostly regulated at that national level through the Fair Work Act, which means a national law, a national approach, on working from home makes sense.

We propose that Australians have a legal right to work from home where it's practical and reasonable to do so. This new right to work from home fits well alongside the existing right to request flexibility, but it gives a stronger right to ask to work from home. It's only if a job is really quite difficult to do in that arrangement that workers would be knocked back. At present, only workers who are pregnant, are parents of school-aged kids, are carers, have a disability, are over 55 or are experiencing domestic violence can request flexibility like the right to work from home. We think this right should be available to everyone who can do their work reasonably from home.

Numerous research studies have confirmed what workers already know: flexible work, including working from home, is here to stay and can deliver benefits for productivity, our families and our society. The savings on commuting time and transport costs are real. Recent research reports an overall decline in commuting times of between 17 and 25 per cent for those who do any work from home. This means more time for other activities such as more work, care, exercise, housework and family time, as well as dollar savings. That means positive impacts on health, wellbeing and family life. Work from home can improve gender equity through the encouragement of more men to more evenly pick up domestic work and share it more equally with their partners at home.

The benefits are vast, and not just for workers; they can be very considerable for employers, too. According to the Productivity Commission, work from home can increase productivity because employees have a better ability to manage their time and to concentrate and because they are better rested due to less time commuting. Work from home can also boost participation in the labour market, especially for women and carers. It can help to grow the recruitment pool and retain staff, and it's been shown to lower labour turnover.

Work from home also has benefits for the climate. Transport is one of Australia's fastest-growing sources of emissions. Giving workers the right to work from home two days a week would significantly cut commuting emissions, ease congestion in our cities, reduce demand for road expansion and lower the cost of living by cutting fuel and transport costs.

Working from home, of course, won't work in all jobs, no more than many other conditions in different industries and occupations, which vary according to the characteristics of the job. Our proposal recognises that not all jobs can be done remotely—jobs like nursing, cleaning, construction or being a pilot. You can't do any of those jobs from home. Differences in working conditions for different jobs are already common. For example, firefighters are provided with PPE but can't work from home, while clerical workers don't get PPE but might be able to work from home some of the time. Their awards and agreements reflect and deal with their different realities. But, where a job can be done from home, workers should have the right to request it and to have that request granted unless there's a genuine, demonstrable reason that it can't be done that way.

Our proposal is for a minimum of two days at home, and some employers will go further. They're already going further, where it suits them. A minimum of two days reflects the reality of what many workplaces are already doing. It's about making sure those rights are protected in law. If employers want to arrange more flexible working arrangements, we would welcome that, and many employees already have arrangements to work from home and are reaping the benefits, along with their bosses and their communities. This right may not affect some workers, but it will give them the confidence that their right to work from home cannot be arbitrarily removed. Most importantly, this right gives workers who don't currently have the chance to work from home some backing to ask for it where it's reasonable in their role and some backup if their employer refuses to consider their request, along with some confidence that it won't be arbitrarily removed.

In conclusion, recent surveys tell us that 64 per cent of all Australians back a right to work from home and only 17 per cent oppose it. This includes three-quarters of Labor voters and more than a majority of coalition voters, 51 per cent of those in Australia at present. Nearly a third of Australian workers already work from home, typically, sometime in an average week. It's time to create a generalised right to work from home for all Australian workers who are able to do it in a practical and reasonable way, where their jobs do not inherently restrict the possibility.

So the Greens support this bill, but we do so with open eyes. We know this is not a bold reform, but it's an essential defensive step to protect workers, some of them our lowest paid and many of them women, from going backwards—but it doesn't help them go forwards. Australians deserve better. They deserve workplace laws that reflect and deal with the realities of people's lives now. They deserve the right to work from home where it's reasonable, and we need a sensible national approach. It's time that Labor did it, and the first step is to support our second reading amendment. The Greens are ready to work with Labor to implement this right, which so many Australians are seeking immediately and will benefit from, as will their employers. We could do this, this week.

The Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill 2025 is not about protecting penalty and overtime rates. That might be its title, but that is not its purpose. Instead, this bill is about taking power from an individual and assuming it on behalf of the state. It's about infantilising grown adults. It's about denying workers freedom and agency. It's about substituting the uncompromising and inflexible judgement of the state for the preferences and desires of the individual. It's about attacking the independence and impartiality of the Fair Work Commission.

This bill is reflective of the anachronistic nature of today's labour movement and today's Labor government. It reflects a patronising attitude that workers do not know what is best for them. It's emblematic of a paternalistic attitude that individuals should not be able to exercise their own choice. It exudes a hostility to business, especially small business, and it reveals a fundamental misconception about the nature of the economy and the workforce today. Finally, it showcases the reflective desire of this government to encroach ever further into the rights and freedoms of individuals. This bill is not about protecting workers' rights. This bill is instead about denying economic freedom and individual agency. This bill, at its heart, lacks a fundamental purpose.

There is overwhelming support in the community for the idea that Australian workers should be fairly compensated for working overtime or unsociable, regular or unpredictable hours on weekends, public holidays and so on. The Liberal Party—and me, personally—support penalty rates, but these principles are embedded right now in section 134 of the Fair Work Act, which has an objective that the Fair Work Commission must apply when using its powers. Instead, what this bill does is undermine employee agency, employee choice, employee flexibility. It harms productivity. It adds to the regulatory burden of business, in particular small business, and it fundamentally attacks the independence, the functions, the integrity and the probity of the Fair Work Commission. Lastly, it fails to strike a balance between protecting workers and preserving the essential flexibility that modern workplaces and, indeed, modern workers demand.

The Fair Work Act has existing safeguards that protect the rights of workers to be fairly paid, fairly compensated, fairly remunerated—most notably, the better off overall test. What this bill does is take away the rights of workers to negotiate based on their own needs, based on their own preferences, based on their own priorities. The bill seeks to create a one-size-fits-all approach. It restricts workers from entering into arrangements that might better suit their personal circumstances. So, for example, even if workers in an industry supported a change to the modern award, for beneficial changes, this would not be permitted if any hypothetical employee might be considered worse off. This fundamentally removes genuine choice from employees, but it also fundamentally limits the discretion and the judgement of the Fair Work Commission.

I notice the previous speaker referenced working from home arrangements and flexible working arrangements. This bill also creates risks to flexible working arrangements and working from home arrangements. If employers now have to start tracking precise start, finish and break times to comply, they may be reluctant to offer flexible work from home options, even if employees have a legitimate desire to shift their hours around in order to meet personal or caring commitments. The Fair Work Commission itself is exploring how to remove award derived impediments to working from home. What this bill will introduce is a potential barrier to such efforts.

The reality is that the Fair Work Commission already has ample authority to protect penalty and overtime rates. Remember, there are no proposals currently before the Fair Work Commission to reduce penalty rates. The government and the trade unions that support them claim that this bill is closing loopholes, but the Law Council confirmed in their submission to the Senate inquiry into this bill that no such loophole exists. The reality is that the bill is simply a response to union hypotheticals and not real-world scenarios.

In their submission to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, the ACTU, the peak body of unions, concedes that it is only hypothetically possible for the commission to leave workers off under the law as it currently stands today. In fact, to the contrary, the judicial practice of the Fair Work Commission has been a long track record of protecting penalty rates, including rejecting employer applications to varying penalty rates when not justified by the circumstances. Section 134 of the Fair Work Act mandates that the commission ensure that modern awards provide a fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and conditions, explicitly considering the need for additional remuneration for overtime, irregular hours, weekends and the like.

All the bill does is strip the Fair Work Commission of its independents and the ability of it to exercise its functions. The bill is the government usurping the role of the Fair Work Commission by legislating specific outcomes, or seeking to legislate specific outcomes, rather than trusting an independent tribunal to fairly weight and moderate claims. It repeats a pattern established by this government to reach for a legislative or regulatory solution that is not commensurate with the harm being addressed—if the harm even exists, which they do not in this case.

Let me turn now to retrospectivity, one of the biggest concerns about this bill. The government has consistently argued that the terms of the bill, if passed, will not be retrospective, but the drafting of the bill ensures that existing terms in a modern award that offend the proposed new section 135A of the act are vulnerable. That section makes clear that the commission must ensure modern awards do not reduce penalty rates for any employee when they make, vary or revoke modern awards. What this drafting means is that the commission will have to consider these things the next time an application is made to even vary an award. It will need to look back retrospectively at what has happened to penalty and other rates in the past, even if, when looking at this variation, the variation itself does not attempt to touch penalty, overtime or other covered rates.

In their evidence before the committee, the Australian Industry Group, Ai Group—and they weren't alone in this—said that the effect of this bill will pose, in their words, an 'unacceptable risk' to previously agreed and settled awards and other determinations of the Fair Work Commission. This bill is also at odds with all the government's talk about improving productivity in the economy. It's at odds with their embrace of the so-called abundance agenda. It's at odds with one of the supposed outcomes of last week's productivity and economic reform roundtable, to declutter the regulatory agenda. What this proposal does is make working conditions less flexible and more restrictive, and it adds to the burden of doing business in Australia.

COSBOA, the small-business advocacy group, noted that this bill would be the 36th major change to the Fair Work Act since this government came to office. In the first term of government, this government added an additional 757 pages to the Fair Work Act. That's 757 pages that businesses and employers must comply with. That makes the lives of not only employers but also employees impossible to navigate and manage. This change is only going to add dozens more pages to those 757 pages. Each change, no matter how meritorious it might be, represents an additional burden on Australian business, and this is felt most acutely amongst small businesses. Small businesses lack the resources to keep up with each wave of new regulation, with this one being the latest. They don't have legal departments. They don't have HR departments. They don't have outside counsel. They already spend an average of 15 hours per week on compliance, rather than trying to provide a service or a good to a customer, and this is all against a backdrop of additional uncertainty around existing awards, which may now be at risk of being changed retrospectively.

This bill is flawed, unnecessary and counterproductive. It will not advance workers' rights but, instead, limit employee choice. It will not lead to a new nirvana for working Australians. All it will do is impose new burdens on small business. It is not going to make the life of the Fair Work Commission easier; it is going to tie their hands when making these determinations.

When I think back to Labor governments of old, I recall the work that former Labor prime minister Paul Keating did to modernise the industrial relations system; to encourage enterprise bargaining; and to strengthen the role of what was then called the Industrial Relations Commission, now the Fair Work Commission, in adjudicating disputes between workers and employers. The fundamental view was that the one-size-fits-all approach, which had characterised much of labour relations in at least the first three-quarters of the 20th century in Australia, was no longer fit for purpose. Paul Keating reached this conclusion in the 1980s, but what we've had is this government seeking to turn the clock back to a period before then.

The workplace has changed immeasurably since Paul Keating was Treasurer and Prime Minister. The nature of the modern economy has changed immeasurably. These days, people work from home or remotely. Both partners in a relationship often work. Workers have to balance caring, family and other responsibilities with their job, and modern technology has allowed them to do this, so why are we seeking to wind the clock back and apply a set of strictures, mandates and enclosures on the rights of workers, pretending that workplaces have only one kind, only one shape, only one format today?

What this is doing is winding back the clock further. It will hamper flexibility in our economy. It will not get productivity moving. It will add to the regulatory burden. It will add to the compliance burden. Most fundamentally, it will detract from the rights of workers, and their freedoms and actions. Workers are the ones who are best placed to make an assessment about their own interest. They are entitled to bargain collectively in doing so and to negotiate collectively in doing so, but they are the ones who know whether they would prefer more flexible working arrangements or to trade off higher base rates of pay for lower rates of overtime or penalty rates. They are the ones who know the demands on their time and the work tempos. They are the ones who know the demands on their family, personal and other commitments. They are the ones who are best placed to make these judgements. The existing arrangements allow workers to weigh all these factors alongside and with their employers across the table, to make these assessments about what is in their best interests and to reach a conclusion which is then upheld and can be adjudicated on by the Fair Work Commission, which will ensure that workers are better off overall under the better off overall test. They are losing that freedom.

Fundamentally, this bill is not about protecting penalty and overtime rates; it's about a transfer of power and agency from the individual to the state. It's about a transfer of judgement from an individual to a government bureaucracy. It's about taking away judgement, discretion and individual circumstances which characterise the Fair Work Commission's jurisprudence on this issue today. Ultimately it will be to the detriment of workers. Ultimately, yes, it will be to the detriment of business, it will be to the detriment of the economy and it will be to the detriment of productivity, but it will also be to the detriment of workers.

If you are a worker now and you want to work flexibly—if you want to clock on at seven in the morning to do some work, prepare a submission, prepare some points, do some letters or deal with correspondence so you can then take your children to school at nine o'clock, take your elderly grandparent to a medical appointment, go do your groceries or go to the dentist—is an employer going to have to pay you overtime now? Is an employer going to want to support flexible working-from-home arrangements if they are going to have to require that time sheets be kept and if they are going to have to accommodate your flexibility by paying you more? The answer is simply no. What this bill will do is deny workers freedom, choice and agency, and that is why the coalition does not support this bill.

I rise to speak in strong support of the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill 2025. For millions of Australians, penalty rates are not just a bonus and they are not a luxury; they are part of the safety net. They are the difference between keeping a roof over their heads and falling behind. They are the difference between paying the rent, putting food on the table and saving for a home, or just being left to struggle through the week. To Australians we say that if you work weekends, public holidays, late nights or early mornings, you deserve your penalty rates, and Labor will always protect them.

In Western Australia, this could not be more important. In retail alone there are 153,200 people employed as of May 2025, and nearly 109,000 employed in hospitality. That's more than a quarter of a million people whose livelihoods depend on penalty rates and overtime rates. These are students; parents, often women; casual workers; young people in their first jobs; and workers in regional towns who keep our pubs open, our shops running and our communities thriving. When their wages are on the line, it is only Labor who will stand up for them.

Under the General Retail Industry Award, a level 8 employee earns $32.45 an hour during a normal weekday. On Sunday, that jumps to $48.68 an hour. On a public holiday, it is $73.01 an hour. For shiftworkers, rates are even higher, particularly for early morning or night shifts. Overtime rates increase further, with the Sunday overtime rate at $64.90 an hour and public holiday overtime at $81.13 per hour. In hospitality, a level 1 food and beverage attendant earns $29.88 on a weekday, which becomes $44.82 on a Sunday and $67.23 on a public holiday. Evening and night shifts attract additional loadings, and casual employees have a further casual loading included in these rates. These are not just perks; they are wages that people plan their lives around to pay for rent, food, groceries, fuel, child care and study costs. They rely on these rates to get through the week. Nationally, 2.6 million Australians rely on the modern award safety net. Many of them serve your coffee, stock our shelves or clean the office. They might even do your hair. This bill ensures those essential workers that keep our economy going don't see their wages cut through the back door.

I got my first job when I was 15 years old. It was at the brand-new Subway opening at the Baldivis shopping centre. I really applied mostly because my friend from school was applying too. He didn't get the job, but I did, because they only employed girls at that point. I had to catch two or sometimes three buses to get there from home or school, and I always worked Thursday nights and either a Saturday or a Sunday. While I wasn't quite sure about applying for the job, it really did make a difference to me, as a young person living in the outer suburbs of Perth, to be able to go out and do the things that young people might do on the weekend. I was a little boring. We liked to go to the movies. That was probably about as exciting as it got. It was a great job. My mum used to say that I came home on a Thursday night smelling like Subway bread. I really relied on those penalty rates and continued to well into my late teens, when I was studying at university. There just wasn't another way around it. Without a doubt, the three best things about that job as a sandwich artist at Subway were—not necessarily in this order—the strange guy who came in every day and ordered a foot-long veggie sub every single day, the frozen cookie dough, which we definitely weren't allowed to eat but certainly did—I highly recommend it if you haven't tried it—and the penalty rates. I'm still very specific to this day about my Subway order: don't give me only three olives, don't give me two pieces of tomato, and don't give me flexibility measures when it means less money in workers' pockets.

We've seen what happens when penalty rates are cut. In 2017, the Liberal-National government slashed penalty rates for retail and hospitality workers. They promised it would create jobs, but instead workers lost thousands of dollars a year, and there was no evidence, ever, that cutting wages created more work. These essential workers had to pick up extra shifts just to make ends meet—shifts that meant less time at home with their families, less time studying and less time to rest.

Some of the big business groups—the usual suspects—are back, arguing that cutting or rolling up penalty rates will create jobs. Those opposite argue that it might improve productivity. They want flexibility arrangements that allow companies to offer a slightly higher base pay in exchange for forgoing penalty rates. We say that is not good enough. Research shows us and history shows us time and time again that this is a con. The numbers never add up for workers. All it does is lock in permanently lower pay for the workers who rely on penalty rates to get by.

Retail and hospitality penalty rate cuts have shown no evidence of job growth. In fact, studies estimate that penalty rates contribute roughly $14 billion a year to the economy, supporting aggregate demand. Arrangements exchanging penalty rates for higher base salaries do nothing except to save businesses money and leave employees worse off overall—in some cases, substantially so.

But fair pay also helps businesses, not just workers. In sectors like retail and hospitality, they are facing persistent staff shortages—and competitive pay is critical for attracting and retaining good employees. The evidence shows that collective bargaining and sector wide awards improve productivity, reduce turnover and lower hiring and training costs over time. Sector wide agreements can boost business productivity, improve tenure and reduce turnover costs.

The government's penalty rates bill enshrines a clear principle. Penalty and overtime rates cannot be rolled into a single rate of pay if workers are left worse off. It protects against schemes that offer a higher base pay in exchange for forfeiting those penalty rates—evenings, early mornings, weekends—while still allowing flexibility in the award, so long as workers are not financially disadvantaged and so long as workers are not left worse off under these arrangements. What this means is that this legislation protects workers, supports the economy and strengthens the stability of our workforce.

Labor made a promise that we will always protect penalty rates, and this bill delivers on that promise. When we said we would be a government for working Australians, this is what we meant: protecting that safety net and ensuring that people who give up their weekends and holidays are not worse off.

Those opposite claim to support penalty rates, but history tells us a different story. They supported cutting them in 2017, have consistently opposed minimum wage rises and opposed secure jobs and better pay reforms. Now they call for more consultation. But consultation is no substitute for conviction. This is about fairness, about recognising that, if you give up your Sunday to pull beers, your Boxing Day to stock supermarket shelves or your late nights to clean offices, you deserve the pay that goes with it.

In Western Australia, more than a quarter of a million people rely on these protections, and never has it been more important that we do everything we can to protect them. From students in Perth or parents in Peel to young workers in our regions, penalty rates can never be a relic of the past. They are part of what how we value the people who keep our nation running while the rest of us are at home.

This bill says to them, 'You are valued and your time matters.' It protects workers, it supports the economy and it strengthens the stability of our workforce. It sends a clear message: the days of cutting wages are over, and Labor will always protect your penalty rates.

It's ironic that six years after me first raising in the Senate the issue that BHP and other multinational mining companies, together with labour hire companies, colluding with the coalmining union bosses and the Fair Work Commission, perpetrated Australia's largest case of wage theft. An estimated $1.3 billion was ripped off workers.

I first raised this in July 2019, together with clear breaches in statutory provisions for workers compensation, leave, long service leave and other provisions. I was met with ridicule. Slowly, with my persistence and solid data as evidence, my claims were increasingly accepted and now are accepted. Yet here we have before us yet another Fair Work Act bill, yet another change to the Fair Work Act. While we support this bill, I raise concerns with the Fair Work Act itself yet again.

Getting back to BHP and the CFMEU colluding with the labour hire companies, stealing wages and conditions from workers that the government is finally recognising is wrong, I am wearing down my opponents in parliament and the bureaucracy, in one of Australia's largest and most powerful unions, in one of Australia's most powerful industries, in some of the world's largest mining companies and in the world's largest labour hire firm, Japan's Recruit Holdings. Who would have thought that the Labor Party, formerly touting itself as the party of the worker, could actively cover up theft from workers? Who could have thought it? What about Labor colluding with major multinational mining corporations, major multinational and Australian labour hire firms and major union bosses to hammer, abuse and steal from Australian workers? These are workers who keep the lights on and who earn export income for what oscillates between Australia's largest and second-largest export income earner, the coal industry. Labour hire companies, particularly in coal mining, have been consistently underpaying miners to rip off and abuse casual workers who are really working regular full-time hours with the full knowledge and agreement of the CFMEU and MEU bosses and employers. They are stripped of award protections, conditions and entitlements.

I introduced the first equal work, equal pay bill. Labor did not vote for it. They did not support it, saying they would introduce their own. Eventually—a long wait—we shamed Labor into doing their equal work, equal pay bill. They followed One Nation. Equal work for equal pay should be a norm, yet what about the millions—an estimated $1.3 billion—owed in back pay to those who are ripped off? What about them? Some workers were shortchanged more than $40,000 each per year. One complaint lodged with the Fair Work Ombudsman recently as a result of my work revealed a worker is owed $211,000 for years of back pay. It's wage theft. These workers deserve to be compensated for their years of being underpaid. It's a rort that goes back to 2014 and has its roots in the Rudd-Gillard Labor fiasco, with former minister Shorten in 2010 overseeing changes in coal-mining long-service leave provisions, making it possible to hide the other breaches of industrial law in the coal sector. They were hidden until I applied the spotlight relentlessly for 6½ years. When will this Labor government go all the way to compensate those workers, whose losses the union bosses should have stopped, not enabled? When will this Labor government go all the way to compensate those whose losses the Fair Work Commission should have stopped, not approved?

Two entities, the CFMEU/MEU bosses and the Fair Work Commission, who should have protected Australian workers, in fact enabled Australia's largest wage theft from honest workers and then vigorously denied it, thereby helping to cover it up. They were hiding the rip-off of workers to make large multinational labour hire firms in the world's largest mining company unlawful profits that are exported overseas. The profits are exported. How? Those coalminers had worked under an award that did not allow casuals to work in the black-coal industry. The CFMEU then negotiated an enterprise agreement that included casuals who were grossly underpaid. Their employers and the Fair Work Commission went along with this, even though the better off overall test was not satisfied. This legal requirement was boldly sidelined and breached. The union entered into a secret agreement with the employer to not represent the workers seeking a remedy with the employer. The union signed away its rights to protect workers. It was part of the shabby agreement.

As a former underground-coalface miner and union member and as a former coalmine manager and coal-mining executive, I was absolutely stunned and disgusted at the bold exploitation of Australian workers. I was determined. I remain determined, and now I'm encouraged. Yet, after six years, those coalminers still have not received their fair compensation. One Nation will continue to be the only party that pushes for repayment to those coalminers of their stolen wages.

When I first met with workers in the Hunter, way back in 2019, I drafted three aims for guiding our work that I anticipated would push us against roadblocks from the perpetrators of Australia's largest wage theft. I will state these aims again: to recover the lawful and moral entitlements of casual coalminers; to stop these abuses across the coal industry; and to expose and punish the guilty. These three aims continue to guide us. Why does this Labor government continue on a path that ignores those ripped-off coalminers? Who are they protecting? Labor is protecting union bosses and what is one of the largest donors to Labor election campaign funds—the CFMEU, now the MEU. Labor is protecting the world's largest foreign multinational labour hire corporations supplying casual workers to government contracts, costing Australian taxpayers billions of dollars. This is big money. Labor is protecting the world's largest multinational mining corporations, lacking the integrity and nous to negotiate legal agreements with workers. Labor is protecting its Fair Work Commission.

Despite these huge and powerful forces, One Nation is making progress in giving casual miners tangible hope and the real possibility of compensation. The Fair Work Act is not fit for purpose. Industrial relations needs to return to protecting workers and employers, particularly small business. But it must protect workers. Workers are no longer protected in this country under Labor. One Nation is the only party now protecting workers.

Despite all my years in this place, it never ceases to amaze me that some of the rhetoric we hear in these debates inflames uncertainty, fear and despair amongst people who might be driving along listening to this conversation—and there's so much of it that's nonsensical and absolutely totally incorrect. You'd think that contributions in this place would be directed at the intent of this place's existence—to serve the Australian people. Instead, we listen to diatribes that attack unions.

Acting Deputy President Sterle, it's no surprise to you, as a very significant leader in the union movement yourself before you came to this place, and with your continuing association with the Transport Workers Union, that unions do very different things in different communities. I'm very, very proud to be associated with the SDA union, which is affectionately called 'the shoppies union'. What we're discussing here in this legislation goes directly to people who are in a shop right now serving somebody, at 7.30 at night—and they'll still be serving them down at Coles Manuka at 10 o'clock tonight. And they're working those hours at penalty rates because they need the money for their family, their studies and their future. They are putting themselves out. They are working unsociable hours to contribute to our community, to the wealth of the nation, to the success of enterprise in our country and to their future through gaining wages that reflect the unsociable nature of the hours they're operating.

I'm sure you've worked a few unsociable hours yourself, Acting Deputy President Sterle. I certainly have, particularly as a retail worker when Friday night trading came into New South Wales. Happily, I was a member of the SDA, in my years of training to be a teacher, and they represented me. So instead of all of this union bashing nonsense that I have to put up with from those opposite—who simply don't understand the moral, the spiritual and the physical and practical need of having representatives for workers—I stand here in concert with you and others who want to serve the Australian people, and as a member of the Labor Party here in this place, to say that this bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill 2025, should pass. This bill is a fair movement towards protecting the rights for proper payment for people who are working unsociable hours.

Might I say that it's not a new thing that I'm standing up here and doing—defending unions, defending Australian workers and defending decent small businesses who pay properly, who don't need legislation to make them pay their superannuation guarantee and who don't need a law to actually pay proper penalty rates. These are people who want to employ people, grow their business and do it the right way. They're on our side as well. They don't want to be undercut by the shysters who take away superannuation, decide whether they pay it or not is optional for them. They are people who say: 'Penalty rates? You should just be grateful you got a job, mate. Show up unsociable hours. I don't care about your family. I don't care that you've got an eight-year-old at home unsupervised.' That's the kind of situation that is happening in our country, and we saw it documented in the work and care report. I see Senator Pocock here. Women, predominantly women, in the retail sector in particular were saying they had managers who were so overblown in their sense of self-importance that they refused to adjust shifts to acknowledge the reality that the women had children that they needed to care for at home. The managers just didn't care.

That's why, under the Albanese Labor government, we are rectifying a whole litany of failures with the objective of reducing Australian people's wages in relation to the cost of living. I've sat in this chamber when the finance minister for the Liberal and National parties actually said that low wages were a design feature of how they were going to run the economy. He said it out loud. I'm pretty sure he didn't realise what he was saying, but he actually belled the cat, and we have, on record, that that's what he wanted—low wages. The Albanese government is about fair and decent wages and conditions for all Australian workers.

That's why this bill should pass. It's a bill that will protect the penalty rates of 2.6 million modern-award-reliant workers in this country. These are our fellow citizens, serving the public, in hospitality and retail predominantly, working irregular hours, unsociable hours. For that, Australians designed a compact and the concept of penalty rates—some compensation for stopping your social interaction in the normal hours. The people who are going to oppose it, for goodness sake, I bet aren't working on a Sunday. I bet they're not down at Coles at Manuka putting in their hours at 10 o'clock at night. Maybe they didn't ever have to. Maybe they have no compassion or empathy for the Australian people. I cannot understand why anyone would vote against this bill. Anyone in their right mind, anyone with a sense of fairness and decency, would support what this bill will do. This benefits 2.6 million of our fellow Australians who rely on penalty rate entitlements to help them make ends meet, to pay their bills and to support their families. They're counting on us to deliver for them.

The vehicle that allows the government to make these changes is the Fair Work Act. It was written in 2009, and I know a lot of people compare the technology of today back to 2009. It was a different kind of phone that we were on, then. It was very different in shape and capacity, along with so much in our world that's changed. That's why amendments to legislation occur—because the world changes. This amendment to the Fair Work Act 2009 will lock in the protections that are necessary to ensure that penalty rates and overtime rates in modern awards cannot be cut or reduced. Very importantly, when bargaining is going on—are we going to raise wages or change things in our workplace?—we want to make sure that these penalty rates and overtime rates cannot be traded away for terms that leave workers with less take-home pay. This is essentially a protection against those who would rip off their own workforce by taking money from the workers so that they can just have some more profit themselves and ignore the impact of penalty rates and overtime on the sustainability of the finances of decent working Australians.

One of the challenges that this amendment to the Fair Work Act 2009 seeks to address is that the system as it stands allows penalty rates and overtime rates to be rolled up into a single rate of pay, leaving many workers worse off. We've seen this practice occur. When protections are weak, as they were in 2017, penalty rates are cut, and the people who felt the impact of that during the Liberal-National governments were workers in retail and in fast food. They still have that flashing light going on the main drag at Kincumber, when I drive by at 11 o'clock, and are still serving Australian people at that time. We have all of these convenience opportunities in our modern economy, and people who are working in retail, fast food, hospitality and pharmacies provide a vital service to us. When you need that bottle of baby Panadol at nine o'clock at night and you drive 25 kilometres to get it, somebody is there keeping those doors open so that you can get what you need. We not only want these services; we need them for the workforce that is moving around our country.

Right now, employers in retail, clerical and banking sectors actually have cases before the Fair Work Commission. That is the commission that oversees the Fair Work Act and the rules that apply. Sadly, there are employers in the clerical sector, in the banking sector and in the retail sector who want to erode penalty rates. With the passage of this bill, the Albanese Labor government will prevent that from occurring. I guess it comes down to your fundamental belief about what penalty rates actually are. Some people just think they are a bonus. I don't understand the mentality of some people who don't want to work those hours but think that it's okay for other people to do it and that those people shouldn't receive any recompense. We are firmly of the view that there needs to be a recognition, not just as in, 'Thank you very much for staying open,' but in payment for the unsociable hours that are worked by retail and hospitality staff, by shift workers and by essential services staff, who keep this amazing country that we call home running. People who work on weekends and public holidays, people who work stacking the shelves through the night, and people who are up very early in the morning to keep everything moving around in our economy—they don't receive penalty rates as a bonus; they receive them because of the nature of the hours that they are working. Award-reliant employees who are impacted by cuts to penalty rates are disproportionately women, and they are also young people under 35, part-time workers and casuals—all of these people who are often in precarious employment and who stitch together enough hours in response to the economy in their area. They rely heavily on the extra that they get when they put themselves and their families out to work at unsociable hours.

This is a very simple, fair and workable bill. It is going to provide clarity without complexity for those who seek to use the Fair Work Act.

The reforms that we're proposing here, and that I hope the Senate will support, do not act retrospectively. They will allow employers to continue to meet their current award obligations and nothing more. I want to reassure people who are aware of, understand and are interested in the enterprise bargaining frameworks that enterprise bargaining remains available for businesses seeking flexibility and productivity gains, including arrangements on penalty rates. But that will always occur with the oversight of to guarantee fairness in such an outcome, because, sadly, there are just far too many shonks out there, who, for some reason, believe their right to abuse an Australian worker is some sort of God-given right. In fact, it's almost this sort of ascendancy script: 'Well, I'm the boss, so I'll take all the profit. You're just my lackey, and you don't deserve fair pay.' How do people sleep at night when they diminish their fellow Australians in such an egregious way?

I wish it wasn't the case, but sadly what I've described is a reality in certain places—not in every workplace but in far too many. That is why we have to have this legislation—to stop the shysters, to stop the shonks and to stand up for ordinary hard-working Australians who don't want anything more than a fair go and need a government that understands that and will put in place the necessary guardrails through legislation to ensure that people get a fair go, nothing more, nothing less. I say to Australians: if you work late nights, if you work early mornings, weekends and public holidays, you deserve a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, and this bill ensures that for you. (Time expired)

I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill 2025 and, in doing so, recognise fairness, sacrifice and an important role penalty rates play in people's lives within our industrial relations system. I'd like to have my name associated with the good senator's contribution tonight. This bill delivers on the Albanese Labor government's key election commitment to protect the penalty rates of around 2.6 million modern-award-reliant workers. The reform will amend the Fair Work Act 2009 to legislate protection to ensure that penalty rates and overtime rates in modern awards cannot be reduced or substituted by another term that would reduce an employee's take-home pay.

I note that employers in the retail, clerical and banking sectors currently have applications before the Fair Work Commission to trade away penalty rates of lower paid workers who rely on modern awards. I'm someone who did various jobs before I came to this place. In fact, in younger days with a young family, you work on a Sunday night, because that actually brings in a bit more income, or you have a second job when you're starting up when you're first married, so you can actually save a deposit and buy a home. I worked as a checkout chick as my second job, and I loved it because I got to talk to people. Penalty rates, for those people that rely on it—if you've ever struggled, as I have, to support a family, then you actually do truly understand—make a huge difference in the hospitality industry. No question about that.

Penalty rates have long stood as a cornerstone of Australia's industrial relations landscape, ensuring that workers who sacrifice their weekends, their nights, public holidays; get up early in the morning; and do shiftwork receive an appropriate compensation for their time, because their time is valuable. Nowhere is the significance of penalty rates more apparent than in the retail sector, where workers are often required to serve on the front lines, away from their families, while much of the country enjoys leisure, community events or time with their loved ones. There are 1.3 million retail workers across Australia, representing nine per cent of the working population. This is a significant number of hardworking Australians, so it is fundamentally important that we reflect on what we value in our society. At their core, penalty rates are designed to acknowledge the personal and social sacrifices made by workers who must labour outside of the standard Monday-to-Friday, nine-to-five routine.

I remember that back during COVID people were singing the praises of those who worked on the front line. Retail workers copped a lot of crap. They did. When they were limiting what you could buy at the supermarket, people were a bit hostile. They were a bit worried, and we honour them. Well, the best way to honour those workers and others who rely on penalty rates is to pass this legislation. For retail workers, these unsociable hours are not a rare exception but a routine reality. The retail sector is uniquely positioned as an industry intimately connected to the rhythms and rituals of daily life, serving customers during weekends, late at night and especially on Sundays and public holidays, when the majority of the population seek rest, relaxation and recreation. For many Australians, Sunday is set aside as a time to gather with family, attend religious services or simply recharge for the week ahead. Public holidays are similarly valued as an opportunity to celebrate significant civil or cultural events. Retail workers, however, are often required to forgo these precious moments, standing behind counters, stocking shelves or assisting customers while all the while their own families gather without them. That deserves compensation.

Retail work is undeniably frontline work. Retail employees are the face of businesses, interacting with hundreds and sometimes thousands of people over a shift, and big business needs to be reminded of that fact. Retail workers manage not only the flow of goods and provision of services but also the emotional labour that comes with customer service. This is especially pronounced during busy periods like Christmas, Easter or the Australia Day long weekend, when stores are bustling and the pace is relentless. The COVID pandemic, as I said earlier, further highlighted just how essential and how exposed retail workers are to our communities, day in, day out. Retail workers serve communities during times of crisis, ensuring the continued supply of food, medicines and other essentials. Despite such vital services, the reality of retail work often comes with modest pay and limited job security. Penalty rates, therefore, are not merely a bonus; they are a necessary form of recognition and reward for the additional burdens carried by those workers across the country.

The Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association, formerly known as the SDA, have been at the forefront of defending the rights of retail, fast food, warehousing and pharmacy workers across Australia. Over the years, the SDA have fought tirelessly to protect penalty rates, recognising their central importance to the livelihoods of workers who already face one of the most demanding and least appreciated occupations in the work that they do and the role that they play in our economy. We know unions are very strong at advocating for their members, but they are there to help safeguard these entitlements at times when there is significant political and business pressure to reduce or remove them.

So I acknowledge the hard work of the SDA branches across the country. I particularly acknowledge the national secretary, Gerard Dwyer, and the secretary of the Tasmanian branch, Joel Tynan. Their commitment to retail workers is unwavering, and we know that they have a number of campaigns going on in relation to the pay for people who are adults in every way except when it comes to their pay. At 18, they can have the same responsibility in retail, they can sign up to go to war and they can buy alcohol, but they don't get paid an adult wage until they're 21.

That's why unions are so important in this country, because they stand up for workers and give them a voice. As an individual, you don't have the same capacity to speak for yourself as when it's done in a collective fashion. Through campaigns, negotiations and collective action, the SDA continue to champion fair compensation for retail workers.

Order! It being 8 pm—sorry, Senator Polley—the debate is interrupted.

You're not going to stop me! In tonight's adjournment debate I want to speak about the first 100 days of the Albanese Labor government's second term. We have not stopped implementing policy reform to strengthen our country and our economy, empowering communities and families. Australians understand there is great global economic uncertainty out there, but they know that this government will be bold and make important changes to set our country up for the future.

In my home state of Tasmania our Labor team in the Senate and House of Representatives have been focused on delivering for Tasmanians and delivering on our election commitments. In particular, our urgent care clinics are working every day to keep Tasmanians healthy. We recently marked 100,000 visits to Tasmania's five urgent care clinics, and we on this side will continue to strengthen Medicare with our commitment to open another three care clinics across Tasmania. That means eight urgent care clinics where Tasmanians just need their Medicare card for health care when they need it most. This important policy will change people's lives for the better. As a senator from the great state of Tasmania, I could not be prouder of the Albanese government, led by Anthony Albanese, for delivering for Tasmanians.

As a government we've already opened the first of our 50 new Medicare urgent care clinics, adding to the network of 90 we opened in our first term, taking pressure off public hospitals and making sure people can get the treatment they need with just their Medicare card. There is nowhere more important for that to be delivered than in my home state of Tasmania. Tasmania has some of the highest rates of chronic illnesses in the country, unfortunately.

Who could forget that, in our very first sitting week of parliament, we passed legislation to cut student debt by 20 per cent and raise the repayment threshold from $54,435 to $67,000. This is cost-of-living relief, helping more than 53,000 Tasmanians with that debt burden. We've also introduced legislation to make medicines cheaper, protect workers' penalty rates—as I was speaking about earlier—and strengthen safety in childcare centres. Making the most of these advantages depends on making sure our economy rewards people for their hard work, and we as a government want all Australians to share in our wealth. This was the subject of the three-day economic roundtable here in Canberra last week. My Tasmanian colleagues and I held an economic roundtable in Tasmania to hear from businesses, unions and the not-for-profit sector about how they think we can boost national productivity.

We focus every day on building our country and giving Australians a helping hand with concerns about the high cost of living. From 1 July this year, another round of energy bill relief was rolled out for every household and small business around Australia. The Paid Parental Leave scheme has been expanded by another two weeks, and superannuation has been added to it for the first time ever. Who did that? A Labor government, unlike those opposite, who will sell Australians out—and their super, because they've never believed in it. It was established by a Labor government. We are the ones that work every day in this place to protect it.

Three million workers on minimum award wages have received another real pay increase—one that those on that side did nothing to help with when they were in government—and on 1 July next year, and the year after that, all 14 million taxpayers will receive our tax cuts. I know those opposite do not understand, but we on this side want Australians to earn more and to keep more of what they earn. As a government we're focused on delivering economic opportunities for women, abolishing non-compete clauses and pursuing competition reform to boost productivity.

Ambition and the need to deliver on all of these policies—that's what drives us as members of the Albanese Labor government. We understand that delivering is fundamental to building our nation and making a positive difference to people's lives. I'm proud to be part of a Senate team here that will work every single day to help Australians and to make sure that we leave no-one behind and that people get the opportunities that were denied to them by the former government over the nine long years— (Time expired)

I wish I didn't have to give this speech. On 2 August 2025, after the last parliamentary sitting, I took the first opportunity I had to visit the Hindu temple in Melbourne which was defaced with racist graffiti. I said to the community at the temple, and I repeat it here today, that I stood in solidarity with Australians of Indian heritage at the temple and that an attack on them was an attack on me; an attack on them was an attack on our Australian values.

Now I'm forced to take this, my first, opportunity to register how dismayed I am by a pamphlet which has been circulating and which has been brought to my attention by dear friends, Australians of Indian heritage, in relation to a march which is proposed to take place on 31 August. It refers to our Indian community in a way which is quite despicable, vile and unacceptable. I'm not going to repeat the statement which is contained in the pamphlet. It's been obtaining some press coverage during the course of the day. I just want to say to all Australians that this pamphlet and what is stated on it are causing great distress and concern to Australians of Indian heritage, including in my home state of Queensland. So I'm compelled to rise in this place at the earliest opportunity to call it out, to condemn it and to say that the language and references to Australians of Indian heritage are unacceptable. It is outrageous, it is despicable, and it seeks to divide Australians at a time when we need and should all seek to unite.

I say at this time to Australians of Indian heritage that your community is a great blessing for our beautiful country, for Australia. You belong, you are part of the Australian story, and you have brought so many wonderful things to our Australian community. I see the work, the businesses you engage in across this country and the magnificent contribution that you make when you bring your talents to bear. I see the work that you all do in the community. There is no group that helps Australians in need more than Australians of Indian heritage—at times of flood, at times of bushfire and at the time of the COVID pandemic. I can remember visiting the Sikh gurdwara at Eight Mile Plains, where they were preparing thousands and thousands of meals to be distributed to people in need; GOPIO Cairns reaching out to their fellow Queenslanders at the time of floods; and the Fiji Senior Citizens Association of Queensland reaching out to those who suffered in bushfires. Again and again and again, Australians of Indian heritage have reached out to help their fellow Australians.

You do not deserve what is contained in this vile pamphlet; you do not deserve it. You are a part of the Australian story, you belong, you make a wonderful contribution to our beautiful country, and you are the human bridge between Australia and India and so important for the future of this country. So I thank you for every single thing you do. The comments contained in this pamphlet represent the views of a very small minority, and we won't have it. We have parliamentarians of Indian heritage in this parliament, and they make a wonderful contribution. This sort of material needs to be called out in the strongest terms. Later in the year we will have the Diwali festival, one of the wonderful cultural celebrations our Indian community brings to Australia. I conclude my remarks with this: light will triumph over darkness, good will triumph over evil, and knowledge will triumph over ignorance. I rise and stand in solidarity with all Australians of Indian heritage.

Tonight I rise to congratulate Cheryl Edwardes AM on being conferred the honour of Freeman of the City of Joondalup. Cheryl's contribution to Western Australia has been nothing short of remarkable. First elected to the Legislative Assembly in 1989 as the Liberal member for Kingsley, she was immediately promoted to the front bench as shadow minister for education, a sign of the confidence placed in her from the very beginning.

Over the course of her parliamentary career, Cheryl remained a senior frontbencher, and in 1993 she made history as the first woman to serve as Attorney-General anywhere in Australia. She went on to hold portfolios as Minister for Family and Children's Services and later as Minister for the Environment, becoming the longest-serving woman in cabinet in Western Australia's history. Her leadership was instrumental in shaping Perth's northern suburbs during a time of extraordinary growth. Cheryl has become a role model for women entering public life, and that remains the case today.

After retiring from parliament in 2005, Cheryl continued to serve Western Australia with the same professionalism and dedication that marked her time in government. She returned to private legal practice before taking on significant roles in the mining sector, where her expertise has been widely valued. She has sat on the Foreign Investment Review Board, and in 2016 she became only the third woman to serve as commissioner and then deputy chair of the WA Football Commission.

Cheryl's distinguished service has also been recognised nationally. In 2016 she was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia for her significant contribution to the people and parliament of Western Australia. This year she was further honoured as an Officer of the Order of Australia 'for distinguished service to the law and social justice, to resource management and environmental sustainability, to business, and to the community'.

Now, quite rightly, the City of Joondalup has recognised Cheryl Edwardes as a trailblazer, a leader and a champion for her community. The honour of Freeman is richly deserved, and as Liberals we are proud to see one of our own recognised in this important and significant way. Congratulations to Cheryl and also to her family, who have supported her in her very distinguished journey thus far.

Tonight I acknowledge the 10th anniversary of the Organisation of African Communities in my home state of Western Australia—as it's affectionately known, the OAC—a group that has become a cornerstone for African Australians in my home state of WA. Earlier this month, I was pleased to join president Dr Casty and past president Joe Tuazama for the launch of OACWA's strategic plan for 2025-2030, entitled Empowering communities, building unity, shaping the future. This plan sets out a clear vision for the next five years, addressing the real challenges faced by African families arriving in Western Australia, navigating new systems, language, supporting their children and holding on to culture and traditions. The plan does not shy away from the complexity of these challenges and recognises the needs of young African people, African women, African professionals, families, people living with disability and those experiencing domestic violence.

It also outlines a bold ambition: the creation of a dedicated African centre in Perth, similar to those across the country. Of course, an African centre would provide education, youth programs, disability support and essential community services. Already, OAC is making a genuine difference through initiatives like the Mentor Me ReConnect program at Ellenbrook and Aveley secondary colleges, helping young people build confidence and succeed in their studies. Of course, as always, more mentors are needed. I encourage anyone with the time and interest to get involved.

Over the past decade, OACWA has provided vital support to newcomers whilst also creating opportunities for cultural celebration and dialogue. In doing so, it has enriched communities and strengthened the social fabric of Western Australia as a whole. I congratulate the OACWA on this milestone. I commend its leadership past, present and future for their vision and wish them every success as they continue to shape and be involved in building a stronger, inclusive future for African Australians in Western Australia.

Senate adjourned at 20:15