If there are no objections, the meetings are authorised.

As I was saying last night, the work that the SDA have done has been about their members, and it's about ensuring that they get the compensation for the hours that they work. The Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill 2025 adds a new section, 135A, to the Fair Work Act 2009 to establish a 'clear principle' that, when 'exercising its powers to make, vary or revoke modern awards', the Fair Work Commission must ensure that specified penalty or overtime rates are not reduced and that 'modern awards do not include terms that substitute employees' entitlements to receive penalty or overtime rates where those terms would have an effect of reducing the additional remuneration an employee would otherwise receive'.

The bill is designed to be simple, fair and workable, providing clarity without adding unnecessary complexity, and the changes introduced by this bill will not apply retrospectively. Employers will continue to be responsible for paying penalty rates in accordance with the relevant modern award. It does not introduce new obligations beyond this existing requirement. Enterprise bargaining will remain the key pathway for employers to directly negotiate with employees and their representatives to achieve flexibility and productivity gains, including in relation to penalty and overtime rates. Enterprise bargaining has strong safeguards in place, including oversight by the independent Fair Work Commission, to facilitate good faith in the bargaining process.

Without this principle, the commission would apply the modern awards objective, subsection 134(1), in determining whether to make the proposed variations. The modern awards objective is a balancing exercise which requires the commission to weigh up several factors, including but not limited to the 'need to provide additional remuneration for employees working overtime; unsocial, irregular or unpredictable hours; weekends or public holidays; or shiftwork'—subsection 134(1)(da).

The bill would provide stronger protection than the status quo in the following ways. The principle is applied over and above the commission's consideration of the modern award objectives, overriding any decision that would rule in favour of provisions that have the effect of reducing penalty rates and overtime rates. The test applies to the additional remuneration that any employee would otherwise receive, meaning that a provision cannot be in a modern award if there is evidence of a single employee that would be worse off. There is also currently no legal definition of exemption rate clauses in modern awards. Section 135A(1)(b) therefore applies a higher level principle to ensure the commission is focused on the desired policy outcomes, ensuring employees' rights to penalty and overtime rates are not diminished. Otherwise, the legislation would need to attempt to define the various types of clauses across all modern awards, which would narrow the principle and could have unintended consequences.

As part of this speech—because retail workers, as I said earlier in my speech, have been on the front lines when we have been through difficult times like COVID—I want to pay credit to a young man and to congratulate him. It's Lachlan Bovill, who has been named the best checkout operator in Tasmania and Victoria—no mean feat. Lachie is a great guy; he does his work with enthusiasm. Obviously, customers really appreciate the way he interacts and communicates with them. He knows, because he's been trained, that service is service is service. I want to give a big shout-out to Lachie. He works at the Legana Woolworths. As I said before, he's been acknowledged in the community by the local council just recently. He's hardworking. He has humility and the best customer service that anyone could pay for. Lachie will travel to Sydney in October, where he will be in the running for a national operator of the year award. I also note that, as part of the Young Citizen of the Year awards, he was acknowledged and named as the young citizen by the West Tamar Council. This is a young man who is a member of the SDA, so he knows that his back is always covered by the SDA, because they put their membership first.

We do know that those opposite do not have the same belief as we do. There's a stark contrast between this side of the chamber and that side of the chamber in terms of sticking up for workers and ensuring they get paid a fair day's wage for the work that they do. We want them to keep more of their pay. That's why we introduced the tax cuts, which those opposite did not support.

I think the record is very clear. Australian workers know that they have the support of the Labor government. We proved that in our first term of government, and we have continued that in the first 100 days of our second term. For retail workers who serve the community on the front lines at the expense of their own families and time spent with their children, penalty rates are a vital recognition of their sacrifice. Again, thank you and a big shout-out to the SDA for putting their members first and for recognising the sacrifice that they make—giving up time with their families and not being able to go with sporting events and other social activities. They stand with them, just as the Anthony Albanese Labour government stands with Australian workers.

I join my colleague Senator Polley in giving a shout-out to Lachie as well and say it was an extraordinary feat to become the Tas/Vic best checkout operator. It was very good, and I wish him all the very best in the nationals in October in Sydney. Again, I congratulate Senator Polley for raising it here in the Senate. Good luck to Lachie!

The Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill 2025, which is before us, delivers on a key election commitment from the Albanese Labor government to protect penalty rates and overtime entitlements for millions of workers who rely on modern awards. It's a simple principle, but one with profound consequences. If you're someone who works weekends, late nights, early mornings or public holidays, then you deserve to have your wages protected. You deserve to know that your pay won't go backwards. This bill is about fairness. It's about protecting workers who put in the hard yards at odd hours—retail workers, hospitality workers, aged-care and disability support staff, cleaners, admin workers and many, many more. These are the workers who rely on the award system to guarantee decent pay and conditions.

Under the Liberal-National government that safety net is always under threat. Right now there are active applications before the Fair Work Commission from employer groups in the retail, banking and clerical sectors seeking to trade away penalty rates and overtime. They want to roll these entitlements into so-called all-in pay rates, leaving workers worse off. This bill puts a stop to that. It will amend the Fair Work Act to insert a new section which requires the Fair Work Commission to ensure that penalty and overtime rates in modern awards are not reduced and that modern awards do not include terms that substitute or trade away those entitlements, where doing so would reduce the extra pay a worker would otherwise receive. This change is urgent. We want the bill passed quickly so it can apply to decisions currently before the commission. If passed, it will mean that those attempts to undermine penalty rates cannot succeed.

This isn't about blocking flexibility. Enterprise bargaining remains unchanged. Employers and workers can still negotiate workplace agreements that suit their needs, so long as they meet the better off overall test. Individual flexibility arrangements in awards will still be allowed. The commission's power to correct errors or resolve ambiguities remains untouched. But, when it comes to the safety net, when it comes to minimum terms and conditions and modern awards, this bill makes it clear that no worker should go backwards.

Penalty rates matter. Overtime matters. These entitlements exist for a reason. They recognise the personal cost of working unsociable hours—missing out on family dinners, weekends with kids, birthdays and community events. It's their compensation for work that is inconvenient, irregular and disruptive to family and social life. Take Jane, a retail worker in Glenorchy in my home state of Tasmania, who earns about $7½ thousand a year in penalty rates. That money goes towards rent, groceries and school fees. She spoke of the toll night shifts take—missing dinner with family and working an opposite schedule to her partner. Or take Daniel in Hobart, who's been in hospitality for 11 years. He told us that he earns around $85 a week in penalty rates—about $4,200 a year. Without that money, he'd have to work more and see his loved ones less. He skips movies and holidays, and, in his words, 'Penalty rates honestly make a huge difference.' For these people, this bill means real protection.

Around 2.6 million workers rely on the modern awards safety net. These workers are more likely to be women, more likely to be young and more likely to work part-time or casually. They are also more likely to be under financial stress and more likely to rely on every dollar in their pay cheque just to get by. Protecting penalty rates is a critical cost-of-living measure. It's part of the Albanese Labor government's broader approach to help Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn, and it builds on the workplace reforms we've already delivered.

Since coming to office, the Labor government has delivered real wage increases for award-reliant workers; put gender equality at the heart of the workplace relations system; revived enterprise bargaining, supporting cooperative workplaces; introduced the right to disconnect and improve protections against exploitation; and backed increases to the minimum wage every year. Our workplace laws are delivering results. Millions of workers are benefiting from stronger wages and better conditions. This bill continues that work by closing a loophole that puts low-paid workers at risk.

Some have asked why we've included overtime in this bill when the election commitment focused on penalty rates. Well, the answer is simple. The two go hand in hand. The government has made it clear that both penalty and overtime rates are essential features of modern awards. They are both designed to fairly compensate workers for time spent away from familyand community. This bill doesn't invent a new principle. It gives legal force to something Australians already understand—that workers deserve to be fairly paid for working outside standard hours.

Importantly, the protections in this bill apply to all modern awards across all sectors. They're designed to future proof the system, not just fix the immediate problem. Instead of listing every kind of exemption clause or rolled up rate, this bill sets a clear rule. If a clause cuts the extra pay a worker should get for overtime or penalties, it's not allowed. The commission has to check how it affects each worker, not just the average. If even one worker loses out, the clause can't be included. That's a fair and tough test. For somebody on $25 an hour, losing a 25 per cent penalty isn't a small pay cut; it's a big pay cut.

Some employer groups have criticised this bill. They say it limits flexibility. They say it complicates things. They say it complicates hiring. This bill protects the safety net. It doesn't stop employers negotiating enterprise agreements, it doesn't prevent higher paid base salaries through bargaining, and it certainly doesn't ban discussions around rosters, hours or workplace efficiency. It just ensures that low-paid workers don't have their pay quietly cut from technical award variations. The government has consulted with stakeholders to get this balance right.

This bill is fair, practical and legally sound, and it enjoys strong community support. Australians overwhelmingly believe that, if you work irregular hours, you should be properly paid for it. This legislation reflects that value. It says to workers, 'Your time matters, your family life matters, your pay matters.'

I commend the bill to the Senate.

I rise to speak to the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill 2025. Penalty rates are a critical protection for workers in this country. Penalty rates ensure that workers are paid fairly for giving up precious time. In a cost-of-living crisis, we know that the price of essentials like housing, food and health care are outstripping wage growth. Penalty rates can be the difference between people being able to keep up with bills and put food on the table and not being able to afford to pay the rent. This is particularly true for workers concentrated in low-wage, low-security jobs, particularly women, young people and disabled people.

The Greens will be supporting this bill because it's incredibly important to stop the further erosion of pay and conditions for workers. What this bill doesn't do is address the big challenges of the modern workplace: casualisation, insecure work, gig economy exploitation and the need for greater flexibility on workers' terms. So my esteemed colleague Senator Barbara Pocock will be moving amendments to this bill. In particular, there is one amendment to add emphasis to some issues that were raised in the inquiry into this bill. That amendment will give Labor the opportunity to not just protect existing entitlements but enshrine new rights for workers.

We know that for millions of Australians, especially women, the ability to work from home provides the flexibility that they need to balance work with the other important things in their life, including the unpaid care responsibilities that women still disproportionately bear the load of. Many men are also looking for this flexibility, and it will help them be more involved in care responsibilities, which we all welcome, as well as reducing commute time and cost, and climate emissions, for workers everywhere.

In the same way that the Greens worked with Labor to establish the very successful and popular right to disconnect for workers, we want to work together to establish a reasonable right to work from home that will increase productivity and flexibility in workplaces. Most workers in Australia are covered by federal workplace law, so it makes sense to create this right at the national level. We need a sensible national approach. Work has changed. Millions of us can now effectively work from home. Recent polling by Resolve revealed that a majority of Australians support legislating a right to work from home, and we agree.

The Greens amendment would ensure that workers have a right to work from home for two days a week, providing that working from home is not at odds with the inherent nature of the worker's role. Under our policy, employers would be required to positively consider reasonable requests to work from home at least two days a week. The evidence shows that productivity does not fall; in many cases it actually improves. Flexible working, including working from home, is particularly beneficial for women, who, as I said earlier—and you've heard me say this for the last 15 years—continue to carry the bulk of unpaid care responsibilities at home. This amendment would ensure the right to work from home for workers of any gender. Work from home saves commute time, it saves costs, it gives people a better work-life balance and it makes it easier to manage and share those care responsibilities. This isn't just a win for women, workers and family; it would be a win for the economy as well.

It's time the government listened to workers and updated our workplace laws for this century. Labor's got an opportunity in this parliament to work with the Greens to deliver real benefits to workers and carers, who are still predominantly women, and they can start doing that by supporting this amendment and enshrining a right to work from home.

I rise today in support of the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill 2025. This bill is about protecting the people who work when the rest of us don't: the people who serve us for a Sunday lunch to put food in our bellies, the people who restock our shelves at midnight so we can put food on the table, and the people who care for our elderly loved ones on Christmas morning.

These are the Australians doing the early starts, the late finishes and the weekends, so it's hard to believe that their pay is under threat. But this bill puts a stop to that. It locks in protections for more than 2.6 million award-reliant workers. It ensures that penalty rates and overtime rates, which have been hard-earned through sacrifice, cannot be bargained away—not by clever legal manoeuvring, not by corporate proposals dressed up as a pay rise; not now and not ever. Let's be real: when you take away penalty rates, you are directly affecting the ability to pay rent and to buy groceries, and stripping workers of peace of mind. This bill is also about cost-of-living relief. It is about standing up for workers who keep our essential services going long after business hours end and long before most of us wake up.

We've seen attempts to chip away at penalty rates before, and we know who gets hurt. It's not the boardroom executives and it's not the top end of town. The casual worker stacking pallets at the supermarket is who gets hurt. It's the part-time aged-care worker who fills in night shifts. It's the hospo worker who closes at 2 am. These are hardworking people—hardworking people like my mum, who works as a cleaner in a hospital. She, like other Australians, relies on those extra dollars, weekend loadings, overtime and penalty rates just to get by. These extra dollars allow for dinner on the table and ensure individuals don't live pay cheque to pay cheque.

I want to be really clear: the case for this bill is so simple, and the benefits are clear for everybody to see. It's a lifeline for millions of Australian workers. We're talking about hundreds or even thousands of dollars a year in lost income if penalty rates are cut. That's rent, school uniforms and petrol to get to work. For my mum in regional Victoria, that's a trip to Melbourne to visit the grandkids. This is not just extra pocket money; it's the difference between security and struggle.

In Victoria's regional centres, like the Mallee and Nicholls, penalty rates aren't just a bonus; they're survival. These communities have some of the highest rates of award reliance in the country. In sectors like retail, hospitality, aged care and agriculture, workers rely on penalty rates to make ends meet. When Sunday and public holiday rates were cut in 2017, Victoria's rural and regional workers lost between $67 million and $127 million per year. That's income stripped from thousands of households in my home country town of Swan Hill, in Shepparton, in Mildura and in Echuca. It didn't just hurt workers; it hurt small businesses too. With less money to spend locally, local economies took the hit.

This bill is about ensuring history doesn't repeat itself. That's why Labor is acting. It's because, once again, big business has come knocking and they're asking us to rewrite the rules. We've seen the retail employer lobby push for changes that will allow store managers to opt-out of penalty rates in exchange for a 35 per cent pay rise. That might sound generous, but let's just unpack that a bit. That proposal backed by Coles, Woolworths and other large businesses, would scrap overtime and weekend rates for those workers. If that gets through, who's next? We all know how this story goes. First it's the managers, then it's the team leaders and then it's the shop floor. That's why we're closing that door now.

This bill ensures that modern awards can't be varied in a way that reduce or replace penalty or overtime rates. Any attempt to disguise a cut in penalty rates, no matter how it's worded, must be declined if it leaves Australian workers worse off. That is pretty simple. If you work outside regular hours, you should be paid more, not less. We've intervened because the Fair Work Commission was considering proposals that could have permanently altered the penalty rate safety net, and we knew what was at stake.

The Albanese Labor government made a rare submission to fair work urging them to reject those proposals, because we believe in the award safety net and we believe that it needs protecting. This legislation now ensures that the commission must not approve any modern award change that would leave a single worker worse off—not one. That is how seriously we take penalty rates, because penalty and overtime rates are more than a line item in a pay packet. It is about recognition that these workers give up time with family and friends to serve the rest of us, that they sacrifice and that they deserve to be compensated fairly.

Let me remind the chamber what happened last time penalty rates were cut. In 2017, under the coalition government, the commission slashed Sunday and public holiday rates for hundreds of thousands of retail and hospitality workers. Wages went backwards. Lives got harder. And what did we hear from the Liberals? This is the point where you can insert the crickets, because we heard nothing. Even worse than nothing, some people even cheered it on. They said it would create jobs. Unsurprisingly, they were wrong. The evidence is clear. Cutting penalty rates did not create jobs, but it did foster hardship, and now we have the same forces circling again.

It's new packaging, but it's the same old low-blow attack on workers' pay. So we're making the law crystal clear. We're inserting a new section into the Fair Work Act that says: 'Penalty rates and overtime rates in awards can't be reduced'—that's clear—'They can't be substituted with something else that leaves workers worse off.' That's clear. If a proposal does that, it fails. The commission is not required to review all awards, but, if the reward is up for variation, then the new rule applies. It will apply to cases already on foot like the retail and banking awards matters currently before the Fair Work Commission. It means that this bill is urgent and it's necessary.

While some in this chamber are still thinking about what side to take, we've already chosen ours. We're on the side of workers. The coalition, on the other hand, hasn't made up its mind. Their shadow minister has raised concerns about small businesses but has refused to back the bill. Let me say this to those opposite—listen closely—if you support fair pay, vote for this bill. If you care about cost-of-living relief, vote for this bill. If you won't vote for it, then be honest about what that means. It means turning your back on the people who clean our hospitals, who stock your grocery shelves and pour your coffee. Don't claim to stand for working families if you won't stand up for penalty rates.

This legislation delivers exactly what workers need—clear and enforceable safeguards. It still allows for individual flexibility arrangements, as long as, at the end of the day, the worker is better off. It keeps enterprise bargaining in place. It preserves the commission's role in fixing award errors or ambiguities. What it stops is the erosion of wages through tricky variations and legal loopholes. Once penalty rates are gone, they don't come back easily. By the time workers notice, it's too late. We've seen what's happened in the past, so we are acting for the future. This is about respecting the dignity of work; about saying that people who work weekends, nights and holidays deserve more, not less; and about standing with people who serve us while we rest. To the workers who keep this country running at all hours: we see the hours that you give up. We understand the sacrifices that you make, and now we are standing with you.

Let's pass this bill. Let's protect penalty and overtime rates. Let's do the right thing by the people who do right by this country every single day. I commend the bill to the Senate.

At the heart of the Albanese Labor government is a simple and unwavering belief—that if you put in a fair day's work you deserve a fair day's pay. That's the promise of this Labor government. It's a value that we hold close. Penalty rates are not a privilege or a bonus. They are recognition of the sacrifice made by workers who give up their weekends, give up their nights and give up their time with family in order to serve our communities and in order to keep the wheels of the economy running.

The pay and conditions of award reliant workers are directly set by the Fair Work Commission. In other words, these workers—and there are a huge number; one in five of all 15 million taxpayers are these workers, 2.6 million Australians—feel the direct impact of the decisions made by the Fair Work Commission. The modern awards, together with the National Employment Standards and the national minimum wages provide a critical safety net for workers. They set a floor, not a ceiling, for fair, relevant and enforceable minimum terms and conditions of employment. We spend our time basically at home and at work. The Fair Work Commission sets these minimum standards up. They are a floor—the minimum required to protect workers.

These standards encompass your working conditions, flexible work, casual employment, maximum hours, leave entitlements and so on. Penalty rates put food on the table. They help a young student pay rent. They help cleaners and transport workers function and maintain a quality of life. These are the people who keep Australia ticking over at times when most of us are with our loved ones.

I just want to recall an anecdote. I've never forgotten this. During the 2022 campaign, I called into a town in Tasmania and I spoke to a single mother about her penalty rates. I asked her what they meant to her. She was a hospitality worker. She was so dependent on these rates that she said to me, 'Michelle, I actually can't speak to you about this; I've got to go into another room.' Why did she have to go into another room? Because she didn't want to have this conversation in front of her children. That's how important penalty rates were to her. I've never forgotten that story. It's with that single mother in mind that I speak.

Not only are these people award-reliant workers; they are also some of the most vulnerable. Sixty per cent of them are women. The average age of these workers is 34, and about 40 per cent are under the age of 25—in other words, they are overwhelmingly young people. Seventy per cent work part time. Notably, nearly 60 per cent of all low-paid workers are award reliant, meaning they are on this minimum award. To cut these rates is not just an attack on pay packets; it's an attack on fairness itself. What kind of country do we want going to the future? We have to ask ourselves this. We want a fair country. We do not have want to have a working underclass, a working poor, as happens in other countries.

This bill will ensure that penalty and overtime rates are protected and remain an during part of the modern awards safety net. The protection is crucial for workers who rely on these rates for financial security. The bill ensures that specified penalty and overtime rates in modern awards cannot be reduced, and the bill addresses loopholes that allowed employers to roll up penalty and overtime rates into a single pay rate, undermining workers' actual compensation.

We do also know what happened when the coalition were in government. In 2017, they actually cut penalty rates to a whole swathe of workers—workers in retail, hospitality, pharmacies and fast food. The Labor Party stood with those workers and opposed that change, and so did other members of the parliament. Unfortunately, we didn't win the 2019 election, so it was difficult to change course. But with the help of the unions and the voices of those workers, we are now back and we are determined to protect the working rights and the pay of these ordinary Australians who do the work at times when the rest of us are with our families.

Let's be clear, protecting penalty rates is not just a matter of justice; it is a matter of economic good sense. Every dollar earned in penalty rates is a dollar spent in local communities. It circulates through small businesses, it supports regional communities and it strengthens the very fabric of our nation. This is what Labor stands for—dignity at work, fair reward for effort, and a recognition that our economy must serve the people, not the other way around. Protecting penalty rates is about protecting the Australian way of life, a way of life built on fairness, opportunity and respect for those who keep our nation running, often at the hardest hours. As a Labor government, we will always stand shoulder to shoulder with working Australians. We will protect their penalty rates because we understand what it means, and we don't want to go back to the bad old days where arbitrary judgements were made and penalty rates were cut, putting these vulnerable Australians at risk.

The Albanese government has done a power of work to secure the wages of working Australians. This bill today feeds into and complements the other work we have done in respect of banning wage secrecy, banning labour hire and backing in consecutive increases to the minimum wage, which has seen real wages rise for seven consecutive quarters, despite us also navigating this country through a nasty inflationary and cost-of-living crisis. We are here for working Australians. We are here to protect our most vulnerable workers and our most essential workers from future erosion of their pay. I commend this bill to the Senate.

I also rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill 2025. Our government has a proud history of delivering fairer pay and better conditions for Australian workers, and this bill continues that work. It delivers on our election commitment to protect the penalty rates and overtime of some 2.6 million modern award workers in Australia, many of whom rely on their penalty rates and their overtime to make ends meet.

For too many years award workers across Australia have lived anxiously, concerned about the future of their penalty rates and overtime. They are anxious because they depend on penalty rates and overtime. Without them, their families simply could not make ends meet. Our government has their back. We are ensuring that, for modern award workers, these rates cannot be reduced or substituted by another term that will reduce their take-home pay.

Currently penalty and overtime rates and modern awards can be rolled up into a single rate of pay, leaving some employees worse off, and the rates themselves can be reduced, as we saw in 2017. And of course we know there are moves underfoot now to trade away penalty rates. This anxiety is not unfounded. There is an active submission before the Fair Work Commission in the retail, clerical and banking sectors to trade away the penalty rates of lower paid workers from awards. We are not dealing in hypotheticals here. Workers have had reason to feel anxious, and they're anxious because their penalty rates and their overtime matter.

These entitlements are essential for workers in sectors like retail and hospitality, where too often work happens outside the standard nine-to-five working hours. These are hardworking Australians who keep our country running on weekends, in the evenings, on public holidays, and late nights and through shift work, and they deserve a system that fairly compensates them for these unsociable hours that not only impact them as individuals but impact their families. These hours can impact their health and wellbeing, all to keep our economy running. For those hours spent away from the people these workers love, they should be compensated.

We know that nearly 60 per cent of minimum and award-reliant workers are women and more than 57 per cent are under the age of 35, so this is also a matter of gender equity and intergenerational equity. That is why our government is taking action, and that is why I am supportive of this bill.

In substance, this bill delivers on our government's key election commitments to protect the penalty rates of 2.6 million modern award-reliant workers. It does so by amending the Fair Work Act 2009 to legislate protections to ensure that penalty and overtime rates and modern awards cannot be reduced or substituted by another term that would reduce an employee's take-home pay.

The bill adds a new section, 135A, to the act to establish a clear principle that, when exercising its powers to make, vary or revoke modern awards, the Fair Work Commission must ensure that the specified penalty or overtime rates are not reduced and modern awards do not include terms that substitute employees' entitlements to receive penalty or overtime rates where those terms would have the effect of reducing the additional remuneration any employee would otherwise receive.

The bill ensures award-reliant workers' wages cannot go backwards and that they are fairly compensated for working overtime, unsocial, irregular or unpredictable hours, weekends or public holidays, early mornings and into the night. The bill is designed to be simple, fair and workable.

Employers will continue to be responsible for paying penalty rates in accordance with the relevant modern award. It does not introduce new obligations beyond this requirement. Enterprise bargaining will remain the key pathway for employers to directly negotiate with employees and their representatives to achieve flexibility and productivity gains, including in relation to penalty and overtime rates. The bill is fair. It protects penalty rates and overtime for those workers who rely on them so deeply.

The committee that I am proud to chair, the Education and Employment Legislation Committee, conducted an inquiry into this bill, holding a hearing in Melbourne and receiving numerous submissions. We heard from witnesses from around the country about the impacts of the bill. The evidence we received was powerful and moving. We heard from workers across our economy who rely on their penalty rates and overtime to make ends meet. We heard from workers like Ruth and Emily, who both work in the retail sector. Emily told our committee that penalty rates were essential to making ends meet. Ruth, who has worked at Coles for 30 years, expressed that those who work in retail, if they want a job, have to either do late nights or weekends. Ruth added:

I do Sundays at the moment. It already impacts time with my grandkids, but I can make it up because penalty rates mean I can afford to spoil them a little bit. Without penalty rates, I'd still have to give up my Sundays with them, and there would be no reward.

We also heard from Vince, a security officer, who shared his reliance on penalty rates after his son received a diagnosis. He explained:

The fact that I had days off throughout the week made it possible for me to get him the help he needed with early intervention. … Without the penalty rates, there was no way we could've afforded to keep things moving.

Noah, who works as a school cleaner, explained to our committee:

Lots of these jobs take place at irregular or unusual hours, when people are heading home for dinner or going to sleep. All these family milestones are missed, as well.

The testimony that our committee heard, as well as the real-life experience of so many others, reminds us that behind every paycheque for a penalty rate or overtime is a person—someone making a deep contribution to our community; someone working unsociable hours; someone working late into the night; someone working on weekends; someone often juggling parenting, study, other responsibilities and commitments to their own family; someone who does this to keep our economy running. They deserve compensation for their effort.

These workers rely on penalty rates and overtime to make ends meet, and we rely on these workers to keep our economy moving. The workers who rely on their penalty rates aren't working these shifts because it's a joy to do so; they are working these shifts because they rely on the compensation it brings and what it means for them, their family, their take-home pay, their ability to manage the cost of living and their capacity to provide for their family and the people that they love. Penalty rates and overtime make a real difference for these workers. They are not a luxury. Penalty rates are a lifeline, compensation for unsociable hours and a recognition of this sacrifice, and for many workers they are essential to making ends meet.

These are the Australians whom this bill is for—some 2.6 million modern award wage workers across Australia, working in our supermarkets, working in our call centres, working in banks, in insurance, in cafes and in warehouses—the workers we were so reliant on during the COVID-19 pandemic and who continue to keep our economy moving today. If we didn't have them, our economy just simply wouldn't function as it does. When someone loses their penalty rates, it's not an abstract loss. It is food off the table. It's the difference in covering your electricity bill or falling behind on your mortgage. These workers rely on penalty rates, and they should not be forced to go backwards.

As a government, we have made lifting wages central to our economic plan, and it's why we are ensuring the take-home pay of these workers is protected. We believe in, as the Prime Minister has said so many times, no-one held back, no-one left behind. This legislation draws a clear line in the sand. If an agreement leaves workers worse off, it's not allowed.

Let's remember again who this legislation is about. It's the single mum working weekend shifts at the local supermarket so she can fund the extracurricular activities of her child. It's the university student working night shift so they can pay their tuition, pay their rent and buy their textbooks. It's the bank employee who is working public holidays to save enough for that single family holiday they want to take with their children each year. It's the retail worker who needs their Sunday penalty rates so they can fund their childcare fees through the rest of the week. These aren't just statistics and they're not just stories; they are real people in our economy, keeping our economy moving day in and day out, who rely on their penalty rates and their overtime to make ends meet. They deserve for this place to stand up for them.

Since coming to office, the Albanese Labor government has been utterly focused on delivering real outcomes for working people, backing in workers every step of the way. We've had an active focus on wage growth because we know it is critical with the cost-of-living difficulties that so many workers are facing at the moment. Growth in real wages helps workers with the cost of living. It helps them get ahead. Under our government, wages are up, inflation is down, unemployment is lower and interest rates are falling. The latest unemployment figures show a record number of Australians in work, with over 14.6 million Australians in work in July. The figures released show Australia's unemployment rate remains historically low, falling to 4.2 per cent. We haven't been afraid to legislate when we know that will make an impact on workers' wages. We've funded a wage increase for early childhood educators and aged-care workers—these workers who do critical, life-changing, nation-building work every single day of the week. For too long we have chosen to underpay and undervalue them. Our government has changed that path.

We have legislated to close loopholes in our industrial relations system which were not just leaving workers behind but making workers in our country critically and fundamentally unsafe, which was seeing workers in this country die on our roads because they weren't safe. We've legislated new powers to introduce minimum standards across the gig economy to protect these workers and treat them like employees—these workers who have been fundamentally let down in a system which, before our legislation came into effect, saw companies treat our industrial system with absolute contempt, stomp over every regulation or law that a state or territory government tried to put in place to regulate them and treat workers contemptuously. We legislated to close that loophole and others. We legislated a right to disconnect because we know work is creeping ever deeper into our home and family lives. For those workers who aren't compensated for it, they need that protection under the law. Every step of the way, we back workers. We are not afraid to legislate when necessary, and I'm deeply proud of our record in this space, especially when it comes to closing the loopholes—and I note we celebrate the anniversary of that this week.

This bill stands to protect workers, some 2.6 million modern award wage workers, in our country who rely on their penalty rates and their overtime to make ends meet and these rates of pay to provide for their families. For them, this is compensation for the difficult and unsociable hours they work and the work they do which keeps our economy running. They could not survive without their penalty rates and their overtime, and we could not survive without them. These workers are essential, and we are standing up for them.

I want every single award worker who relies on their penalty rates and overtime to let go of the anxiety they are feeling, and to know and feel confident that they will be properly compensated for their work and that they can rely on their penalty rates and overtime into the future. This is about recognising the value of every single worker and every single shift they take. We are protecting penalty rates and overtime for the award workers in our country who rely on them so deeply.

I am very proud of this bill. I know the impact it will have on these workers across our economy. To them: we are grateful for the work you do and we see the unsociable hours you work and the sacrifices you make. That's why we, as a Labor government, are standing up for you to protect your penalty rates and your overtime. That is what you can expect of a Labor government in the future.

The Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill 2025 protects penalty rates and overtime rates for 2.6 million Australians who rely on modern awards to set their pay and conditions. Importantly, the bill protects many Australian workers who rely on these overtime and penalty rates for their financial survival. We're talking about low-paid workers here, and compensation for those who work those hours on evenings, weekends and public holidays, away from their families, their friends, their interests and their lives. This bill protects those workers and enshrines penalty rates and overtime rates, which have been in place in Australia since the early 20th century. This has been a part of the Australian industrial relations framework for more than 100 years, and all this bill seeks to do is protect those workers into the future.

But it's not surprising that those who regularly oppose working Australians being paid fairly oppose these safeguards too. The arguments of those who are opposed to this bill are always cloaked in language around the need for flexibility, simplicity or certainty and are always accompanied by hollow professions of support for penalty rates. But the real impact of the abolition of these wage rates is that low-paid Australians will be left worse off.

This bill inserts section 135A into the Fair Work Act, and it requires the Fair Work Commission, when exercising its jurisdiction to make, vary or revoke modern awards, to ensure that penalty and overtime rates that employees are entitled to receive are not reduced and that modern awards do not substitute entitlements to penalty rates or overtime rates where that substitution would have the effect of reducing the additional remuneration that any employee would otherwise receive.

The philosophy that underpins this protection and much of the industrial legislation of this government is simple—labour in this country is not and should never be treated like a commodity, and the lives and time of Australian workers should not be treated as interchangeable units within a labour market to be bartered down to the lowest price. Put simply, the government is committed to helping those who are struggling to make their way to protect and support Australian families and to support fairness, equity and equality of opportunity in our workplaces.

Modern awards are about minimum safety nets in the industrial relations system. They set the baseline, and what should be alarming to everyone in this place and around the country is that the number of workers who rely on these awards has been growing. The proportion of workers who rely on awards to set the base rate of pay rose from 16.1 per cent in 2012 to 23.2 per cent in 2023. That's the context we're working in. More Australians rely on the minimum safety net in industrial relations. These awards protect low-paid workers. More than one-third of modern-award-reliant employees would be considered low paid, and, for some particular awards, that number is even bigger. For instance, on some estimates, two-thirds of modern-award-reliant employees on the Pharmacy Industry Award 2020 would be considered low paid. Across all modern awards, what does that mean in dollars and cents? It means, on average, someone who relies on a modern award receives around $864 a week or around $45,000 a year.

We've heard that these workers are disproportionately female, and that's somewhere around 60 per cent. For the General Retail Industry Award 2020, nearly two out of three workers are women. They rely on awards far more. We know that award workers are younger; it's the younger part of the workforce. But it's also important to note that many are on more precarious or vulnerable forms of work. Returning to the General Retail Industry Award 2020 for a moment, two in three people employed under that award are employed on a casual basis, and almost four in five work part-time hours. So that's our starting point when we're trying to introduce provisions that ensure penalty and overtime rates cannot be removed from awards. We're dealing with the people who are already on the downside of advantage, who already have factors in their industrial position that make them vulnerable.

One of the interesting arguments in that context is what we hear from those opposite when they come in and talk about flexibility. What we know from the history of the Liberal Party in Australia is that 'flexibility' is a code for cutting wages and conditions of lower paid workers. Taking penalty rates and overtime rates protections out of awards puts holes in the safety net. It's the flexibility to fall further for those who are already financially disadvantaged in our society, and it gives employers greater power over their employees. The objective is always the same. It's always to lower wages. The reason you know that is that, with enterprise bargaining provisions and individual employment contracts, you can pay employees more if you want to. This is about taking things out of the safety net that leave ordinary Australians worse off.

What is the value of penalty and overtime rates to Australian workers? For those who work overtime hours, around one in eight or 12.5 per cent of their hours are overtime hours. The significance of this proposition becomes clearer when you delve into the accounts of workers who rely on these protections and additional pay rates. Somewhere between one-third and one-half of those who receive weekend or evening penalty rates rely on the extra money those rates provide to meet basic household expenses. If they disappear, they go without essentials. Evidence collected by the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association from around the country bears out that reality. Receiving weeknight and Sunday penalty rates has become an economic necessity for many retail workers, essential to the financial survival of their families. It is with pride that we propose this bill to protect those families and to make sure that they keep their heads above water.

Retail workers who work unsociable hours—late nights, weekends and public holidays—almost universally lament the inability to spend time with family, children and friends or play sport or pursue hobbies or play a full part in the communities that make Australia a great nation. They should be compensated in addition for making that sacrifice. What we also know, thanks to research from Judith Brown and Lyn Craig published in the Journal of Industrial Relations, is that workers who give up that time don't get it back at other times. Workers who work on weekends don't get to catch up with their friends or with their hobbies or with the parts of their lives that matter to them during subsequent weeks. That's gone forever. So it's important that they're properly compensated for that sacrifice.

What are the broader and systemic risks of leaving penalty rates and overtime rates without protection, without the legislative protection proposed in this bill? Across our history, employers and industry groups have spent considerable time trying to water down and remove altogether penalty rates, overtime rates and other minimum conditions afforded to workers under the award system. The best example of that, relevant to this debate, was in 2017, when the Fair Work Commission agreed with the employer group submissions in the hospitality and retail sectors in an argument that weekend penalty rates were too high and were a handbrake on the economy. The result was that they supported reducing penalty rates in order for businesses to stay open longer and to create more jobs. The reality is that that didn't flow through. Businesses didn't stay open longer. There weren't more jobs created. But what did occur was that the take-home pay of working Australians in these industries, who relied on that additional wage, was reduced. The McKell Institute simulated the impact of penalty rate cuts in the retail and hospitality sector at around this time and found that reducing or removing those rates would result in a drop in disposable income across the country. There are a number of flow-on effects in terms of the consumption power of our lowest paid workers.

They also found that the effect would be more acute in regional and rural areas, where a larger proportion of workers were employed in the retail sector. So there are other sections of our community that are disproportionately affected. In 2019, after the reduction in penalty rates had been in effect for nearly two years, researchers at the University of Wollongong and Macquarie University surveyed more than 1,800 employees and 200 owner-managers in retail and hospitality. What they found was that, using a variety of statistical analyses, they were unable to establish any evidence of a relative increase in the prevalence of Sunday, public holiday or weekly employment for modern award employees or employers or a decrease in the number of hours that owner-managers worked on Sundays and public holidays, something else that the Fair Work Commission also relied on. That was even confirmed by the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia Chief Executive Officer Peter Strong in 2019, who said, 'There just haven't been extra jobs on Sundays,' and that there were 'no extra hours'. And he didn't know anyone who'd given workers extra hours. So the economic rationale for some of these concepts just doesn't bear out in the evidence, and it just doesn't bear out in our experience. But what is always clear is that it's the price paid by lower paid workers as a reduction in their take-home pay.

Dr Jim Stanford made a prescient warning as well in relation to the ongoing attempts of employer groups to reduce weekend penalty rates. It was this:

Moreover, as lower penalty rates spread through other sectors, it is my judgment that the negative impact on incomes will be experienced not only by those employed directly under the terms of a Modern Award, but will also be experienced by those working under enterprise agreements or individual contracts.

Let's be under no illusions. This is a beachhead that's trying to be set up to take away penalty rates and overtime rates from large swathes of the Australian population, and it has been done for the same reason that these efforts are always being done. It is to cut wages. When you think about whose wages would be cut—whose take-home pay is reduced because of all this—it's the people on the downside of advantage. In that sense it's unconscionable, and this bill puts in place a safeguard to prevent it.

So what is this bill unlikely to do, in spite of the concerns raised by those who say that they oppose it? This law will not worsen complexity in the Fair Work Act. The Fair Work Act is a complex piece of legislation, and its longer term reform to simplify it is another question for another day. But this piece of legislation is simple. It'll be simple for the Fair Work Commission to apply. In one sense it actually reduces the number of criteria they need to consider when facing an application to vary or approve a modern award. We know, as I've said, that this legislation will not cause a problem for employment. It won't reduce the number of people employed.

So what is it? It's a bill that is an important safeguard for millions of award-reliant Australian workers—some of the lowest paid in our country. Penalty and overtime rates are a result of the longstanding principle that workers deserve fair compensation for the sacrifices they make in working these emotionally and physically demanding hours—compensations that those who are working evenings, on weekends and on public holidays particularly deserve. This bill does not block employer-employee flexibility outright. If you're in the enterprise system—if you're in a system where you're getting a higher wage—you can still negotiate your arrangements and achieve the necessary flexibility. What this does is put in place, in black-and-white legislation, that the safety net—the minimum conditions Australian workers can receive—must preserve and protect overtime rates and penalty rates.

The failure to stop the erosion of this fundamental entitlement and these minimal conditions for our lowest paid workers will likely see more employer groups pursue similar arrangements. It'll extrapolate. But one thing I can tell you to near certainty—to the extent that predictions can be certain—is that the result will be that lower paid workers will be paid even less. That's always what sits underneath these attempts to strip away protections. Workers on the downside of advantage do not bargain with their employers from a position of equality. And it's that inequality that people who strip away basic conditions seek to exploit. It's why we need to pass this bill.

It's a great pleasure to be able to stand today to speak about penalty and overtime rates. I'd also like to echo some of the words of my colleagues on this side. When I do think about why I joined the Australian Labor Party, it comes back to one thing: standing up for everyday Australians, the people who keep our country running, quietly, reliably and often without recognition.

The bill is about people. It's about workers, many of whom I meet every day in supermarkets, retail venues, hospitals or aged-care homes. I meet call centre workers. It's about people who wake up before sunrise, who work on weekends and on public holidays and who deserve to be paid fairly and compensated for the sacrifices that they make. That's why the Australian Labor Party, the party for workers, is introducing the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill 2025.

This bill delivers on the Albanese Labor government's promise to protect penalty rates, and it's a promise that Australians overwhelmingly supported. The idea is simple: if you work unsociable hours—weekends, public holidays, early mornings, late nights—you often rely on a modern award safety net. Then your pay should be protected—no loopholes, just fair wages for hard work. This matters deeply to workers in Tasmania and across the country. In May 2023, the top five award reliant Tasmanian employees worked in accommodation and food services, administrative and support services, healthcare and social assistance, public administration and safety, and retail trade. Workers in these industries will benefit from this bill.

But this bill is part of a bigger picture. In our first term, the Albanese Labor government made landmark reforms to workplace relations. We've worked hard to get wages moving again. We've closed loopholes that undermine fairness, improved access to secure jobs and put gender equity at the heart of workplace laws. Labor governments have always stood up for workers. We believe in fair pay, decent conditions and safer and respectful workplaces. And we know that when workers are supported, when we lift them up, everyone benefits.

Since coming to government in 2022, we've reinvigorated enterprise bargaining, we've made gender equality and job security core principles of the Fair Work Act, we've banned secrecy clauses, we've criminalised wage theft, we've closed the labour hire loopholes, we've introduced minimum standards for road transport workers, and we've ended the permanent casual loophole. We've given casuals a proper pathway to permanent work, and, importantly, we've introduced the right to disconnect. These reforms are delivering real wage increases and better conditions.

Now this government is building on that momentum, because protecting penalty and overtime rates in modern awards isn't just good policy; it's the right thing to do, and it takes a Labor government to do it. Penalty and overtime rates are more than just numbers on a pay slip. For many of Australia's lowest paid workers, they're their lifeline. But, under the current rules, they can be rolled into a single rate that leaves people worse off. That's not fair and that's not what Labor stands for.

This bill strengthens that safety net. It ensures that workers aren't disadvantaged by technicalities or loopholes, and it does so without adding unnecessary complexity. Employees and employers can still negotiate flexibility, but not at the expense of fairness. This bill doesn't go after or unfairly treat many of the great small businesses that do the right thing and that value and reward their workers. It just protects the status quo.

Modern awards are vital to protecting workers who don't benefit from an enterprise agreement. They cover pay, hours, rosters, breaks, penalty rates and overtime. They're especially important for the workers, who are more likely to be women, who are under 35, part-time or casual. These are often the most vulnerable workers, and they deserve protection.

During recent hearings for this bill we heard stories from cleaners, retail workers and representatives from trade unions. The workers who bravely gave evidence during the hearings spoke of how penalty rates meant the difference of buying apples. It meant the difference of being able to provide for appropriate care for their children or to be able to even spoil their grandchildren. I might say, many of us in here would often take those sorts of things for granted. These workers aren't asking for much. They're asking for us to protect the Australian way of life—their penalty and overtime rates.

We do respect the Fair Work Commission's role as the independent umpire, and that doesn't change. What we want is for enterprise agreements to deliver better wages, better conditions and more productive workplaces. We want to have penalty rates and overtime rates protected in modern awards. We're starting to see really great results. More workers than ever are now covered by enterprise agreements, and those agreements are delivering real wage increases.

At the heart of this bill is a simple principle for fairness. Behind every clause in an agreement or in a modern award is a parent working night shifts to cover the school fees, a student juggling two jobs to pay their rent or a nurse pulling a double shift on Christmas Day to ensure sick Australians receive the care they need. To every Australian who's working unsociable hours: we see you, we value you and we're fighting for you.

Our plan and this bill are in stark contrast to the approach of those opposite—the party of Work Choices—who, at every chance, have attacked workers' rights and pay. For crying out loud, when they were last in government, wage suppression was a deliberate feature of their economic strategy. I note that some of those opposite have said that they support penalty rates, and maybe, individually, some do, but actions speak louder than words. All they have done so far is go after working people. I encourage all senators to support workers by passing this bill.

Straight off the bat, I support the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill 2025 and will be voting in favour of it, but, to be honest, I wish that we in the Senate knew more about it. The government has decided not to share with us a regulatory impact statement. Normally, a regulatory impact statement would tell us the impact the government is predicting that a change to the rules will have. Those effects would include how many jobs will be impacted, how many businesses will be affected or the extent to which the changes will make the regulations more or less complex. You'd think that all these effects would be important. After all, your intentions don't guarantee your outcome. If a doctor gives you a prescription that makes things worse, you don't give them a pass mark for giving it a red-hot crack. You change doctors, because, when you're playing with live ammunition, what matters isn't your intentions but your impact.

What's the impact of this bill? I would love to be able to tell you, but the truth is that I don't know. Nobody here knows. The government hasn't shared with us a regulatory impact statement that would tell us the impact of this bill, or at least its best guess. There are only two reasons why Labor would decide not to share a regulatory impact statement: one, they don't have one, and, two, they have one and they don't want anyone to see it. If they don't have one, why not? Why wouldn't they make one? Do they think one is unnecessary?

Let me tell you; there are millions of workers who wouldn't mind a bit of a clue. Retail workers, who have an active application and who have bargained with their union and with their employers to negotiate an increased base hourly rate in exchange for lower overtime and penalty rates, will find themselves back at the negotiating table. Even if workers and employers support it, Labor doesn't support it.

There are millions of businesses who would like to know what this means for them, or there are millions who—let's be honest—are too busy actually doing their jobs to be paying attention to a Tuesday afternoon Senate debate. They might not be giving this bill much thought right now. They might not even know it exists. But, when it comes into effect, they'll be expected to comply with it. What's the impact of compliance going to be? How many more minutes a day, hours a week and days a year are they going to have to spend on this?

Maybe Labor do have a regulatory impact statement and they just don't want anyone to see what it says. Then you'd be forgiven for wondering why that might be, right? What could it say that would have Labor spooked? If the statement's so dire that making it public would be detrimental to the government, then you have to wonder what's so scary about the system-wide changes they are making. You'd be forgiven for thinking that the call for a regulatory impact statement would be a bit of a spoiler tactic—some cheap political move to try and get a bill delayed, derailed and left to wither and die on the vine. But that's not what I think. I'm arguing for one not because it's a condition for my support but because it should be non-negotiable when making changes to a hugely complex system like industrial relations.

This bill has a statement of compatibility with human rights, like every other bill we consider in this place does. That's a rule set by the Legislation Act 2003. Every bill and every regulation needs a bit of paper at the start to state how it complies with our human rights obligations, because the rights of all are foundational, just like oversight. It staggers me that we don't have an equivalent rule here for regulatory impact statements. You'd think that changes impacting the ability of millions of families to pay the bills would merit the time of saying: 'Hey, let's take a minute to model how many people this is going to affect. Let's model who's better off, who's worse off and by how much.' I'm not saying this is a change that I'm proposing as part of this bill, by the way, but I think it's something that we, as the Senate, should support if we're serious about the way we talk about ourselves.

We consider the Senate to be a deliberative body. We're designed to take our time and to slow things down, check the details and spot the flaws. It's hard to marry up that obligation with some hand-wavy dismissal of the need for a basic transparency measure like a publicly disclosed regulatory impact statement. That's particularly the case if there's already one being produced, which often occurs. It would cost us nothing and it would be a valuable decision-making input. It would certainly be of more value than a statement of compatibility with human rights, which always has the same conclusion: the bill is compatible, it's great, no issues here. While I'm sympathetic to the calls from the coalition over the carve-out or exemption for small businesses, I think it's trying to apply a fix to a problem that is more fundamental.

The problem owes to the uncertainty that comes from not being given basic answers to basic questions like who wins, who loses, who's affected and who's not. That uncertainty matters, especially when you make changes to a really complex system like industrial relations. The opposition's solution is a carve-out for small businesses and a free pass to ignore all of the above, which doesn't address the uncertainty or the complexity. If anything, it amplifies it. We are in a world of multi-employer bargaining, where large and small employers are in the same agreement. Small businesses are covered by all sorts of regulations that impact big businesses too, and every time we add a carve-out—even a well-meaning one, where we try to make life easier for small businesses—we make small businesses more reliant on expert advice.

Small businesses who employ maybe two or three people are going to jump onto Google first to try and understand what their obligations are to stay on the right side of their workers and on the right side of the law. And when they come across advice that's written for the big end of business, do you think they're going to also get the advice that's suitable for them? Do you think every bit of generic advice is going to have additional paragraphs for businesses of different sizes—a what's in, what's out, Swiss cheese style of regulation advice? Of course not. A carve-out like that would make things more complex, not less. It would make the process of trying to figure out the new rules more difficult to follow rather than less difficult. If you're an accountant, you're probably quite happy with complexity, because that's your stock-in-trade. For small businesses trying to wrap their heads around a system that's not built for them, it's a different story altogether.

In an ideal world, we wouldn't have this job system that's built on these really complicated rules and laws and that puts all these different obligations on businesses. In an ideal world, a small business hiring its first employee would be a moment of celebration rather than a prolonged headache. This bill doesn't get us there. So why am I supporting it? Basically I want workers to get as much in their pockets as possible. I want businesses to be able to make a decent profit, to invest into expanding, hiring more and making products cheaper, better and smarter. I think those goals need to be treated like they're partners, not opponents, of each other. This bill will help with workers to some extent; it won't help much with businesses.

I'm supporting this bill because, on balance, I think the number of businesses that will be impacted by this is pretty tiny, at least in the short term. That means the number of employees impacted will also be pretty limited. It'll be a small improvement, but an improvement is an improvement, and that's nothing to sniff at. That's the best information I can find on this. It would be nice to have more concrete data—you know, the kind of data that might be included in a regulatory impact statement.

I also rise to speak in support of the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill 2025. This bill is something very simple yet absolutely fundamental. It's about fairness in the workplace and ensuring that Australians who work the hours that most of us would rather not—the late nights, weekends and public holidays—are properly recognised and compensated for the sacrifices that they make.

Penalty and overtime rates have long been a feature of our workplace relations system, and they're not a bonus or handout. They are an acknowledgement that working outside of regular hours absolutely comes at a cost. It comes at a cost of time with your family and your friends, and it comes at a cost of rest and recovery. It comes at a cost, sometimes, of your wellbeing. When a nurse is on a shift at 2 am, when a retail worker is stacking shelves late on a Sunday night and when a transport worker is driving through the night to keep goods moving across our country, those workers deserve more than just the base rate of pay. They deserve recognition for the extra burden those hours place on their lives.

In my home state of Western Australia, shiftwork is prevalent across various industries, most notably manufacturing, mining, construction, health care, accommodation, food services and also public administration. Other sectors also include significant shiftwork, including retail, transport, social and community services and security. This equates to approximately 277,000 WA workers that rely on penalty rates. This bill protects those entitlements and ensures that the penalty and overtime rates in modern awards cannot be cut back, watered down or quietly rolled into arrangements that leave workers worse off. In short it guarantees that the safety net remains in fact a safety net.

Some in this chamber will argue that employers need flexibility and that rolling penalty rates into broader pay arrangements is a matter of convenience and efficiency, but let's be clear: this bill does not outlaw flexibility. It does not prevent employers and employees from reaching agreements that suit their needs. What it does is place guardrails around those arrangements. It makes sure that flexibility does not become exploitation and that a so-called 'rolled up' rate is not just a way of short-changing workers.

At a time when Australians are under enormous cost-of-living pressure, these protections are not just symbolic; they are essential. Every dollar matters to Australian families right now. The workers that rely most on penalty and overtime rates are often in low-paid jobs, insecure jobs and award-reliant jobs. They are retail workers, hospitality staff, aged-care workers, cleaners, transport operators and countless others. For them, losing penalty rates is not just a minor adjustment. It can mean not being able to cover their rent. It means cutting back on their groceries. It can mean making impossible choices between essentials.

This parliament has a responsibility to stand up for those workers, and this bill does just that. It locks in protections for around 2.6 million Australians whose pay and conditions are set by modern awards. It sends a clear message: we value your work and we will not allow it to be undermined. This government was elected with a commitment to restore fairness to the workplace relations system, to lift real wages and improve conditions and to strengthen the safety net, and this bill is a practical expression of that commitment. It is about saying, 'Never again will penalty rates and overtime be eroded through the back door of so-called flexibility.'

It is not only about fairness for individual workers; it is also about strengthening our economy. When workers are paid fairly, they spend fairly. That supports spending in small businesses in our communities. It supports local economies in suburbs and towns right across Australia. Protecting penalty rates is not just good for workers; it's good for our economic resilience.

It is good for families. I know from my own experience, from listening to constituents in WA, that work often comes at the cost of family time. Parents miss out on those milestones because they're on shift. Children spend weekends without mum or dad at home. The least we can do is make sure that those hours are properly compensated, and this bill respects that reality.

There will be many who say this bill goes too far, that it ties the hands of business, but I would say this: the evidence is clear that businesses can and do thrive while paying fair penalty and overtime rates. Thousands of employers across the country already operate under some of these conditions. Many do so proudly, recognising that treating our workforce with respect is not just a legal obligation but also a smart way to build loyalty, reduce turnover and improve productivity. Fair pay and good business are not mutually exclusive; they in fact go hand in hand.

I want to thank the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Minister Rishworth, for bringing this bill forward, and I want to acknowledge the tireless work of unions and workers' advocates, who have long fought to ensure that penalty rates are not eroded. Their advocacy has been instrumental in getting us to this point. I also want to acknowledge the voices of workers themselves—some of the people who rely on penalty rates to pay their bills. The government has heard from people who spoke about the toll of unsocial hours and the difference that proper compensation makes.

Debate interrupted.

We will now proceed to two-minute statements.

I'd like to bring to the attention of this chamber the importance of the Western Australian fishing industry. Commercial fishing, including pearling and aquaculture, contributes about $1 billion annually to the state's economy. The industry is concentrated in WA's remote coastal communities and directly employs over 5,000 people. Not only that—it's byproduct, recreational fishing, is similarly significant, adding about $11 billion to the Australian economy and supporting over 100,000 jobs.

The fishing sector is also an incredibly crucial driver of export growth. In 2020, over 95 per cent of all Australian rock lobster exports went to China, and the industry generated about $500 million. They continue to do so each year. Following the lift of China's import ban last year, western rock lobster shipments resumed in January 2025, and markets have been gradually rebuilding. Today, it remains an important contributor to Western Australia's economy and continues to strengthen the nation's international trade opportunities. This is a very important industry that contributes so much to the economy, and its growth should be supported accordingly. We, as the leaders of this nation, should be actively supporting this industry, not only for the prosperity of Western Australia but for the growth of our country.

Finally, I'd like to take the opportunity to thank a young man who did some work experience in my office, Daniel, who helped me the preparation of the speech. He is a very bright young man and assisted me ably in the week that he was with me. His contribution is a reminder of the importance of creating opportunities for the next generation to engage with this parliament and our nation's future leaders. Well done, Daniel, and thank you very much indeed.

I rise to pay tribute to a former long-term staff member of mine who passed away last week after a very short and sudden illness. My staff and I are deeply saddened by the loss Rosanne Mary Fitch, a dedicated member of staff and a dedicated member of the Tasmania branch of the Australian Labor Party. I pay my respects to Roseanne's immediate family. She was a much-loved daughter of Max and Beverley; sister and sister-in-law of Shane and Anne; aunty of James, Georgia, Caitlin and Aaron; and great aunt of Emilia.

Roseanne Fitch was a caring and passionate woman with a strong work ethic. She served in my office for many years before caring for her mother, Bev, before she passed away. Rosanne was a selfless individual, who sacrificed so much for others. My team will miss Rosanne not just as a work colleague but also for her amazing baking skills. I fondly remember her beautiful chocolate Easter egg muffins—I probably had too many of those! She was also such a gifted woman when it comes to dressmaking and design—her craft in terms of the talent that she had in cross-stitch, knitting and so many other crafts that she could do.

But I think where she really excelled, as far as craft is concerned, was making porcelain dolls. I know all of the members of the Eureka group based in Launceston are going to really miss her contribution to what they did together in making beautiful porcelain dolls, making the clothes, dressing the dolls and entering competitions. Rosanne, you will be sadly missed by all those who were lucky enough to work with you. (Time expired)

Last week at the invite of marine scientists, I visited UQ's Heron Island Research Station at the southern end of the Great Barrier Reef to see firsthand the impact of last year's mass coral bleaching. In 2024 Heron Island experienced a major coral bleaching event that bleached 90 per cent of the coral. Over 40 per cent of that coral died. The scientists from Heron Island took us to see some of the sites impacted by that bleaching event, including some parts that have started to recover but also areas where the coral had died and collapsed, leaving only rubble beds. This is the sixth mass coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef in just nine years, following weeks of marine heatwaves caused by climate induced heat stress.

Warming ocean temperatures are the result of successive governments' failure to cut fossil fuel emissions. Climate driven marine heatwaves aren't the only issue the reef is facing; ocean acidification, water quality from agricultural run-off, overfishing and, still, the crown-of-thorns starfish are all threatening our precious Great Barrier Reef. They threaten the 60,000 jobs the reef supports as well as the countless species of sea life it's home to.

While it was hopeful to see some areas of recovery and the resilience of some of the coral species, we know that the more stress the reef is placed under the harder it is for the coral species to recover. We need to stop the oceans warming. That means no new coal and gas in a climate crisis.

Thank you to Dr Stuart Kininmonth, Dr Caitlin Alinya Lawson, Dr Selina Ward and Elliot Peters for being our guides on Heron, and to everyone doing the hard work on the front lines to protect our precious reef. We will keep up the fight here in parliament for climate and environment laws that ensure they are protected for generations to come.

Victorians deserve the right to feel safe in their own homes, on their streets and in their communities, but right now they don't. Carjackings, home invasions, gangs, gang warfare, youth offending and youth reoffending—these are not headlines from overseas; this is happening in Melbourne's suburbs.

Just last week there was the most horrific home invasion in the suburb of Kew. At 4 am five offenders smashed their way into a family's home, armed with a machete, a knife and garden shears. The father of this family was stabbed 11 times in the face, the neck and the arms. His elderly parents, aged 70 and 69, were also injured as they tried to protect their son. His wife and his children were forced into a bedroom, terrified in what should be the safest of all places—their own home. A day later there was more crime in the headlines. Two teenage boys allegedly terrorised staff with machetes in five different shop locations, all within the space of two hours. Those two offenders were freed on bail the very next morning.

What has been the Allan government's response to this? They have sat on their hands. They cut $50 million from the police budget and spent $13 million on—wait for it—40 machete bins. That's a grand total of $325,000 per bin that they have spent, only for a three-month period.

What we're seeing in Victoria is atrocious. It's the result of a tired Labor government that is weak on leadership and soft on crime. Victorians should not be forced to live in fear of being attacked in their own homes, at the shops or walking down the street. Enough is enough. My message to the people of Victoria is very clear: you deserve to feel safe and you deserve better than what this terrible Allan government is offering you.

I rise to honour the life and legacy of a North Queensland legend, Slammin' Sam Backo. Sam Backo passed earlier this month after a three-month battle with melioidosis and complications related to an ongoing heart condition.

Sam was born in Ingham and lived in North Queensland and Far North Queensland throughout his life. This loss has left a profound impact on our region and beyond. On the sporting field Sam was a force, winning back-to-back Man of the Match awards in his debut State of Origin series in 1988, becoming the first Australian forward to score in all three Ashes tests and earning a place in the Indigenous Team of the Century.

Sam's fierce resilience wasn't limited to the rugby league field. After football he dedicated his life to community, mentoring First Nations people, negotiating recognition for his people and chairing the North Queensland Land Council. His battle off the field, especially with heart disease, became a rallying point for health awareness. In November 2023 Sam joined me and the then Queensland health minister, Shannon Fentiman, at the Cairns Base Hospital in a campaign urging all Queenslanders to take up their free heart health check. He said at the time:

In April I had my own heart attack, and this year ten of my friends have lost their lives to them and that's why it is so important to get your free Heart Health Check.

Sam's advocacy shone a light on a troubling truth. Fewer than 30 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were receiving their annual health checks despite coronary heart disease claiming thousands of lives annually in Queensland. Sam's legacy, his courage, his advocacy and his cultural leadership call on us to continue his mission and call on Queenslanders to get their free heart health check. Vale Sam Backo.

There has been a lot of focus on early childhood learning and care, as there should be, given the deeply concerning events in Victoria. While the government's response is welcome, I believe we need to be having a bigger conversation about the provision of early learning and care in this country. Do we want this to be a for-profit industry, or do we want it to be like primary and secondary education, provided as a public benefit? What recent events have also highlighted is the growing prevalence of for-profit providers—78 per cent of new long daycare centres during the past decade were established by for-profit operators, yet it's the community-run, not-for-profit centres that are often delivering better-quality care.

Too many of these centres are closing in Canberra—two community-run centres at the ANU, one in Charnwood, and now SDN Bluebell in Belconnen. Why? Not because of lack of demand for the centres, not because the operator doesn't want to continue, but because their building is being redeveloped. I've met with the families impacted by this decision, and many of them are here with us today in the gallery. This centre is an integral part of their community. It is deeply valued, and there's a scarcity of other places in comparable centres in the Belconnen area. I've spoken to the owners of SDN Bluebell—they want to keep this centre open. All they need to do is find another suitable location to relocate the service to in the Belconnen area. They are looking hard, but need more time. This is a solvable problem, and we should solve it. I will be writing to the ACT government to ask them to pause the Crown lease variation approval and to actively assist SDN to find a new location in the Belconnen area. This isn't too much to ask, and I thank the parents for their advocacy.

Last week I convened a real productivity roundtable to discuss the real economic challenges facing this nation. The government's productivity roundtable had clearly failed to tackle the major issue. The major issue facing this country is our skyrocketing energy prices. Anyway, you don't need an economics degree to understand that when energy prices go up by a lot, it hurts your productivity, so it shouldn't be a surprise that in the past 20 years Australia's productivity growth has slowed, and in the last three years of this Labor government has fallen off a cliff. Yet the government's papers in preparation for its roundtable did not even mention the topic of energy—didn't mention it. The government now has no plans to lower our energy prices from some of the highest in the world. That was, principally, why I convened a roundtable of expert economists and business leaders here in Canberra, including Gary Banks, a former commissioner of the Productivity Commission. He made the very good point that traditionally this country has been able to offset our high wages by having lower energy costs. We've traditionally had very high wages and we're very lucky have been born here and experienced that, but the reason we can afford that is we have lower other input costs, like energy prices. Now that we don't have that, our high wages and our standard of living is all put at risk.

There were some real, tangible ideas put forward to turn that around: including removing our legislative ban on nuclear energy and our de facto ban on coal and gas, unlocking those energy supplies; removing all the ridiculous subsidies we have for too much of the unreliable energy that we have; and re-establishing an independent regulatory review body to make sure we cut back on red tape and on government spending too.

I rise to talk about a day that's important to young queer people. This Friday, we will celebrate Wear It Purple Day. The day is about more than just wearing a colour; it's about supporting young LGBTQI+ people. It's showing up in solidarity with young queer people and sending a message, a really simple but important message, that you're an ally. Wear It Purple Day is a powerful reminder that every young queer person deserves to feel safe, supported and celebrated. We know the challenges can be real, whether it's struggling with mental health, facing discrimination or just trying to find your place in the world. A recent report from Minus18, which is an Australian group focused on improving the lives of young queer people, found that nearly nine in 10 queer youths have experienced bullying, harassment or violence and more than half had faced it in the past year. That's simply not okay. One in 10 have experienced physical violence for simply being who they are, which is, again, not okay. Even in places where people should feel safe, like school or work, most don't feel safe being out, and we really must change this.

But there is hope. Small acts of allyship can make a difference, a big difference. Eighty-six per cent of young queer people said that seeing somebody wearing rainbow or ally accessories, like a badge or a lanyard, made them feel safer, and, despite the challenges, 73 per cent said that they felt pride and joy in being queer in just this past year. Every Wear It Purple Day is an opportunity for us to recommit to being supportive, visible allies and making sure that we're calling out any challenge to safety, for the dignity and wellbeing of LGBTIQ+ young people. So let's break out our purple shirts and ties on Friday.

Yesterday, Israeli air strikes hit the Nasser Hospital in southern Gaza, which is one of the last remaining lifelines for besieged Palestinians, who've been slaughtered in the tens of thousands and starved to death in the nearly two years since the genocide in Palestine began. And then, just moments later, that hospital was hit again. This is known as a double tap. It is deliberately designed to take out journalists who go to cover these atrocities and to take out medical responders who go to try and save people who were hit in the first strike. This is absolutely a war crime, and Israel has to be held to account for this. More broadly, we've had the first ever famine declared in that part of the world. This is not a famine caused by crop failures or changes in weather patterns; this is a famine caused by the use of starvation as a weapon of war. Again, this is a war crime, and the Israeli government has to be held to account, and Australia needs to act. We need to end our complicity in the genocide, complicity caused by our export of weapons components that are being used in the very air strikes I've just spoken about. We need to sanction Mr Netanyahu and his cabinet of war criminals. We need to end the two-way weapons trade with Israel, and we need to get serious about taking on international leadership. What is going on in Gaza right now is a humanitarian calamity. End the genocide. Free Palestine, for true self-determination for the Palestinian people. (Time expired)

The Productivity Commission has recommended that the government pause their plans to regulate artificial intelligence and even suggested that AI should be allowed to train on copyrighted material for free. Of course companies like OpenAI, which made over $10 billion last year, apparently couldn't possibly afford to pay the artists and writers whose work fuels their profits! Not only is it expensive, but it's hard. Documents from a US court case involving Meta revealed the AI giant viewed licensing training material as 'incredibly slow' and 'unreasonably expensive'. Why would you do that when you can just plug a clanker into the Library Genesis project, a collection of pirated books and academic papers that have literally trillions of man-hours of creative work at its unfleshed fingertips?

The ABC reported that former Atlassian CEO Scott Farquhar echoed this at the National Press Club, arguing a text and data mining exception could 'unlock billions of dollars of investment in Australia'. Another Meta document revealed its chatbots were permitted to 'engage a child in conversations that are romantic or sensual'. This section was quickly deleted after Reuters exposed it, but apparently the real danger here is that regulating AI might scare off investors in Australia.

At some point, we have to decide where the line is. Where must the abundance agenda stop? What do we as a country value more than gross domestic product? Art has to be one of these things because art is truth. But the only truth both the AIs reshaping our world and the maladjusted techbro oligarchs controlling them recognise is No. 1.

It is my honour to pay tribute to an extraordinary South Australian whose generosity, wisdom and enduring commitment to community have left an indelible mark on our state and our nation. Dr Pamela Wall AO, known affectionately to many simply as 'Pammie', is a woman whose life has been defined by service, compassion and an unwavering belief in the power of giving.

A lady never talks about age, but Dr Wall continues to inspire her with energy, humour and philanthropic spirit. Dr Ian and Dr Pam Wall's contributions spanned decades and touched countless lives. From Dr Wall's early days as a nurse at the Women's and Children's Hospital to her role on the board of CODAN—a global electronics company that she helped grow alongside her late husband, Ian—Pamela has always led with purpose and heart. Their philanthropy is legendary. The Ian & Pamela Wall Gallery at Her Majesty's Theatre, the Wall Gallery at Carrick Hill, the Pamela and Ian Wall Performing Arts Initiative and the Ian and Pamela Wall Academic Centre at St Mark's College are just a few of the institutions that bear their name and have benefited from their generosity.

The Walls' giving is not confined to the arts and education. They have also been steadfast supporters of civic engagement and democratic institutions. In memory of her late husband, Dr Wall has generously donated to the Liberal Party of South Australia. This contribution reflects her belief in the values of individual responsibility, enterprise and community—values that have guided her life and her giving. It is also a strong message that Labor's draconian donation ban in South Australia will not end democracy there. Thank you so much, Pammie.

Last week, Australia watched the Treasurer host business and union bosses in the cabinet room. The irony escaped the Treasurer—using the cabinet room to hold a policy debate cabinet itself should be doing. The usual suspects were not there to help form government policy; they were there to rubberstamp the policies the government intends to implement in this parliament. The roundtable even failed to achieve that. We know this because the ABC leaked the outcome of the week before. That communique remains in Treasurer Chalmers's drawer, abandoned and unloved. The core intent—making productivity about taxation—failed.

One Nation will oppose the tax hike the Albanese government will still try to introduce to cover its growing financial black hole caused largely through the increasing use of taxpayer money to pay for a net zero transition from which private enterprise is walking away—indeed, running away. This government doesn't need more revenue; it needs to spend less money. One Nation will abolish the net zero transition, saving the government $30 billion each year in direct expenditure and generating that much again in extra revenue from a revitalised economy. One Nation will impose an eight-year residency requirement on access to social security, taking tens of billions of dollars off the cost of Centrelink, Medicare, the NDIS and the PBS and giving auditors and police a chance to investigate and prosecute the rampant fraud. Net zero insanity, deficit spending and throwing cash at new arrivals are robbing our children of their future.

Smaller government and a sensible energy policy are where productivity improvements will actually come from. One Nation's policies will restore wealth and prosperity for all who are here, especially our young. The Albanese government will just take your money and leave working Australians with less—much less. A One Nation government, though, will restore Australia.

Ramsay Health Care has announced that they will close 17 of their 20 private psychology clinics by the end of this month. We do not yet know how many jobs will be lost, but we do know that the impact will be felt by the thousands of people who need and rely on these services.

Last year the government review of the private health sector flagged obstetrics and mental health as services of concern that are becoming 'increasingly difficult to offer'. The Mental Health Commission Report Card showed that one in five people delay getting help because of cost. These closures will only make it harder to access help when you need it and more expensive to boot.

This is what happens when we let mental health care be treated as a business, not a right. While private providers withdraw, the public systems are already under strain, from psychiatrist shortages to disputes that highlight how under-resourced services have become. Mental health care must be funded and accessible through Medicare. People should not be left at the mercy of private profit. Ramsay claims that they are moving to a more flexible and sustainable model, but the reality is that replacing in-person care with telehealth alone won't meet people's needs, especially in crisis. Behind every statistic, people are waiting in pain and suffering—paying more or missing out entirely. (Time expired)

Would you hand over your driver's licence to stream your favourite movie or show? You wouldn't. Who knows what Netflix, Amazon Prime or Disney will do with your information? You'd think it was pretty crazy. But new eSafety Commissioner rules say that, from December, search engines like Google and Microsoft will need to run age verification on their users. That means global tech platforms will need a way to verify your real age, not just the age you say you are—32, by the way.

I opposed the social media bans for under-16s last year because of this. You can't do age verification without handing over ID or some kind of personal data. Don't get me wrong; I’m not some kind of conspiracy theorist. But when every single person in the country has to hand over sensitive information to use Google, and we have no idea how it's stored or who has access to it, that's a real, tangible privacy concern. These new rules might not require your driver's licence, but the other options aren’t any better. Things like face-scanning tools or using AI all involve some kind of data about you being stored somewhere—data that could be used against you if it fell into the wrong hands.

The eSafety Commissioner is doing this to stop young people under 18 from seeing harmful content online, and I think that's really important. But forcing Aussies to hand over their ID isn't going to fix the problem. We need clear guidelines for platform safety features, including content-filtering options and better reporting mechanisms—technical changes, not privacy-invasive systems.

Most importantly, we need digital literacy education in schools. We don't just put young people in a car and give them a licence. We do hours and hours of supervision to check that they understand the dangers associated with driving and that they can drive safely. We should be doing the same with social media— (Time expired)

In Gunnedah, just last week, I was among tens of thousands of Australians who were in town to attend the AgQuip Field Days. Rain was no impediment or deterrent; there were tens of thousands there. It's always great to attend such a gathering place for the community and to speak to people about our Labor government, politics and the policies we are implementing—what we're doing to help people to earn more and keep more of what they earn, to get into their first home and to be more confident that their kids are going to get the fully funded education they always deserved but were denied by those opposite.

And then there were conversations about our efforts to reduce the HECS debt for hundreds of thousands of Australians. In the electorate of Parkes, there were 13,481 lives transformed by what this parliament did in the last sitting period, delivering on commitments made by the Labor Party. In New England, 14,951 people have been the beneficiaries of that HECS debt cut. Labor is looking after the regions of Australia.

Thank you, Senator O'Neill. The time for two-minute statements is over, and we will move to question time.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. The Albanese government's taxpayer funded talkfest last week has produced nothing but suggestions for new and higher taxes, including a spare bedroom tax, removing capital gains tax exemptions from the family home, a wealth tax, an increase to the GST, higher taxes on super and a business training tax. Given the Treasurer has consistently said that nothing is off the table but the Prime Minister has said he won't introduce any new taxes not taken to the election, will the Prime Minister rule out new or increased taxes during this term of parliament?

Honourable senators interjecting—

If I may take one of the interjections, it is clear that the opposition hasn't learnt, and I would remind Senator McGrath that, if he is interested in taxes, he is part of a party that went to the last election with higher personal income taxes, higher taxes on the resources and manufacturing sector, higher taxes on motorists and higher taxes on the housing and construction industry. But all of a sudden Senator McGrath—someone who, I think, says he believes in smaller government despite the fact that he was part of the party that proposed many higher taxes for Australians at the last election—is now worrying about taxes.

Well, Senator, we have been very clear. We put an agenda before the Australian people at the last election which was about lower taxes for Australians. You opposed it. I think everyone in this country knows which is the party that is prepared to actually reduce taxes for working Australians and which is the party that went to an election very clearly saying, 'We want higher taxes.' No amount of scaremongering now, which is precisely what this is and I think we all know it, can hide the fact that the coalition has been the party of higher taxes, and it remains that to this day. I know that is an unusual state of affairs in Australian politics, but that is where the coalition has got to. They are the higher taxing party of Australian politics.

Senator McGrath, first supplementary?

The idea from the taxpayer funded talkfest that millions of Australians, including vulnerable pensioners and retirees, could be forced to pay a tax for having an empty bedroom in their house has caused significant concern amongst the Australian community. Why won't the Prime Minister join the coalition and assure the Australian people that his government will not introduce a spare bedroom tax now or ever?

As the Prime Minister has said, we are implementing the tax policy we took to the last election—that is, the tax policy that is about making the tax system more efficient and fairer. But I'll take part of what Senator McGrath said. He used the phrase 'significant concern', and what that is actually code for is 'our scare campaign'. At some point, the Australian people will look to the coalition and say, 'When do you get beyond scare campaigns and when will you actually start to put forward policies that are about our lives, about our aspirations and about what we need for our families?' When are you going to do that? So far, all we have continued to see, pre-election and after the election, is a series of scare campaigns from those opposite, who still fail to have an agenda that relates to the Australian people.

Thank you, Minister. Senator McGrath, second supplementary?

Will the Prime Minister rule out any changes to capital gains tax arrangements in this term of parliament—yes or no?

We are delivering tax cuts. We are delivering the tax cuts you opposed and we will continue to do that, Senator. I know that you want to engage in a set of scare campaigns. A scare campaign is not policy. The problem for the coalition is that they actually don't have anything that speaks to working Australians, anything that speaks to Australian families or anything that speaks to Australians who live in the cities and outer suburbs of this country. That is what we saw during the election campaign, and we still see it now—yet again, more scare campaigns from those opposite. We will deliver the tax policies we took to the election, which are lower taxes than you ever committed to.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Earlier this afternoon, as colleagues would be aware, the Prime Minister—along with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Home Affairs, the director-general of ASIO and the commissioner of the Australian Federal Police—advised Australians of outcomes of investigations into the appalling antisemitic attacks against our Jewish community since the horrific October 7 attacks. Can the minister please update the Senate on the statement that was made by the Prime Minister?

Thank you, Senator Ciccone, for the question. We have seen a number of appalling antisemitic attacks against Australia's Jewish community since the horrific October 7 2023 attacks. This government made clear that these attacks have no place in Australia. We also made clear that ASIO and the AFP would investigate as a priority. I can inform the chamber that ASIO has now gathered incredible intelligence to reach the deeply disturbing conclusion that the Iranian government directed at least two of the attacks—the 20 October attack on Lewis' Continental Kitchen, in Sydney, and the 6 December attack on the Adass Israel Synagogue in Melbourne.

Iran has sought to undermine the cohesion of our community. Iran has done so with acts of aggression that sought to terrify Australians and put Australian lives in danger. There is no doubt that these extraordinary and dangerous acts of aggression orchestrated by a foreign nation on Australian soil have crossed a line. That is why the government has declared Iran's ambassador to Australia persona non grata—as well as three other Iranian officials. This is the first time Australia has expelled an ambassador in the postwar period.

In relation to our embassy in Tehran, where we have had a diplomatic presence since 1968, the government has also taken the step to withdraw Australia's ambassador to Iran. We have suspended the operations of our embassy in Iran for the safety of our officials and for Australia's broader security. I want to publicly acknowledge the DFAT officials who have served at this embassy and their spouses and families for their service and fortitude. The government will also move to legislate to list Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the IRGC, as a terrorist organisation. I want to thank the ASIO director-general and the AFP commissioner for the work they and their teams do to keep Australians safe.

Senator Ciccone, first supplementary?

I thank the minister for that answer. One of our greatest strengths in Australia is that we are a nation that celebrates cultural diversity as a core element of our national identity. We do so by respecting one another and the right for all of us to feel safe in our communities and places of worship. What action has the Albanese government taken to combat antisemitism and protect Jewish Australians here, in our home?

Australians want to retain our character as a nation that welcomes different religions, different races and different views but that remains united in respect for each other's humanity and for each other's right to live in peace. These vile antisemitic acts have cut at the heart of who we are and what we stand for, so we understand the profound pain and sorrow they've caused Jewish Australians.

We established Special Operation Avalite with the Australian Federal Police to combat antisemitism. We've committed funding towards the replacement and restoration of the Torah scrolls at the Adass Israel Synagogue. We've committed funding for security upgrades to current buildings and to restore the synagogue and community centre. This government remains committed to safeguarding our communities and to protecting Australians from hate and from harm. Our message is clear. We stand against antisemitism, and we stand against violence.

Senator Ciccone, second supplementary?

It is the case that Iran has been acting with its proxies to destabilise countries in its region and beyond. How has the Albanese government been acting to make clear that Iran's conduct in the international community is unacceptable?

The Albanese government has taken stronger action on Iran than any previous Australian government. We have sanctioned 200 Iranian linked persons and entities, including almost 100 IRGC linked individuals and entities. We were at the forefront of efforts to remove Iran from the Commission for the Status of Women. We cosponsored the successful Human Rights Council resolution establishing an independent investigation into human rights violations in Iran. We have long known that Iran and its proxies try to destabilise countries in its region and beyond. I think Iran's dangerous attempts to divide our community underline why the government has been so determined to work to keep our community united. We reject any attempt to smear Australians of Iranian background, just as we do not tolerate antisemitism in this country. We want to make sure that we retain the unity, harmony and respect that defines Australian society.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Yesterday the Prime Minister, who you represent in this chamber, Senator Wong, announced that the Home Guarantee Scheme would be expanded, and it will now be uncapped and no longer means tested. Can the minister please explain why the Albanese government has decided to allow the children of billionaires to use taxpayer dollars to ensure their first houses?

Senator Bragg, can I first say that I don't know many kids of billionaires, but I would have thought they would hardly be the ones that would be focused on this kind of deposit, or otherwise there's a big issue in the family, I reckon! The point I'd make, senator, is that I think we all find it quite difficult to take seriously your criticisms of this policy, which is about trying to enable more first-home buyers to access the market, when you are standing in the way of more houses. It's as simple as that. You are standing in the way of more houses in this country. You have this bizarre position, Senator Bragg, where, on the one hand, you say, 'We don't actually want people to be helped into the market,' by focusing on some mythical billionaire's family, but all of the real people who are trying to get into the market and who this policy supports? You pretend to ignore them. Meanwhile you stand opposed to more housing supply in this country, which is the key to affordability.

Does anybody actually understand Senator Bragg's housing policy? Senator Bragg, your housing policy appears to be, 'Let's make sure we have fewer houses for Australians, and then let's make sure we complain about it.' That's your position. That's Senator Bragg and the coalition's housing policy: 'We'll stop houses. Then we'll complain about there not being enough houses.' I think the Australian people are onto you, and they know who is listening to their concerns, who is acting on their concerns and who is not.

Senator Bragg, first supplementary?

Labor's expansion of the Home Guarantee Scheme does put taxpayers on the hook for every single mortgage which is going to be subject to these arrangements. As you know, there is no means test. Can the government please advise what the Treasury is advising the contingent liability would be, which taxpayers are now on the hook for?

Senator, I'm sure you're going to have a wonderful time in Senate estimates going through the costings on this, and I look forward to how Senator Gallagher will respond to it. But I would make a few points to you. This is a plan that will save—

Billionaires lots of money.

first home buyers, and this is who we're talking about—how many billionaires do you know are worried about their first houses? Actually, I shouldn't have say that; I think we know some! Well, we don't design policy for billionaires. That might be how you think about it.

A point of order—the question was very specific. It was laserlike in relation to contingent liability.

Thank you, Senator Bragg. I'm not sure I completely agree with 'laserlike', but Minister Wong is entitled to take interjections. I have been trying very hard to get order in this place, but, seemingly, I've not been successful, and the minister is entitled to take those interjections. So, if you want your laserlike question answered, get your frontbench to keep quiet.

I'd make two points. The first is that this is a plan which will save first home buyers about $1.5 billion in potential mortgage insurance over the next 12 months, so there's a billion-dollar figure. These are first home buyers. The second point I would make is that I'm advised by Senator Gallagher that, obviously, the liability only arises on default and that the scheme has an extremely low default rate of less than 0.003 per cent. (Time expired)

Senator Bragg, second supplementary?

This is another very clear question, demanding a very clear answer, I hope. Industry estimates suggest the contingent liability could be as high as $60 billion. Has the government modelled this liability, and, if so, what exactly does your analysis show?

I'll make two points. The first is that this is a robust program that has operated for a long time. This Commonwealth has underwritten this scheme for almost seven years, issuing almost 160,000 guarantees, and in that time only five guarantees have been paid out. I know this is another scare campaign that those opposite want to run.

The second point I'd make—you talked about 'laserlike' clarity. Well, do you know what is really clear? Senator Bragg disallowing tax assessments that would provide for more houses. I know that's sensitive for you, but you are standing in the way of more houses.

A point of order on relevance—the question was quite clear in asking about the contingent liability. I'd be grateful if the minister could address that part of the question. It was quite specific.

The minister is being relevant to the question, Senator Bragg, and I'll continue to listen carefully.

With respect, I think it is relevant that you don't want more houses built. I think it's relevant that you don't want more rental properties for Australians. I think it's relevant that you complain about housing prices whilst opposing measures that will in fact try and deal with supply, which is key to housing affordability. I think that is called accountability. So we on this side make no apology for the fact that we will shine a light on your refusal to support more— (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. Minister, in the last 24 hours, Israel has conducted what's known as a 'double-tap' attack on Nasser hospital in Gaza, striking first—the first military strike—and then hitting the facility again as journalists and rescue workers rushed to the scene to record the latest crime and to help those injured in the initial attack. Minister, will your government make it clear and call this latest obscene action from the Israeli military a war crime?

Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. This is a horrific attack and we condemn it, and we all should condemn it. Hospitals, health workers and civilians should be protected under international law. What I've said, very clearly, is Prime Minister Netanyahu should heed our call, and the call of the international community, and agree to a ceasefire. It is also the same call that his military is advising. This war must stop. In relation to your question, targeting hospitals is a breach of international law.

Senator Shoebridge, first supplementary?

Minister, thank you for that clarification. It is very clear that Prime Minister Netanyahu and his extremist security and war cabinet are not heading those calls, either the calls you've made or calls that any other country has made, to date, so will you now commit to applying the same sanctions regime against Israel that you have applied against Russia for its illegal war, its illegal occupation and its war crimes?

As the senator would know, we have already applied sanctions on Israel, including on two Israeli ministers. We have worked with others in the international community to apply pressure, and you have seen Prime Minister Netanyahu's response. We all want this war to stop. We call on Israel to stop this war. Prime Minister Netanyahu should heed the advice of the IDF as well as the calls of the international community and agree to a ceasefire.

Senator Shoebridge, a secondly supplementary?

Minister, you repeatedly say that Prime Minister Netanyahu should heed those calls. He is not, and he is directing the military to continue these attacks, including using F-35 fighter jets, which can only remain in the air because of critical parts, including the mechanism that opens the bomb bay doors, that are supplied by Australian industry and that your government continues to permit to be sent to Israel to be part of the genocide and the killing and the bombing. Why won't you stop sending F-35 parts, and please do not repeat the non-lethal path statement. (Time expired)

I've responded to this question so many times; I refer you to the multiple previous answers. But I would say this to everyone in this Senate, including Senator Shoebridge: I would have thought we all want the war to end. That is what this government is working for. That is what we are advocating for. We want to see peace in the Middle East.

This is not my first speech but it's my first question to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, Senator Ayres. The Albanese Labor government was re-elected with a mandate to build more homes and make it easier for Australians to buy them. But in my home state—

Minister Wong, on a point of order?

There is a courtesy that is usually extended to the first question, Senator McKenzie.

Just before Senator Wong rose to her feet, I was going to remind the chamber the senator has advised the chamber it is his first question. In fact, all senators should be afforded silence when they ask their questions and, in particular, those that ask a first question. Please continue, Senator Dowling.

Thank you, President. In my home state of Tasmania, I often hear from young people who, despite working hard, find it impossible to save the 20 per cent deposit they need to buy their first home. How is the government making it easier for more Australians to buy their first home?

Thank you, Senator Dowling. Minister Ayres.

I'm learning, President: I'll only get up when you tell me to get up! I want to thank Senator Dowling for that question. As he said, it's not his first speech. His first speech is this evening, and I'll be here. I'm very much looking forward to it.

It is a familiar story: young Australians all over Australia, including in Tasmania, working hard and trying to save, save for a deposit, but homeownership only moves further out of reach for them. For many young people, it has felt—until the last election—impossible for them to buy their first home without help from their parents or without support.

Saving up to 20 per cent of the price of a house for a deposit is a massive hurdle for young Australians, particularly if you are already renting year after year, paying somebody else's mortgage. That's why the Albanese Labor government promised that all Australians will be able to buy their first home with a deposit of just five per cent. That will be the case for every first home buyer in Australia from 1 October this year. That is the Albanese government delivering on what it promised to do in the election, and delivering early for young Australians. Thirty-seven days from today, homeownership will be achievable again for young Australians.

This is about fairness and making sure that everyone has the chance to buy their own place, to buy their own home. It's not the totality of the government's measures, but it's an important measure, and it sends a practical message of hope for young Australians.

Senator Dowling, first supplementary?

Increasing the supply of housing is a priority for the Albanese Labor government and central to the government's $43 billion housing agenda. Why will this ensure the housing market works better for all Australians, especially renters and first home buyers?

Senator, thank you very much for that supplementary question. What you can see from the caterwauling from down here, there and there is that they haven't learnt, they haven't learnt and they haven't learnt from what happened in the last election. We are about delivering for young Australians and Australians who are trying to find their own home, whether it's to rent or whether it's to buy.

An opposition senator interjecting—

I will get to you in a moment, sunshine. Your contribution—

Minister Ayres, I'm not sure who that was directed to, but it was inappropriate, so please withdraw.

I will withdraw unreservedly.

Could I seek your ruling on whether a withdrawal is sufficient or whether an apology may not be more appropriate.

Senator Ruston, I wish there were no name-calling in this place, because it's disrespectful. Minister Ayres has withdrawn.

Really dragging us back to the dark ages of housing policy. We know what demand-side-only housing policy meant. It meant rising prices. Senator Bragg said—this was probably on Sky last night—it was possible the approach he helped to craft did too much on the demand side and could have pushed up prices. The relentless negativity—I'll come to the rest of it in a tick, I suppose.

Thank you, Minister Ayres.

You have time to practise your answers.

Senator McKenzie, you do not have the call. If you can't listen in silence, leave the chamber. Senator Dowling, second supplementary?

The Albanese Labor government has committed to making it easier for Australians to rent. Industry expects the government's build-to-rent legislation will deliver 80,000 new rental properties. What challenges does the government face in implementing this program?

Senator McKenzie says I should practise, and maybe I should. What I do is just answer the questions, and it's a very good question from Senator Dowling. Build to rent will deliver 80,000 new high-quality homes just for renters. It's us delivering on what we said we would do. Senator Bragg said this was a nightmare, a foreign investor tax cut, but it's the same guy who said:

… everyone needs to support the supply of new housing, it's an urgent issue for young people and it's an intergenerational fairness issue …

Well, this is the same Senator Bragg who later today will move a motion to disallow build to rent. He was going to do it last night, but this is what has happened to the moderates in the New South Wales Liberals. He didn't want to do it because he wanted to go on Sky to shoot his mouth of with more negativity about housing policy.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order! We have now moved on! Senator Lambie.

My question is to the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Specialist disability accommodation, SDA, delivers specialised housing support for Australians with very high needs and is designed to attract private market investment. Under the scheme, the government asks private investors to build small-scale, customised houses and will pay investors about $110,000 per year for each eligible person who moves in. But, as we learned from ABC's Four Corners program last night, the scheme is being rorted by dodgy developers ripping off mum and dad investors. These Australians thought they were doing the right thing, the ethical thing, and they ended up losing hundreds of thousands of dollars in the process while many disabled people still don't have suitable houses to live in. Minister, how many SDA houses have been built, and how many of these houses are unoccupied at this point in time?

Thanks for the question, Senator Lambie. It's an important subject. I'll address the first part of your question. My heart really does go out to those investors who have had a tough time here. These were people, as you indicated, who thought they were making an ethical investment and who, in some cases, have seen their life savings disappear. There are unfortunately some people active in this market and in other investment markets that come to mum and dad investors and give them information that simply is not true. And, in all cases, whether it's in this market or others, investors should contact ASIC if they're concerned that an investment scheme has engaged in misleading behaviour or misappropriated investor funds.

My message to mum and dad investors out there looking to invest in specialist disability accommodation is that, if someone says something that sounds like it's too good to be true, it probably is. Specialist disability accommodation investments are not government backed. Occupancy is not guaranteed. The NDIS seeks to give participants choice and control. That includes choice and control over their living arrangements. So, when the NDIS funds SDA for eligible participants, those participants can choose the accommodation that works for them in a location they want to live. Unsurprisingly, NDIS participants, like most other Australians, want to choose the housing and the service options that work for them—close to community, close to services, close to supports. So the Four Corners program is really important. I want to thank them and acknowledge the work they've done that has focused on specific providers and practices, because that's what good public interest journalism looks like.

Senator Lambie, first supplementary?

The NDA had oversight of the SDA rollout, but over a thousand empty homes, according to the ABC, are being built in new suburbs far from services. I noticed that you just said, 'close to community' and 'supports'. That's not what's happening. So what consultation protocols are actually in place to make sure that these homes are appropriate for disabled Australians and that they are built in locations close to the services that they require?

():  Thanks, Senator Lambie. It's very important to be clear about this. The NDIA doesn't build or own or commission specialist disability accommodation. The upfront investment of buying or building an SDA dwelling is borne by the owner or the investor, and investment in this market, like in any other market, carries risk. Prospective investors should seek independent legal and financial advice and carefully assess the information being provided to them by the proponents of these investment schemes. The NDIA's role is to create a market that is sustainable and that provides genuine options and choice for participants and ensures continuity of supports for eligible participants.

Senator Lambie, second supplementary?

I see. I hope the minister accepts now that giving the market free reign isn't working. Will she commit to properly regulating the SDA scheme to keep the dodgy developers out and protect the mum and dad investors, who, by way of doing this and not doing it properly, she has probably lost along the way? We have a problem here. We're certainly not going to just sit here and talk gabble. Are we going to take some action and do something about it? What action are we taking?

Responsibility for managing investments and making sure that investors get accurate information about prospective investments for them lies with ASIC. ASIC has been taking action in relation to some of the cases that are before them and that you saw on the program last night. The NDIA, of course, wants people in this market to have good information, and so earlier this year, in July, updated information was provided about SDA investment considerations for investors. That advice directs investments to government agencies that can give advice or support to resolve issues that may come about for people who've invested in SDA. That's work that has been undertaken in consultation with the commission; with ASIC, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission; and the ACCC. We want all of our markets—this one and a whole range of other investment markets—to work well, to be transparent and to be conducted honestly in the interests of investors.

My question is to Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Science, Minister Ayres. The CSIRO appropriation as a percentage of GDP has fallen by more than 40 per cent over the past 20 years. Why is the Albanese government continuing to reduce funding for the CSIRO in real terms?

Thank you very much, Senator Pocock. The government absolutely values and puts at the centre of our approach to science the valuable role of the CSIRO and the work that it does in terms of scientific research and applied industrial research. This government has made no changes to the CSIRO's base funding. Decisions on staffing and prioritisation, of course, are a matter for the CSIRO's board and management. They know that the CSIRO making sure that it continues to perform its function is critical as we approach some of the big technology challenges that the modern age presents Australia with. It is absolutely vital that the CSIRO stays on task and is properly resourced. I am working very closely with them around those questions. We value the contribution that CSIRO scientists and CSIRO staff make. We want the work that the CSIRO does to be sustainable in the long term.

I note that in the recent budget this government provided an additional $45 million on top of that base funding, to help maintain the CSIRO's world-class research capability as they focus on their role, their footprint around Australia and making sure that they are in a position to discharge that important public function in a way that is focused upon the science priorities that Australia needs to meet as a nation.

Senator Pocock, first supplementary?

I think it's shameful to see a Labor government starving the CSIRO of funding. A thousand Canberrans work for the CSIRO. It's an institution we care deeply about. In CSIRO's portfolio budget statement, we can see a drop in the average staffing level of 500 jobs, and, based on the numbers over the forward estimates, it looks like there are more cuts to come. At a time when we need science innovation more than ever, why is the CSIRO losing people?

():  In terms of that question, that kind of florid rhetoric sounds more like Senator McGrath than the normally sober questions that we get from Senator Pocock. Making those sorts of claims is unhelpful in terms of the regard that this parliament should have for the CSIRO's role—

Point of order: I'd love an answer. It's on relevance; I don't see how a lecture is relevant.

If Senator Pocock chooses to put political rhetoric into his supplementary question, then he's going to get a response in kind. The minister is entitled—

An honourable senator interjecting—

Sorry, I apologise—on the point of order: if Senator Pocock makes a political statement, he's going to get a political answer. He chose to make a political statement, self-evidently, presumably for social media, and he's getting a response in kind.

On the point of order: my political statement was grounded in the fact that CSIRO hasn't had an increase—

Senator Pocock, you are making a statement now. Please resume your seat.

But that's what Minister Wong does all the time!

Senator Pocock, the minister is being relevant to your question.

As I said in my response to your primary question, base funding for the CSIRO has not altered. This government has respect for the role the CSIRO plays now and the role it must play in the science and technological research required for our future.

Senator Pocock, second supplementary?

Minister, in Abundance, which I understand a number of ministers have read, Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson talk about the need for nations to back abundance, not scarcity, if they are to thrive. Is the reduction in CSIRO's funding in real terms, because you're just keeping it level, reflective of an abundance mindset or a scarcity mindset?

I don't want to be the guy who talks down what is no doubt a very substantial contribution to public policy debate in Mr Klein's book. I haven't read it; it's a bit too 'pop culture in 2025' for me! I'm focused on the kind of reading that's focused upon the technological challenges that we should be focused upon, and delivering an industrial response for Australia that must be science led, that must tackle the challenges of energy and climate change—I was hoping for some energy questions from the coalition today, on this day of all days—and is focused on those challenges: water challenges, agriculture challenges, food sustainability and food security challenges, and defence challenges. The CSIRO are at the centre of that, and they will make changes to their priorities from time to time in the national interest. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Women and the Minister for Government Services, Minister Gallagher. A letter from Services Australia, dated 2 July 2025, confirms that the stillborn baby payment of $4,326.57 is available in cases of intentional abortion where a pregnancy has reached 20 weeks or the child weighs 400 grams. While One Nation supports the stillborn baby payment for legitimate and heartbreaking cases, why is this payment being made to women who deliberately abort a baby?

I know there are a number of steps taken before families affected by stillbirth are eligible for that payment. It includes a number of different pieces of documentation, but that payment, supported by that appropriate documentation, will be paid in those circumstances. It includes, in often quite traumatic circumstances, as you can imagine, evidence of the stillbirth from people who were attending the birth—that is required before the payment is made—associated with other documentation required by Services Australia to make that payment. We accept that, in the case of stillbirth, it is a very traumatic situation for anyone involved in that. I think even applying for that payment at times can be quite traumatic, so we've looked at ways to make sure that that is as seamless as possible. But, like every other payment that's required and provided by Services Australia, those payments are made in accordance with the law and in accordance with guidance and evidence that those payments are appropriate. It's that whether it's JobSeeker, it's a single-parenting payment or it's PPL. In the case of the loss of a baby through pregnancy loss, those payments will be made when that is supported by evidence that's required by Services Australia.

Senator Hanson, first supplementary?

Minister, you never answered the question, which was: why is it made to women who deliberately abort a baby? Minister, this policy risks creating a financial incentive for late-term abortion where Australian women can terminate a pregnancy up to the day before birth. They can terminate a pregnancy up to the day before birth, allowing women to receive a lump-sum payment and access to paid parental leave of up to $22,754. Why is the Albanese government funding the murder of healthy babies? Some are left to die in a kidney dish for up to five hours. (Time expired)

The answer to that question is the same as to my earlier question. There are laws in this country around termination of pregnancy. They are laws that are regulated by the states and territories, and I support those laws. One of the reasons I got into politics was to ensure that women had the right to make choices about their own reproductive health. I accept that some people disagree with my views on that and with laws in states and territories that provide the regulatory arrangements around that.

In relation to the stillborn baby payment, as I said—and as it relates to other payments, including PPL—evidence is required, documentation is required, before those payments are made. In relation to the stillborn baby payment, that includes certification from a health professional attending the birth that the birth was of a stillborn child. That is the documentation that's required in order to receive that payment.

Senator Hanson, second supplementary?

Minister, when you talk about stillborn births, let me inform the people, the public of this nation, that they are actually injecting a needle into the heart of the baby before it's born. Therefore, it is born stillborn. Minister, will you and the Albanese government work with One Nation to close this appalling loophole and ensure these taxpayer funded payments are reserved for genuine cases of stillbirth, not for barbaric late-term abortions carried out by choice.

My answer to this is as it was to the earlier two questions. I have not seen any of and I have not had raised with me outside of this chamber right now the concerns that Senator Hanson raises with me. But, in order for a stillborn baby payment to be paid, what is required is a paper based form from the hospital containing a doctor's and midwife's declaration that is used as a verification of the stillbirth. That is what is required to get that payment.

My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator Watt. Five years ago, the then environment minister and now opposition leader Sussan Ley commissioned a review by eminent academic and businessman Graeme Samuel into Australia's environment laws. The Samuel review made a number of recommendations about improving the nation's laws to better protect the environment and improve productivity within the approvals process. How is the Albanese Labor government progressing these long-overdue reforms, and can you provide an update to the planned timing of this legislation?

Thanks to Senator Cox, who I know is working hard to deliver real environmental reform as a member of the Australian Labor Party. Reforming Australia's environmental protection laws is a key priority for the Albanese Labor government. I've been consulting extensively over the past three months on these reforms, holding more than 40 meetings, roundtables and forums right across the country, with everyone from state and territory governments and environmental groups to mining companies, property developers, renewable energy proponents and more. In those meetings I've consistently heard that we need to move quickly to reform these laws, as delays mean holding up investment and more environmental destruction. That's why today I announced that the Albanese government is bringing forward the introduction of this legislation to the parliament by six months, beginning the process of overhauling Australia's environmental laws this side of Christmas. This is in direct response to the very clear consensus that we saw at last week's economic roundtable that these reforms are vital for our environment and for business.

What is clear is that these laws are utterly broken. Our environment needs greater protection, and we will not meet our national priorities, like delivering more homes and renewable energy, unless we overhaul these laws. Our reforms, built on Graeme Samuel's recommendations, will deliver stronger environmental protections, faster and more-efficient approvals and assessments for projects, and more transparency when it comes to environmental decision-making. So, these are really vital reforms for the nation, and we invite the support of the coalition and the Greens to deliver them.

It's worth remembering that, in 2021, then environment minister Sussan Ley supported environmental reform, saying: 'If we do not get the process moving, it will end up hurting both the environment and the economy… Unless we pass the bills, we will fall behind, and we will fall behind on environmental protection.' I trust that this remains the position of the opposition leader, and I sincerely hope it's the position of the coalition party room. (Time expired)

Senator Cox, first supplementary.

I welcome the minister's response that ensuring that Australia's environment laws are fit for purpose and working to protect the environment is a key priority for the Albanese Labor government. Why is it important for business and the environment to reform these laws?

Thanks, Senator Cox. Well, I've seen that business groups, including the Business Council of Australia and the Minerals Council of Australia, along with environmental groups like Greenpeace, have backed our announcement today that we are bringing forward these reforms. While on this side of the chamber we are united in protecting the environment, those sitting over there are still debating whether climate change is real. At the weekend we had the extraordinary moment at the LNP Queensland convention where federal LNP members led the charge to dump net zero. Senator Canavan was there saying he had to pinch himself, he was that happy. He was saying there were just five hands in favour of net zero out of 600 members present and that 'any leader of our political parties would want to be in tune with our members'. I wonder if one of those five hands belonged to Senator Scarr, because yesterday on radio Senator Scarr said, 'The views expressed at conventions aren't binding on the parliamentary party' and that it was a resolution against net zero mandates—it's a bit more nuanced than what certain other people have said. (Time expired)

Senator Cox, second supplementary.

The Albanese government remains united in its commitment to deliver on EPBC reform, action on climate change and emissions reduction in order to protect and safeguard our precious environment. How important is policy certainty to ensure confidence in private sector investment in our economy?

Thanks, Senator Cox, and, as you know, for years the Australian business community has been crying out for policy certainty around the environment and energy so they can plan their investments accordingly. Instead, we all remember that they got 22 different policies from the coalition's wasted decade in office, and apparently now, at the urging of Senator Cash in the coalition party room today, they are about to get another one. Now, call me old-fashioned, but I always thought that one of the KPIs of a Senate leader would be that they would back in their actual party leader! It's old-fashioned, I know. But instead of Senator Cash leading support for the opposition leader, we have Senator Cash leading a rabble within the coalition, leading the brains trust of Senator Canavan, Senator Antic, Tony Pasin, Terry Young—

Minister Watt, I'm going to ask you to withdraw that comment.

Brains trust? I withdraw. The collection of geniuses—Senator Canavan, Senator Antic, Tony Pasin, Terry Young and Llew O'Brien—that's who Senator Cash is backing in. She's not backing in the opposition leader, Ms Ley. In fact, she's working to bring her down.

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Labor's three-day taxpayer funded talkfest delivered nothing for families—no cut to power bills, no relief at the checkout, no plan to arrest our slide in living standards—but it did open the door to more taxes on Australians' savings, on their superannuation accounts, on small businesses and even on spare rooms in the family home. Why is it that when Labor runs out of money, they come after Australians' hard-earned income and their retirement savings?

I know it is a foreign concept to those opposite that you would actually bring people together, sit down in a room and talk about some of the challenges facing our country, in particular in relation to the economic roundtable around the productivity challenge. As we know, the worst decade of that was seen under the former government when they did nothing about these issues. They didn't do anything about climate, and they're still arguing about it. They didn't do anything about housing, and they're still arguing about it. They're trying to get rid of our build to rent this afternoon. This government takes a different approach, which is to bring people around the table and talk to them about some of those challenges.

Senator McKenzie said that the government hadn't done anything to help families with the cost of living. Well, what is arguing for a pay rise? What is making sure that the superannuation guarantee rose to 12 per cent? What's the extension of PPL? What's all of the investment in housing, the 30 per cent off home batteries, the energy bill relief that we're putting in, the tripling of bulk-billing, the $20,000 instant asset write-off, the HECS debt reduction and the new Medicare urgent care clinics? All of those are measures. But, while we are implementing all of those, guess what? We'd like to bring people together on some of the other issues facing the economy, including productivity, and see if there's an agreed way to work together to address some of them. You weren't there because you don't want to be part of the discussion. You call it a three-day talkfest. We actually got through and found areas of consensus to do further work on. (Time expired)

Senator McKenzie, first supplementary?

Business groups have warned that higher taxes will drive down investment and productivity, making living standards worse, not better, for Australian families. Do you agree that increasing taxes will only drive down Australian families' living standards even further?

The gall of these people over there, honestly, to give us a lecture about tax when they went to the last election saying they were going to increase taxes for everybody. You were going to increase taxes in relation to EV vehicles, you didn't support the HECS debt reductions and you were going to raise income tax. I mean, seriously, all of a sudden the opposition, which sought to be in government with their major policy being to increase taxes, is now so concerned about what we might do.

My point of order is on relevance. My question went to fall in living standards and the impact that their increased taxes will have on that.

The minister is being relevant to your question.

In relation to some of those other areas at the roundtable, we discussed trade; better regulation; approvals and speeding up approvals; building more homes more quickly; making AI a national priority; looking at how we attract investment; building a skilled and adaptable workforce and modernising government services, which I am pleased to do; and, at the same time, ensuring that we are addressing those areas of need for all Australians.

Senator McKenzie, second supplementary?

Minister, why do you continue to refuse to rule out tax increases for hardworking Australian families? You continue and continue with your talking points, and yet you refuse to rule out the spare bedroom tax and tax changes for hardworking families, as have all the ministers who've stood up today to coalition questions. Will you rule out increasing taxes?

As I said yesterday, we were clear about our tax policies that we took to the election, and we are implementing them. I'll address tax more generally. We won't be taking your policies of higher personal income taxes, the abolition of the production tax credits, the abolition of the EV concession or the abolition of build to rent. You also wanted higher student debts, bigger mortgages for people, higher power bills, more expensive training and higher childcare fees. That was your policy, which was all about increasing taxes and increasing cost on millions of Australians. You put it out there, people had a look at it, and you know what they said? They said, 'We don't like that. We don't like your plan,' which was to increase taxes. We have our tax plan. We went to the election with it. That's the tax plan that we will implement.

I ask that further questions be placed on notice.

by leave—I just wanted to address at this time, ahead of taking note of answers, the matter that has been raised by Senator Lambie and the crossbench regarding allocation of time in taking note of answers. When this matter was first proposed to be referred to the procedure committee, I did write to Senator Lambie and copied other senators setting out two proposals the government would support. I understand that Senator Sheldon has also engaged with his counterparts in order to try obtaining agreement to one of these proposals. I understand that, at this stage, the opposition have not been able to agree to any outcome.

I would just make this point: the government supports agreement in the chamber to facilitate greater opportunity for crossbench contributions during the take note debate. We do believe the chamber works best when conventions are agreed and observed. We do urge the opposition to recognise the request of the crossbench to be reasonably represented on the debate to take not of answer and to avoid unnecessary further inquiry. We won't be objecting, and we will be supporting Senator Lambie's referral to the procedure committee, but it would be much preferable for senators to work constructively to reach agreement on the allocation of time.

by leave—Whilst I appreciate the comments of Senator Wong, the matter will be referred to the procedure committee, and it is the opposition's position that that is the appropriate place for this to be discussed—not in comments that Senator Wong has just made, yet again pontificating and seeking to direct us on our side to make a decision. We will do it through the channels that are agreed, which is a referral to the Procedures Committee.

I move:

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

There were three questions put to the ministry, and the first that I'd like to make some comments on was in relation to the home guarantee. The question, I think, was addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, through the laser-like questioning of my friend Senator Bragg. I think that the concerns Senator Bragg was trying to draw out in the chamber were potentially about overcooking the market and increasing house prices, which was strongly repelled by Senator Wong. But it is a remarkable market intervention, and that takes some risks. I think we will need to reflect on this initiative. While I know it comes from a good place—trying to get young people into their homes—sometimes the best intentions can result in unintended consequences. They may well be taking down larger loans as a result of the guarantee. It also may overcook the market to some extent and push up prices. There will need to be a laser-like focus on understanding the implications of such a large market intervention.

My other concern is that there is a lot of discussion about trying to increase the supply side. In this debate, particularly in this chamber, and in the answers, we don't ever mention the environment. We all seem to be on a unity ticket about increasing the supply side, the building of more houses, but what is the implication to the environment, how are we going to build those houses, and what is going to be the lowest footprint? We have in effect an ethical dilemma.

I want to come to the answers to the other two questions in particular, which were drawing on potential taxation initiatives from the government as a result of what was unkindly called a 'talkfest' but was a roundtable. The roundtable was done in a traditional format and focused on the issues of the day—productivity and the sustainability of the economy. I just wonder and reflect whether we shouldn't be putting nature at the centre of all our decision-making. I ask why nature itself did not have a voice in that forum. Perhaps we should be thinking differently about how to structure our decision-making in these sorts of forums or even in this chamber. The environment was addressed as Senator Gallagher responded to the question, but it was almost an afterthought. I don't believe the environmental consequences of the decisions, even tax regime decisions, should not be at the forefront of any consideration or debate.

We must remember that we have the Climate Change Authority releasing a report in relation to targets very shortly, and we have a national climate risk assessment which will be released. These will drive government initiatives—and across the bureaucracy as well—to respond to our changing climate. So you can have a gathering and a discussion, but I didn't feel that it was in the context of the looming challenges for our country and our neighbours, especially in the Pacific. So, next time we have a Treasurer's roundtable, I wonder whether the dynamics should be different and whether the thinking should be a little less pedestrian.

Today in question time, we were subjected to some self-proclaimed 'laserlike' questioning on our housing work. I don't know about you, but I feel like the laser must have been bought from Temu, because it was pointing in the wrong direction. It was like it was meant to be pointing toward our long list of work that we've done on housing, but instead it was pointing in the direction of a scare campaign. That's how it came across. I'm going to talk to a couple of the things that might be a little bit of evidence about why I think he might have bought that laser from Temu.

On our side, we know that people are working hard, doing everything they can, and they still can't afford a place to call home. It says everything to a generation of Australians who feel left behind on housing that on our side we want you to have a home of your own with the security that that brings. Five per cent deposits help first home buyers get a home of their own sooner, slashing the amount of time required to save for a home. The scare campaign that we've seen today was talking about how this scheme will be opened up to billionaires. I don't know that billionaires would be scraping around, saving a buck on that coffee or that avocado toast to try and scrounge up a housing deposit loan. I don't know many—I don't know any billionaires! I don't know about you, but I don't think they're scrounging together, taking on those extra shifts and getting those extra savings to get a housing deposit. I reckon they're just hitting up the bank of mum and dad to probably buy the place outright.

But this is about helping people get into the housing market. We want to make sure that Australians can get into their own home. For single parents, we will continue the family home guarantee that helps them buy a home with a two per cent deposit, which is pretty great. And the five per cent deposit scheme is being delivered three months early. We're doing it on 1 October.

We on this side know that the housing crisis wasn't created overnight and won't be fixed overnight, but real progress is being made right across the country. In the first term, we took the Commonwealth from being a negligent bystander under the coalition to being the boldest and most ambitious government since the Second World War. But, let's be clear. The job isn't done. It's still too hard to build and too hard to buy in this country.

This announcement is about allowing all first homebuyers to buy their home with just a five per cent deposit, and it is really hard to cop criticism from those opposite, because I think they've given up on the idea of homeownership—or on anything to do with housing, actually. They voted against Help to Buy, they promised to abolish the scheme, they didn't support our 100,000 homes for first homebuyers, and now they're attempting to raise taxes on builders and scrap 80,000 new rentals in the process.

This criticism is coming from people who want to talk about the demand side but have stood in the way of every single supply measure that this government has brought to the chamber. It is Senator Bragg who, later today, has a motion to disallow build-to-rent—a supply measure. I don't know about you, but I feel like building more homes is kind of key to making them more affordable for Australians to buy. I feel like those two things are linked. I'm no economist, but I feel like the maths is 'mathing' for me. We know that the build-to-rent scheme will deliver 80,000 new high-quality homes just for renters, and the biggest challenge we face in this place is those opposite. We see an opportunity to get more people into their first homes; they see an opportunity to run a scare campaign.

That is exactly what Australians voted against at the last election. They see through the games those opposite are trying to play with their futures. They rejected the opposition to everything that we brought to this chamber in the last parliament. They voted for a positive future for the country—for a government and a party that actually have plans to build more homes and to get more Australians into their first homes. We'll continue to deliver for every single Australian. (Time expired)

One of the things that I've learnt in my six years as a senator—from having the opportunity to sit on those benches over there as well as these benches over here—is that government's not easy. And, arguably, it shouldn't be. It's a very important job: looking after the Australian people, delivering for the Australian people, taking the problems that Australian people are dealing with and coming up with solutions that address those problems in a way that is consistent with what Australians want to see. Government is not easy; in fact, sometimes it is very, very difficult.

Governments generally, but particularly in the 21st century, have some incredibly complex problems to deal with. We experienced it in the coalition when we were in government and we were faced with a pandemic in particular, which occurred during my time in the Senate. And, indeed, this Labor government also has some complex problems that it is dealing with: issues like tax reform, housing, lifting Australia's productivity. But what we saw last week which has been the subject of questions in this place today and indeed yesterday was the government's attempt to respond to those problems merely by convening roundtables and having talkfests—and I'm sure there'll be a bunch of fascinating discussion papers that come out of those conversations—instead of actually giving the Australian community what they want, which is action.

The funny thing is that, when the government invites all these people into Parliament House or whatever venue they choose to have these conversations and talkfests, I'm sure some genuinely quite good ideas are raised, but some genuinely odd ideas are also raised. This whole concept of a tax on spare bedrooms in family homes is an incredibly odd idea. I would have hoped that, in this chamber today, we might have got a little bit of clarity from the government about whether or not this is an idea that they will be pursuing, because, frankly, the idea of taxing any room in the family home when, currently, they're not subject to one is completely odd. I applaud my colleagues that have likewise said just how odd it is. That's a somewhat silly example that the government should have ruled out straightaway.

The other thing that the government should have done, coming out of those conversations last week, was actually articulate what action they're going to take to deal with these issues that Australians are facing. The Australian community is crying out for action to solve these problems, to solve issues around housing, to examine whether our tax system could be fairer, to lift productivity, because we know that all Australians will be better off if we can lift productivity, but the government's answer to these problems, like I say, is to just keep talking about them and talking about them and not actually propose any policies.

One of the benefits for the government of being on that side of the chamber—one of the benefits for any party of having the honour of calling itself the Australian government and being in a position to deliver for the Australian people—is that it is your responsibility to come up with the policies to deal with these issues. But, over the last three years, we've seen a government which talks about problems, talks about problems, talks about problems—and that's great; it's great that they've identified issues that Australians care about deeply. But the time for talking about those problems, frankly, I think, was over in the last parliament. For this new government to host another talkfest as one of the first things it does in this parliament is, I think, sadly, us just seeing more of the same—more of this talking about the problem and not actually bringing forward solutions that are going to give the Australian people what they want. So we will keep asking questions because Australians deserve to know what this government is actually planning to do to solve these problems. (Time expired)

We've had some great questions from the opposition today, so I'll speak about quite a few of them. I'd love to start off with this 'spare room tax'. This idea did not come from the government. It has nothing to do with the government. It's not something we're considering. Maybe the opposition have run out of things to do, so they've just started coming up with these random ideas. This idea wasn't mentioned once during last week's roundtable, and the shadow Treasurer would know that. He was there for every minute. It's really dishonest of the opposition, who regularly peddle these sorts of lies on social media.

Order! It has been a ruling in the chamber that we try not to use the word 'lie', so I would ask you to withdraw that, please.

I withdraw. Our priorities on housing after the roundtable were very clear. Minister O'Neil has been doing some great work in this area. She announced over the weekend that we're going to take some immediate action to, first of all, cut the red tape by pausing and streamlining the National Construction Code and also speed up approvals by clearing the backlog of over 26,000 homes waiting for federal environmental approval.

The surest way to not build the homes that we need is to never try. The opposition would know a lot about that. That was the approach of our predecessors, but that is not the approach this government is taking. We know that housing is one of the defining challenges facing our economy, particularly for young people. We've set ambitious targets, and we know they're ambitious. We're working hard across multiple fronts to ensure that we're meeting them, backing in our $43 billion investment to increase housing supply and to help more first home buyers get into the market.

Housing was a big part of our Economic Reform Roundtable. There was broad consensus on some commonsense changes that will make a meaningful difference in reducing regulatory burden and boost housing supply. As a result of the roundtable, we're going to take some immediate action to cut red tape by pausing and streamlining the National Construction Code, as I've already mentioned. The investments we've made and the policy focus that we've been putting on housing are delivering results. More than 500,000 homes have been built since we were elected.

When we came to office, we had huge deficits that went as far as the eye could see and a trillion dollars of Liberal debt in a budget weighed down with waste and rorts. We have made so much progress on the economy—as in, where to start? Headline and underlying inflation are at four-year lows, annual real wages have been growing for around seven consecutive quarters, the economy is still expanding, interest rates have been cut three times in the past six months, more than 1.1 million jobs have been created since we came to government—that's a record for any government in a single term—and the average unemployment rate is the lowest of any government in 50 years.

Then there is the budget, turning two Liberal deficits into two Labor surpluses and almost halving the deficit in our third year. The budget position has improved by more than $207 billion. Debt is $177 billion lower, in 2024-25, saving $60 billion in interest costs as a consequence. But we know the job is not finished. We know people are still under pressure, and that's why we're delivering more real, practical and ongoing help with the cost of living, including eight new changes that came into effect on 1 July, stage 3 tax cuts for every single Australian taxpayer: one last year, one next year and another one the year after that.

We also know the importance of why we held the Economic Reform Roundtable this month, because we know we need to do more to boost productivity, strengthen our resilience and improve budget sustainability. The best way to do that is to do it together, by bringing lots of voices into the room to hear their ideas and find consensus.

At the election, Australians voted for higher living standards, higher wages and secure, well-paid jobs, and that's what we're working every day to deliver. The Economic Reform Roundtable proved that there's more common ground and consensus than there is conflict around the big challenges and opportunities in our economy. Higher living standards are the Holy Grail. That's why we've never taken our eyes off the productivity prize, and we're delighted by the enthusiasm and engagement that we've seen throughout this process. There's no shortage of ideas, and now our task is to turn those ideas into action.

I rise to take note of the ducking and weaving which occurred when the government was asked to explain the basis on which it has expanded the Home Guarantee Scheme in a manner that will dramatically drive up housing prices, locking many first home buyers out the market. Proudly the coalition is the party of homeownership. That is why we delivered the Home Guarantee Scheme, allowing first home buyers to pay a reduced deposit, underpinned of course with the guarantee. But what has Labor done?

I'm sure Senator Walker, in her contribution, unfortunately didn't address this issue. Labor has uncapped the number of participants allowed in the scheme, and that will remove all income restrictions and means testing, opening this up to every first home buyer in this country. This is not the Labor way. Frankly on this side of the chamber we are shocked that Labor has opened up the scheme to not just the children of billionaires but the children of millionaires—well-off young Australians who don't need this support.

When you are either going to look at buying a house or going to an auction, why should those on low incomes—those really struggling to make ends meet and who could really benefit from a scheme like this—now being forced to compete with the big end of town: well-off young Australian first home buyers who, I presume, should not have resort to government support to buy their first home? This is, really, a disgrace. As we've heard from a number of different stakeholders, including the Insurance Council of Australia, it's estimated that this will have the effect of driving up house prices by as much as six per cent and even more. This is shocking. Labor has done nothing to build new homes in this country. We continue to hear these false promises about 1.2 million homes, and now, of course, the government has walked back that commitment as well.

I want to say very strongly that the government designed this scheme as a targeted policy to help Australians clear the deposit hurdle, to help them get into the house-buying market, and now Labor has recklessly and irresponsibly turned this into a free-for-all. How can this government stand there and justify opening this scheme up to any young Australian, no matter their means, no matter the wealth of their family—to the children of millionaires and billionaires? This is, really, a disgrace.

Labor has a shocking record when it comes to delivering houses. Labor has already spent $40 billion and delivered fewer homes than the coalition. Under the coalition, Australia was building close to 200,000 homes a year. Under Labor, it has dropped to barely 170,000. Labor is not providing a solution to their housing crisis; they are only making things worse. Labor has caused Australia's housing nightmare. In just three years, the government has presided over the biggest boom in Australia's population growth since the 1950s while overseeing an historic housing construction collapse. Labor's housing policies are incoherent, but nothing beats this.

The Home Guarantee Scheme is a very good scheme introduced by the former coalition government to help young Australians, first home buyers, get into the housing market. Now what does Labor do? Opens up this scheme to everyone in this country seeking to buy their first home. The contingent liability is estimated to be up to $60 billion being pushed onto taxpayers. What an absolute disgrace.

In their first term, the government introduced over 5,000 new regulations, including over 1,500 in Treasury and in the infrastructure space. The government is failing all young first home buyers. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to questions without notice asked by Senator Shoebridge today relating to the Middle East.

Israel deliberately bombed a hospital. Then they murdered the rescue workers and journalists who rushed to help. It doesn't get any worse than that. They are hunting down journalists, the truth-tellers, because they are the last defence against lies and propaganda. Five more were murdered yesterday. That makes 189 Palestinian journalists killed by Israel in Gaza—journalists, camera operators, photographers and fixers, people who risked everything just to show the world the truth. Israel kills them to silence the truth.

Yet here we are—here you are!—repeating the same tired lines—'outrage', 'condemn'. Hollow words—that is all you can offer, and it is pathetic. They are words with no courage behind them, empty gestures from a government that has decided it will not take any meaningful action. How many more Palestinians will Israel murder before you act? How many children will they blow up? How many babies will they starve for you to sanction Israel?

Their own figures admit to killing 53,000 Palestinians, 83 per cent of them civilians. They are starving people by cutting off food, water and medicine. The famine in Gaza is not a natural disaster. It is Israeli-made starvation. They brag about their plan to ethnically cleanse Gaza. They announce their cruelty openly and without shame, and they put their grotesque words into action because they know that governments like this one will do absolutely nothing.

There are over 1,400 sanctions on Russia but barely a handful on Israel. You boast about crippling Russia's ability to wage an illegal war. You've just expelled the Iranian ambassador. Where is that same energy to stop Israel's genocide? Why is there one rule for Israel and another for the rest of the world? Explain that, Minister Wong. You have been dragged, kicking and screaming, to support Palestinian statehood, but is that it? Will you take no action to stop the genocide being livestreamed? Is your heart made of stone? We know you have no intention of holding Israel to account, but we will keep exposing your inhumanity and cowardice. We will not stop saying what must be said, even when it makes you uncomfortable.

The truth is that the Labor Party has spent more time attacking and gaslighting people for standing up against the genocide than holding Israel to account. You attack us at every turn for having the moral clarity to oppose this genocide from day one, when you were backing Israel's right to kill. There have been no consequences for members of your own party who stain the reputation of this parliament by rushing to Israel to pose with the genocidal Israeli army and have the gall to describe themselves as 'friends of Israel'.

Hundreds of thousands of people are taking to the streets. The people of this country can see right through you. They are not fooled by your excuses and your spin. They are marching because they refuse to be complicit. These people are the conscience of this country. They are fighting for humanity and justice. You hate us. You hate us because we hold up a mirror to you. We show you what moral clarity looks like, and you don't like it, because deep down I'm sure you know that you're on the wrong side of history. We remind you that principles matter, that Palestinian lives matter, that courage matters—and you just cannot stand it.

You want apathy. You want us to give up. You tell us, 'It is complicated,' and that condemnation is the best we can do—what utter rubbish! You cannot wash your hands of genocide. If you're not with the targets of genocide and starvation, then you are with the war criminals. It is time to call Israel what it is: a rogue, genocidal state.

No more fence-sitting. No more hiding. Anyone who excuses Israel, who refuses real action, is pro-genocide. Let me be perfectly clear: the blood of Gaza is on the hands of every politician who defended, enabled and stayed silent in the face of Israel's crimes. (Time expired.)

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Women and Minister for Government Services (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice I asked today relating to the stillborn baby payment.

Minister Gallagher can't even define the term 'stillborn'. The government conflates a stillborn baby with an aborted baby. I'm confident a lot of Australians understand there is an obvious difference. A stillborn baby is a baby that dies in the womb, the implication clearly being that it was not intended that the baby die. An aborted baby, on the other hand, is a baby whose survival was not intended through the termination of a pregnancy.

But, according to the government, the government's definition of a stillborn baby—under taxation law, of all things, and in the letter I referred to in my question—is a child who weighs at least 400 grams at delivery or whose period of gestation was at least 20 weeks and who has not breathed since delivery and whose heart has not beaten since delivery.

It's based on this definition that women seeking abortions are eligible for a taxpayer funded stillborn baby payment of $4,326. That is one hell of a loophole which I'm confident is offensive to many Australians who don't approve of late-term abortion. What we know is that these babies are being murdered in the womb with a lethal injection and then being delivered as stillborn, so, technically, that makes these women eligible for stillborn baby payments and even maternity leave. There is an immediate need to close this loophole and tighten the definition in A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 to ensure women who have abortions are not eligible for stillborn baby payments. Australia should not in any way, shape or form be financially incentivising abortions via payments intended for parents of stillborn babies.

During my question, I heard uproar from the Greens—of course they're all for the murdering of babies. This is happening. Women can actually have an abortion right up to the day before the actual birth of that child. They inject the child, which is still in the womb, with a needle into the heart which kills the baby. Some are born and left in kidney trays for five hours to die with no help. Let them be adopted out. Disgusting. Shame on the government.

Senator Hanson, to be honest, I was waiting for someone to stand. I will ask you to withdraw the comment regarding the Greens approach to—I don't want to repeat the phrase, but I think you should withdraw it.

I will withdraw that comment to the precious—

Senator Hanson, please withdraw unreservedly.

I will withdraw unreservedly.

Question agreed to.

If there is no objection, the business is postponed.

I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 107 for today, as the report was released a few hours ago.

by leave—I move:

That Senator McCarthy be granted leave of absence for the period 26 August to 28 August 2025 inclusive, for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

I advise the Senate that I shall be designated as Whip for the Jacqui Lambie Network and for the purposes of standing order 24A, relating to the Selection of Bills Committee.

I move:

(1) That the following matter be referred to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 October 2025:

The operation and appropriateness of the superannuation and pension schemes for current and former members of the Australian Defence Force (ADF), with particular reference to:

(a) whether the legislative framework governing superannuation and pension schemes for current and former members of the ADF is fit for purpose;

(b) whether the Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme (MSBS) enables veterans to preserve savings to deliver income for a dignified retirement in an equitable and sustainable way;

(c) the structure and governance of the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation (CSC), including an examination of its services to current and former members of the ADF and the identification of strategies to address complaints and improve service delivery;

(d) whether CSC account holders have the same rights and protections as other Australians in relation to their superannuation, including the ability to withdraw funds, receive appropriate returns, change superannuation providers and receive transparent information about return on investments;

(e) mechanisms for veterans to have their discharge reclassified from administrative to medical, particularly in cases involving psychological injuries, and whether current appeal processes and discretion practices by the Department of Defence and the CSC adequately protect veterans' entitlements and recognition of service-related mental health issues;

(f) the operation and effectiveness of the MSBS, Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme, Defence Forces Retirement and Benefits Scheme, Australian Defence Force Superannuation Scheme and Australian Defence Force Cover Scheme and whether these schemes are operating in the best interests of current and former members of the ADF;

(g) targeted initiatives and education for current and former members of the ADF to preserve superannuation savings, improve understanding of superannuation and increase participation in these schemes; and

(h) any other related matters.

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

Question agreed to.

I move:

(1) That the following matter be referred to the Procedure Committee for inquiry and report by 27 October 2025:

Amending standing order 72(4) to ensure the allocation of opportunities to move to take note of answers is fair and proportionate to the representation of each party and independent senator.

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

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Appropriations, Staffing and Security for inquiry and report by 21 October 2025:

The resourcing and staffing of the Clerk Assistant (Procedure) Office to support non-government senators to prepare amendments and private senators' bills as well as provide advice and other relevant information.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the following matters be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 20 November 2025:

(a) the Government's secrecy and withholding of the Climate Risk Assessment (the assessment) from the Australian public since December 2024;

(b) the research, consultation and preparation of the assessment by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water;

(c) the expected ongoing impacts upon the Australian community that are contained within the assessment;

(d) the budgetary costs of both climate driven natural disasters and any government adaptation plans;

(e) the Government's ongoing approach to transparency related to reducing emissions and adaptation to a world currently on track for 2.6 to 3.1 degrees of warming; and

(f) any other related matters.

():  I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government will not be supporting this motion. As explained by the minister in the letter tabled yesterday, the documents and questions are submissions to cabinet and informed cabinet deliberation. The confidence of ministers and the confidentiality of the cabinet process now and into the future would be diminished if the details of cabinet deliberations were to be disclosed prior to the open-access period provided for in the Archives Act.

The government is committed to releasing Australia's first-ever comprehensive assessment of the risks posed by climate change and how we can adapt. The government initiated this assessment and released the first pass assessment report of the National Climate Risk Assessment in March 2024. The government is now in the process of finalising the assessment for public release in a manner that respects the extensive work of Australia's leading climate scientists.

The question is that business of the Senate No. 5, standing in the name of Senator Waters, be agreed to.

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Industry and Innovation, by no later than 9 am on 1 September 2025, any briefing documents and/or submissions provided by the Department of Industry, Science and Resources into the Strategic Examination of Research and Development.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move general business notices of motion Nos 84, 85 and 86 together:

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 84

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Industry and Innovation, by no later than 9 am on 1 September 2025, any briefing documents, submissions, minutes or emails provided by the Department of Industry, Science and Resources to the minister and/or his office concerning the publication of the Australian National Audit Office's report Design and establishment of the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation.

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 85

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Finance, by no later than 9 am on 1 September 2025, any briefing documents, submissions, minutes or emails provided by the Department of Finance to the minister and/or her office concerning the publication of the Australian National Audit Office's report Design and Establishment of the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation.

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 86

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Industry and Innovation, by no later than 9 am on 1 September 2025, the latest iteration of the National Reconstruction Fund's impact framework.

Question agreed to.

I seek leave to amend general business notices of motion Nos 87 and 88 before asking that they be taken as formal motions.

Leave granted.

I move the motions as amended:

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 87

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) on 23 July 2025, the Senate agreed to order for the production of documents no. 7 (the order), requiring the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services to table documents relating to online gambling, including any briefing to the minister, the incoming government brief and any draft or final response to the House of Representatives Standing Committee report You win some, you lose more,

(ii) the minister's response tabled only a single publicly available document and asserted public interest immunity over all other responsive documents, and

(iii) the minister has not provided the Senate with a list of the documents withheld, nor identified their titles, subject matter, dates or intended audiences,

(b) reaffirms the principle that in the face of executive claims of public interest immunity the Senate has not conceded its right to ultimately determine such claims;

(c) agrees that the Senate cannot determine claims of public interest immunity if the nature of the documents is withheld from the Senate; and

(d) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services to, by no later than 9 am on Thursday, 28 August 2025:

(i) provide to the Senate a list of all documents responsive to order for which public interest immunity is claimed, and

(ii) and for each document, specify:

(A) the title of the document (or a short descriptive title if untitled),

(B) the subject matter or topic covered,

(C) the date of the document, and

(D) the intended audience or recipients within government.

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 88

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) on 23 July 2025, the Senate agreed to order for the production of documents no. 8 (the order), requiring the Minister representing the Minister for Communications to table documents relating to online gambling,

(ii) in the response to the order, the minister made claims of public interest immunity over 7 documents, without adequately describing the nature of the documents or the specific harm that would result from their disclosure,

(iii) the Minister representing the Minister for Communications also tabled documents with extensive redactions, including to materials that cannot reasonably be considered confidential, such as talking points prepared by the Department for the minister's use at a public event, namely the formal opening of the Seven West Media Melbourne newsroom,

(iv) Odgers' Australian Senate Practice establishes that claims of public interest immunity must be accompanied by a statement of the ground for that conclusion, specifying the harm to the public interest that could result from the production of the document to the Senate,

(v) the Senate cannot determine claims of public interest immunity if the nature of the documents are withheld from the Senate;

(b) agrees that the absence of proper explanation or justification in the minister's response constitutes non-compliance with the Senate's order;

(c) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Communications to:

(i) fully comply with the Senate's original order by no later than 9 am on Thursday, 28 August 2025, by tabling unredacted all documents in scope of the order; or

(ii) in respect of each document where a claim of public interest immunity is asserted, provide:

(A) a description of the document, including its title, subject matter, date and intended audience,

(B) the specific ground on which public interest immunity is claimed; and

(C) the harm to the public interest that is expected to result from its disclosure.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, by no later than 5 pm on Friday, 29 August 2025, copies of all letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, meeting invitations, meeting notes, emails and text messages between the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and/or her office, the Administrator of the Construction and General Division of the Construction, Forestry, Maritime Employees Union, Mr Mark Irving KC, and/or his office, and the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations in relation to the ongoing failure of the Administrator to produce a general purpose financial report, as required under paragraph 323T(2)(c) of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than 5 pm on Wednesday, 27 August 2025, the final written report of the review of the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Act 2021 by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor.

I seek leave to make a very, very short statement.

A very, very short statement is agreed to, Senator Scarr—no more than a minute.

The coalition supports the publication of this report but notes that, in any event, it is due to be tabled on or around 1 September, and on that basis does not consider the order as necessary at this point in time.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That—

(a) the Senate notes that:

(i) in response to order for the production of documents no. 37, the Minister for Communications has claimed public interest immunity in respect of some of the information sought 'where disclosure would contain commercially sensitive information and prejudice the Government's ongoing ability to obtain relevant commercial information from stakeholders to inform the Government's consideration of policy matters', and

(ii) as a matter of precedent, the Senate requires an explanation as to the harm that would be caused if the information were to be provided in sufficient detail in order to form a view as to whether the claim should be accepted;

(b) while the Senate does not yet reject the public interest immunity claim, in the opinion of the Senate, the minister has not satisfactorily identified the nature of the damage to commercial interests and explained the harm that would be caused if the information was disclosed; and

(c) there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, by no later than midday on 1 September 2025, details of the damage to commercial interests and specific harm that would be caused if the information was disclosed.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that the Minister representing the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services has failed to comply with order for the production of documents no. 31, agreed on Monday, 28 July 2025, relating to unfair trading practices; and

(b) requires the Minister representing the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services to comply with the order by no later than midday on Monday, 1 September 2025.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to social security, and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

I present the bill and move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

I move that this Bill now be read a second time.

I am pleased to be joined by advocates and members of the crossbench in urging Labor to finally honour the victims of Robodebt and bring about these protections for people who rely on income support.

It has now been over two years since the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme handed down its recommendations, recommending significant legislative change to remedy the harmful wrongs arising from that scheme.

To this date, the Labor Government has failed to enact these recommendations, and the community is still waiting for change to ensure that this dark chapter of Australia's social services history is not repeated.

This Government rightly came into power pointing out the harm that this scheme had done. But while some minor reform has been enacted, the job is far from finished, with key recommendations left to gather dust.

This Bill seeks to change that.

The impact of Robodebt is still being felt. The damage that the scheme enacted upon some of Australia's most vulnerable people was catastrophic, not just financially, and should be neither forgiven nor forgotten.

This Government has committed that Robodebt should never happen again—something the Prime Minister has said himself—but this appears to be merely a statement with no action to back it up. We have waited long enough for action to be taken to ensure that this can never happen again, and it is time for Labor to finally commit to dismantling the structures that enabled Robodebt, and reforming our social security system to ensure that people are treated with respect and dignity.

The stakes are high. This scheme was at least partially responsible for the tragic suicides of several income support recipients. 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?

I want to pay tribute to the advocates, activists, parents, families, lawyers and community members who fought so hard to bring the scheme to an end. Their resilience, strength, courage and moral clarity is a light on the hill that we should all aspire to.

This Bill seeks to address some of the underlying problems identified by the Royal Commission but unacted upon by Labor.

This Bill has been drafted with my colleague the Member for Clark, Andrew Wilkie MP, in consultation with Economic Justice Australia, the peak for community legal centres providing specialist social security legal services. I wish to thank both EJA and the Member for Clark for the work and their steadfast representation of those people affected by Robodebt.

This Bill acts on several key recommendations from the Robodebt Royal Commission that have so far not been acted upon.

It implements Recommendation 18.2 of the Royal Commission that a six-year limit be reinstated on social security debt recovery. This brings social security debts back into line with other debts since the provision was removed in 2016.

Of immediate concern is the more than 100,000 income support recipients who await a decision from Labor on whether the Government will cancel more than $1 billion in unfair historical welfare debts that are currently being assessed for collection by the Department of Social Services.

Those debts, which pre-date 7 December 2020, were levied using the Department's ruthless and dubious methods of 'income apportionment', which bears similarities to Robodebt. A recent Federal Court decision allows the Government to reassess these debts using alternate methods, putting them back on the table.

The average age of the 'income apportionment' debts affected by this decision is 19 years old. The Department currently holds income support debts dating back to 1979. To pursue these debts would effectively contravene the 6 year limit on debt recovery recommended by the Royal Commission, and previously agreed to by Labor. I have urged the Minister for Social Services to immediately waive those debts and put the Robodebt era behind them.

By reinstating the six year limit, we would ensure that people cannot be unfairly targeted for historical debts.

A core component of this Bill relates to establishing a duty of care for the Department of Social Services that prioritises the needs of social security recipients while administering the law. It does so by inserting within social security law improved principles and duties for the Secretary in administering social security law.

This is a simple yet important change, and one that goes to the heart of how our social security system interacts with the people it should be serving.

It places a positive obligation on the Government to avoid language and conduct which causes unnecessary stigma and shame for recipients of government support. In an era where we still see headlines in the media blaming income support recipients for every ill in this country, headlines that are gleefully repeated by some politicians, this is a bare minimum for reversing the generational stigma.

The Government must ensure sensitive, easy and efficient engagement with Services Australia across all modes of contacts, whether in person, calling up Centrelink, or visiting their website.

The sight of a MyGov notification still sends shivers down many people's spines, and the thought of spending hours on the phone to Centrelink is something many people are all too familiar with. Contact and service should be simple, easy, respectful and efficient.

There is also a provision for clear terms and plain language, which will lower the barrier for people dealing with and understanding what is needed from them.

Perhaps most importantly, this Bill adds a duty to act with sensitivity to financial and other stressors, and where possible to avoid actions which exacerbate these stressors. This should be at the very heart of a social security system.

These duties are simple, and I would hope the Government would support them.

Of real concern is the trend of automation throughout the public service, driven by a desire to harness some benefit from a proliferation of accessible artificial intelligence tools. While automation itself should not be taboo, and in many cases makes the day to day business of government more efficient in service of people, we should also be very wary given the findings of the Robodebt Royal Commission.

Just recently, on the same day that the Commonwealth Ombudsman released his report that criticised automated cancellations of social security payments and IT issues in the employment services sector, the Government was talking to the media about the revolutionary potential of AI.

This Bill addresses the automated decision making that led to Robodebt.

It mandates that where decisions are automated, notice must be given to recipients to explain that automation has been used, and provide clear options for appeal. It also mandates review of certain consequential decisions by a real person, and restricts the kinds of decisions which can be made or automated without human oversight.

The Bill also seeks to increase the period during which a person can claim a Crisis Payment to 14 days, and modify special circumstance debt waiver provisions to increase access to waivers in circumstances of family and domestic violence, including coercive control and financial abuse.

This is an incredibly important feature given the nature of coercive control, and the horrid growth in technology-facilitated abuse and stalking.

While this Bill seeks to address the legacy of Robodebt, 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.

I speak with income support recipients all the time who reach out to my office for assistance. I have personally been contacted by constituents on JobSeeker who can't afford to eat, and are sending their kids to school hungry.

There is a saying in systems theory: "The purpose of a system is what it does." As a society, and as Members of Parliament, we are prone to diagnosing systemic issues in the way laws work, and stating that the system isn't working.

If one thing is clear to me after working with income support recipients, and seeing how our Government treats them, it is that the system is working as it was designed to do so.

Legislation has consequences. Systems have consequences. It matters how we choose to set up and run the systems that offer social security. Whether it is the punishingly inadequate rate of payments, or the Kafkaesque mutual obligations system, it is clear that our work to reform social services must not stop here.

But in putting forward this Bill, we extend an opportunity to Labor, and to all people in this Parliament, to take meaningful steps to improve this system and to ensure that Robodebt is never repeated.

I commend this Bill to the chamber.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I move:

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

(2) That the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Make Price Gouging Illegal) Bill 2024 be restored to the Notice Paper and consideration of the bill resume at the second reading stage.

Question agreed to.

On behalf of Senator Dean Smith, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the response to order for the production of documents no. 41, relating to the release of documents regarding Climate Change Authority advice on potential national greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets, as agreed to on 29 July 2025, was due by midday on Thursday, 31 July 2025, and

(ii) the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy has failed to comply with the order; and

(b) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to comply with the order by no later than midday on Wednesday, 27 August 2025.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, by no later than 4.30 pm on 28 August 2025, the report written by the Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority titled A fresh approach to NDIS pricingFinal report.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government will be opposing this motion. The NDIS is co-governed with states and territories. This motion contains an unreasonable timeline that seeks to compel release of the report before important questions can be worked through with other jurisdictions.

You had the report for seven months!

Senator Ruston, not only are you are you disorderly, you are disrespectful. You are interjecting; you're not even in your right place.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, by no later than 4.30 pm on 28 August 2025, the final report from the Duckett Independent Review into music and art therapy.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government will be opposing this motion. The Senate's powers to order production of documents are important but should not be used to upend ordinary and responsible policy processes. Professor Ducket undertook a thorough review which included a comprehensive consultation with the disability community, NDIS participants, their families and service providers, therapy providers and the broader community. The NDIA board has committed to releasing the report in full, along with the agency's response, to minimise uncertainty and disruption. This motion contains an unreasonable timeline that seeks to compel the release of the report before that work is completed.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Finance, by no later than 10 am on 1 September 2025, the following:

(a) a document setting out the total amount of expenditure by the Future Fund Board of Guardians and the Future Fund Management Agency (the Agency) on domestic and international travel for the period 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2025; and

(b) a breakdown of that expenditure, disaggregated between:

(i) travel undertaken by the Chair, other members of the Board of Guardians and the Chief Executive Officer,

(ii) other executive staff, and

(iii) travel undertaken by other staff of the Agency.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by no later than midday on Monday, 1 September 2025, all volumes of the incoming government brief prepared by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water for the incoming minister after the May 2025 federal election.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) order for the production of documents no. 57 relating to the National Climate Risk Assessment and National Adaptation Plan, was agreed to by the Senate on 30 July 2025,

(ii) ministers are expected to fully articulate why the release of a document will harm the public interest if an order is not complied with, including in relation to claims that a document is Cabinet-in-confidence, and

(iii) according to Odgers' Australian Senate Practice, for such a claim to be established it is necessary that disclosure of the document would reveal Cabinet deliberations;

(b) agrees that the minister has not sufficiently established that disclosure of the document would reveal actual Cabinet deliberations;

(c) rejects the public interest immunity claims made by the minister; and

(d) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to table all completed documents and data sets that make up the Government's National Climate Risk Assessment and National Adaptation Plan by 9 am on 27 August 2025.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 106, standing in the name of Senator Waters, be agreed to.

Senator McKim has submitted a proposal, under standing order 75, today. It is shown at item 12 of today's Order of Business:

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

The need for the Government to immediately release the NCRA Report, so Australians can assess whether the Government's proposed climate response will adequately protect the future of coral reefs, and the communities and economies that depend on them, from coastal flooding, coral bleaching, biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse."

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.

I move:

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

The need for the Government to immediately release the NCRA Report, so Australians can assess whether the Government's proposed climate response will adequately protect the future of coral reefs, and the communities and economies that depend on them, from coastal flooding, coral bleaching, biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse.

After burying it for nine months, Greens pressure has forced the Labor government to commit to releasing the National climate risk assessment, but they're still refusing to release it before they set the 2035 targets, claiming public interest immunity. I thank the Senate for their support—in fact, just a few minutes ago—in rejecting that claim. I look forward to the government tomorrow, hopefully, complying with the order to produce the report, although, frankly, I won't hold my breath. I would also like to thank the Senate for supporting my motion to establish an inquiry into the government's secrecy in withholding this climate risk assessment report.

This is an opportunity to investigate why the Labor government has withheld this report for so long—nigh on nine months now—as well as recognising the hard work that the report's researchers have done in establishing how truly devastating unmitigated climate change would really be for Australians and nature. This inquiry will investigate what's in that secret report, whether Labor releases it or not. But they should release it immediately so Australians can understand and see for themselves whether the climate response will adequately protect their future and their children's futures.

People deserve to know exactly how global warming is making our country less safe, destroying the environment and supercharging climate disasters that are already costing communities dearly. Australia has done too little for far too long, and now science based targets that keep warming below two degrees require the monumental effort of reaching net zero in the next ten years, not by 2050—and not by never, as the coalition proposes. Labor has to announce Australia's 2035 target this September, and people need to see the true impacts of the climate crisis before the government announce their climate targets.

I rise to say that the coalition supports this urgency motion today. Colleagues, we don't live in a fictional world; we live in the real world, where Australians experience fires, floods and storms. They're not abstract possibilities; they are lived realities. Every farmer from where I come from in the Hunter, every small business out in Bourke, every family that has suffered floods in Lismore and recently on the Mid North Coast where I come from knows that it's not theoretical; it is personal and it is growing. That is why the Commonwealth first set about doing this report, Australia's first national climate risk assessment.

It has taken years of work. Hundreds of scientists, analysts and consultants, with government models, have pored over data for a huge amount of time. They've reviewed international models and consulted with communities. Millions of our taxpayer dollars have been invested into what the guiding document should be about the risks of the changing climate. Yet, despite all that effort and cost, despite the promises of transparency, this report is sitting in a drawer. Millions of dollars sitting in a drawer, hidden from the very Australians who paid for it. If the government thinks that hiding in a drawer is somehow making it safer, they are wrong—in fact, it does the opposite. A risk that is hidden is a risk that is ignored. Risks that are ignored quickly become disasters. Let's be clear: this isn't about one party's ideology or another's. This is about whether the people of this country are able to see, in black and white, the assessment of the challenges they face. It's not too much to ask, is it? We've paid the money and done the work. Can we see it? The initial report identified 56 national significant risks across health, defence, food, finance, ecosystems and regional communities. Eleven of those were judged so serious that they warranted the deepest analysis. Those findings should not have been locked away until after the election, and they should not be locked away now.

The government cannot credibly say it takes climate resilience seriously if it spends millions of dollars commissioning work from Australia's best minds and then buries the findings. You don't reduce risk by hiding it; you reduce it by confronting it, planning for it and resourcing the communities to be ready for it. Think of all that wasted effort if this report stays hidden. Farmers are planning their water infrastructure, councils are trying to design flood levies and insurers are recalculating premiums in regional towns for things that may or may not happen because they don't know the government is holding the data. All these people are left guessing because this government doesn't trust Australians with their own data.

Think of that wasted cost. Taxpayers paid for this. Ordinary Australians have every right to see what their money has produced. If we commission the first-ever national climate risk map but don't release it, what message does that send to people who may suffer and who want to know what's going on with our environment? What happens if we spend all this effort on it and say, 'You don't need to know'? That millions can be spent on a report that gathers dust on a minister's shelf is not leadership, is not accountability and is not that word we hear so often from the other side: transparency. They should not use words they don't know the meaning of.

Transparency builds trust. Hiding reports breeds suspicion. If these findings are confronting—and I think they may be—let's confront them together as a nation. If the report shows risks that are 'intense and scary', as some who have seen the draft say they are, then bring it out; let's all see it. That is all the more reason to tell Australians why it is going on and why we must see it. Resilience is not built on comfort; it is built on honesty, preparation and hard choices in the light of day. We cannot keep telling our nation and communities that we are preparing them for the future while refusing to share the very information that should underpin these decisions.

Release the report. Give local government, industry, farmers, health services, environmental sciences and families the data they need. Let them plan, let them adapt and let them have the respect of being trusted with the truth. Anything less is a betrayal of the work already done. The costs to the taxpayer are already borne. For once, let's be transparent. For once, let's not waste the work. Let's put it to use. Release the report so all Australians may have comfort in what they need to do to protect their environment and their own assets.

I thank the Greens political party for moving this urgency motion, but, I have to ask, what is a climate change risk report going to tell us that we don't already know? We have the Ningaloo Reef undergoing a mass bleaching event. We have a catastrophic algal bloom in South Australia. We have the eastern seaboard flooding every five minutes. We are in the teeth of this climate emergency. There is absolutely nothing, I promise you, in that report that I don't already know, that you don't already know and that all Australians don't already know.

We may not have been in this situation, such a dire situation, had the Greens political party and the Liberals, in 2009, passed the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Honourable senators interjecting—

That old chestnut—yes, I do remember it; we keep receipts. We would not be having this conversation at all. In fact, what would be happening today is the dead hand of government would be retreating and the free market would take over—the most efficient mechanism. The carbon tax would now be running in our economy and the free market would be cleaning up this mess, and we wouldn't be in this place right now. But that's not the reality, because the Greens, in their wisdom back then, in their search for perfection, ruled out the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

What are we left with? We're left with second-order and third-order policies, and we are doing our level best as a government. We legislated an emissions target—82 per cent renewable energy by 2030. According to the Climate Change Authority, we're on track to meet that. We're within striking distance, but it's not easy. We have headwinds.

In Australia, we have also got—and this is something to be genuinely proud of—the highest uptake of rooftop solar in the world; 4.1 million households have taken up rooftop solar. That is thanks to a Labor government setting a renewable energy target years and years ago. We are reaping the benefits. To all of those people who do not believe in targets: targets matter; they do matter. As a government, we brought in tax breaks for electric vehicle uptake, and what we have seen is a surge in electric vehicle uptake. When we came in, sales were at a moribund two per cent; they are now at 13 per cent. We have 300,000 electric vehicles on the road today, plus a whole bunch of plug-in hybrids. We also brought in efficiency standards for new vehicles, helping Australians gain access to the most fuel-efficient vehicles—also reducing our emissions.

Then we have the home battery scheme, a complete runaway success, which has exceeded all our expectations. A total of 30,000 home batteries have been taken up by Australians since 1 July. That's a thousand batteries per day. Australians get it. They want to reduce their bills. They want to reduce their emissions. We're giving them the opportunity to do so. On top of that, we're also looking at how we help heavy industry and the high emitters in this country decarbonise. We brought in the safeguard mechanism, which the Greens political party also supported. It enabled our largest emitters in the country to get onto the path of net zero by reducing their emissions by five per cent year on year on year. That's not easy for them, but they are now compelled to do so.

We also brought in the Capacity Investment Scheme. What is that? That is basically a government backed scheme to increase large-scale solar and wind generation in this country backed by storage. This has been, again, a huge success. It has been wildly popular to the point where we have increased its ceiling to 40 gigawatts by 2030. We've had interest from industry which has outstripped the tender process. We've also allocated offshore wind zones around the country and committed $27 billion in production credits for industry to help create green metals and green hydrogen in this country. That is about reshaping our industrial base.

That's not it. The next piece is to repair nature. This is why, while this country is in the grip of a nature crisis, it is imperative that this chamber passes our nature-positive environmental reform laws. Otherwise, we do not get to actually fix this emergency properly.

I rise to speak on this matter of urgency and to urge the government to immediately release the National Climate Risk Assessment report—not next month, not with the 2035 emissions target, not at some identified point in the future, but now. Australians deserve to know what is in this report now, because they are the ones who will bear the brunt of climate change. Coastal communities are facing inundation, farmers are facing ongoing droughts, and there have been sweltering 50-degree days in our cities. What more evidence does this government need? Farmers, community leaders and climate scientists who contributed to this report all want it released as a priority.

It is the will of the parliament and the will of the Australian people that it be released. Yet a Senate order for the production of documents, a fundamental tool of accountability in this place, was denied under a flimsy claim of public interest immunity—a continuation of this government's shameful legacy of not adhering to one of our most basic democratic principles: transparency. However inconvenient these climate truths might be for Albanese government's media spinners, there is no justification for withholding the report's immediate release.

Just last week, my colleagues and I were on the Great Barrier Reef, listening to scientists from the Heron Island Research Station as we witnessed the heartbreaking reality of mass coral bleaching. Vast stretches of reef that should be alive with colour and biodiversity were, instead, bleached and lifeless. Yet, alongside the devastation, there are pockets of hope. In some areas, corals are regenerating. Nature is showing its resilience, if only we give it all a fighting chance. These reefs are proof that a brighter future is possible if we act now, guided by science and evidence, not by the demands of the coal and gas lobby.

The loss of coral reefs is not just an ecological tragedy; it threatens the communities that depend on them—businesses, traditional owners and thousands of Australians whose livelihoods are tied to healthy oceans. Coral reefs shield our coastlines, sustain rich biodiversity and anchor regional economies. Their decline is a dire warning, but their recovery is an invitation to choose a different path.

Australians deserve to know the truth about the risks we face, and we deserve a response that matches the scale of the challenge—no new coal and gas approvals, a bold 2035 emissions target and decisions grounded in science, not in fossil fuel profits. Enough secrecy; enough delay—the support for an inquiry into the government secrecy around this climate risk report shows just how serious this is, and tomorrow morning the government has the chance to finally comply with the order to produce it. Only then can we act with the urgency required to protect what remains of our precious oceans and our communities.

I also rise to address the motion moved by Senator McKim. Australians deserve action on climate change. It was the Albanese government that commissioned Australia's first-ever comprehensive national climate risk assessment, and it was our government that released the first pass assessment in March 2024. That report identified 56 nationally significant climate risks and began a conversation about how we continue to prepare our communities, the economy and our environment for the future.

The final stage of this assessment and its accompanying national adaptation plan is well advanced. This work has involved extensive public consultation, with more than 180 submissions from across government, industry, the community and First Nations groups, and it is currently before the cabinet and subject to the appropriate and customary confidential cabinet processes. As part of the assessment, 11 priority risks have been identified, covering the natural environment, food and agriculture, infrastructure, regional communities, health, supply chains and our economy. It is serious work of government, and we are getting on with it. We take the climate crisis seriously because Australians are already living with more frequent and severe weather events. Every fraction of a degree of warming makes these impacts worse. That is why we have legislated ambitious but achievable emissions reduction targets of 43 per cent by 2030 and net zero by 2050, and we are on track to meet them.

Contrast that with what's happening in the Liberal and National parties. Just last week, Liberal National Party of Queensland members voted to call on their federal party to abandon its commitment to net zero. Similar motions have passed in the Western Australian and the South Australian Liberal branches. Senior coalition figures like Andrew Hastie and Barnaby Joyce are openly campaigning to scrap net zero altogether. In WA we've seen public feuds between Andrew Hastie and state Liberal leader Basil Zempilas after Hastie's own members in the division of Canning pushed a motion—

Senator Whiteaker, can I remind you to refer to members of the other chamber by their correct titles.

The member for Canning—to ditch net zero. We know, after crushing election defeats, that the coalition have failed to resonate with women, young people and voters in cities and much of metropolitan Australia. But, instead of uniting around modern policies on climate action, the Liberal Party and the National Party are instead fighting amongst themselves.

While the coalition is reviewing its commitment to net zero and the Greens are grandstanding with motions and stunts, Labor is taking real action on climate change: strengthening the safeguard mechanism, working towards net zero, strengthening our environmental laws and, soon, finalising our first national climate risk assessment and adaptation plan to make our country more resilient.

Our commitment to climate change doesn't end there; it extends to our oceans and our reefs. We know climate change is the biggest threat to coral reefs worldwide, including the Great Barrier Reef. That is why Australia is doing more than ever under our government to manage and protect the reef's outstanding universal value. Together with the Queensland government, we are investing over $5 billion through to 2030 improve water quality, control crown-of-thorns starfish, reduce marine debris and protect marine life. We're on track to deliver all of our UNESCO commitments on water quality, sustainable fisheries and climate action.

All of these efforts—emissions reduction, adaptation planning and marine protection—are about safeguarding Australia's future. They're about protecting communities, industries and ecosystems from the climate impacts that we know are being felt. So when this motion calls on the government to demonstrate that its climate response will protect reefs, communities and economies, the answer is clear: we are. Through unprecedented investment and serious policy work by the government and the cabinet, we are acting where others are simply delaying or grandstanding. We are building resilience while those opposite descend into division and while the Greens simply put— (Time expired)

I rise in support of Senator McKim's motion. Western Australians know what's at stake when we talk about climate change and our reefs. Ningaloo Reef is one of the most breathtaking places on Earth, a UNESCO World Heritage site, home to whale sharks, manta rays, turtles and coral gardens that people travel across the globe to see. But Ningaloo, like Scott Reef further north, is under serious threat from rising ocean temperatures, coral bleaching and the impact of restless fossil fuel expansion. These reefs are not only natural wonders; they are the heart of local economies, supporting tourism, fishing and small businesses up and down the Coral Coast.

That's why the government must release this national climate risk assessment report immediately. Western Australians deserve to know whether the government's climate plans will actually protect Ningaloo or whether they are setting us up for more bleaching, more biodiversity loss and more coastal flooding. I've spoken with locals in WA who say they don't want their kids growing up only hearing stories of a reef that once was. They want them to experience its magic, to swim along a whale shark, to see the coral alive and thriving. Keeping this report secret only fuels suspicion. We need transparency, we need honesty and we need action that matches the scale of this risk.

Ningaloo, Scott Reef and our coastlines are too precious to gamble with. If the government claim that they are serious, then release the report. Let Australians see the risks for themselves and let's get on with protecting the places we all love very much.

Diabolical, dire, extremely confronting—these are the words used to describe the National climate risk assessment, a report that the Labor government has kept locked away from the public for over nine months. Labor violated an order of the Senate to keep this crucial climate information from the public. Now under pressure from the Greens, they have been forced to say that they will release it at some point. Why not now? What are they hiding? The report will reveal the full extent of the devastating impacts of the climate crisis and the very real consequences for the families and communities on the front lines of climate disasters, as well as our coral reefs, biodiversity and ecosystems.

The Labor government, by continuing to rubberstamp coal and gas projects, are setting our country and the globe on the path to climate ruin. Just this month we have seen rainfall records smashed across my state of New South Wales. People have been devastated by unprecedented levels of flooding again and again. They deserve to know the full extent of what they have to endure and what they have to adapt to. In Pakistan, the place I grew up, in doomsday scenes, torrential rain, flash flooding and mudslides have resulted in the death of hundreds and the displacement of thousands.

The government's 2035 targets will show whether Labor intends to put climate ahead of the profits of their pals, the coal and gas corporations from whom their donations flow. A target that does not hit net zero by 2035 and does not include a plan to phase out coal and gas and end native forest logging will not keep the people or the planet safe.

The climate is breaking down around us. We've got ecosystems collapsing around us. We've now got a Labour government in its second term, after it spent its first term in government approving new coal and gas mines hand over fist and leaving us with environment protection laws that were weaker after one term of Labor than they were after 10 years of Liberal government under people like Scott Morrison. That's where we find ourselves now—hurtling towards climate and environmental calamity, with a government that is not only doing nothing like enough to address those major challenges but in fact turbocharging the very problems we are facing under the twin crises of climate breakdown and ecosystem collapse.

Not only are they weakening environment laws but they approved well over two dozen coal and gas projects in the last term, and some of the biggest climate bombs on the books have been approved in this term of government. They could not wait to get started. The Labor Party could not wait to get started approving new coal and gas mines for their corporate donors, their political donors in the fossil fuel sector. They couldn't wait. Not only are they delivering for their corporate mates in the fossil fuel sector but they are keeping secret from Australians the impacts of climate change that are coming down the line in part because Australia under Labor continues to approve new coal and gas mines, continues to clear-fell and burn native forests and continues to allow land clearing, particularly in Queensland, to proceed at record paces.

I am sick and tired of listening to PR spin lectures from Labor apparatchiks who come in here and try and convince the Australian people that Labor is taking climate change seriously. Labor is not taking climate change seriously. Labor's policies are turbocharging climate change and, in fact, Labor's policies are still publicly subsidising the burning of fossil fuels. (Time expired)

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

():  The Senate will now consider the proposal from Senator McGrath, which is also shown at item No. 12 of today's Order of Business:

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

The need to protect the family home from Labor's "spare bedroom" tax.

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.

I move:

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

The need to protect the family home from Labor's "spare bedroom" tax.

The 'spare bedroom' tax came from Labor's productivity round table last week, and I use the words productivity and round table in the broadest sense possible. In fact, there was a table there, it was slightly round, and there was productivity there, but it was defined by the lack of productivity rather than anything positively adding to Australia's economy. Never in the history of humanity have so few people uttered so many words to achieve so little apart from proposing so many new or higher taxes.

What we saw last week was a three-day talkfest that achieved very, very little for the Australian people. But what it did show was that within the beating heart of this Labor government is a desire to increase taxes and bring in new taxes. We know this because, out of that 'productivity round table'—in inverted commas—a lot of proposals for new and higher taxes were put forward. In questions to the Treasurer or ministers in the Senate today, the word that was the loneliest word, the word that was not uttered by the ministers or indeed the Treasurer, was the word 'no'. So, when questions were put to the ministers, whether Senator Wong or the other ministers sitting on the front bench, asking them to rule out new or higher taxes, the word 'no' did not enter. It did not come on stage left or stage right. You will not find the word 'no'—those letters N and O—in Hansard at all during question time. Because the Labor ministers refused to—failed to—rule out the introduction of newer and higher taxes.

The one that Australians should be particularly concerned about is the tax on your spare bedroom. An idea that came out of the 'productivity roundtable' from last week is for there to be a tax on your spare bedroom. This is an outrageous attack on Australian families, and it is an outrageous attack on the family home, because few things are so sacrosanct to Australians as their desire, their right and their willingness to have some bricks and mortar or some timber and iron to call their own home—whether it is an apartment block or on a bit of dirt on the outskirts of Warwick where my place is.

What Labor want to do—they're refusing to rule it out, which is really quite suspicious when you think about it—is not rule out a tax on the spare bedrooms in your family home. Think about this. You might have a two- or three-bedroom home. You might have raised your family there. The kids have left and you've got a couple of spare bedrooms there for when their grandkids come or the cousins who you haven't met for a few years come along. But, no, Labor want you to be taxed for those spare bedrooms.

Just imagine this. You wake up at night because there is a bit of a nightmare going on: not only have you got a lot of red tape in your bedroom, thanks to what Labor have done to productivity in this country, but you've got Jim Chalmers in your bedroom because he wants to tax all the spare bedrooms in your house. This should scare the living daylights out of Australian people. This is what we in the business call a 'milk curlder'. It is a milk curdler of an idea, and the fact that the Labor government will not rule it out should say to every Australian—I challenge the speakers coming after me to say in very clear words, enunciate your words, shout your words, annunciate the words that rule out attacks on the spare bedrooms of Australians. Rule that out. It did not happen in question time today.

The danger is, where will this go? Where will this tax end up in terms of the war on Australian families, who are dealing with a cost-of-living crisis and dealing with a government who quite frankly have given up on caring about them because the election was a few months ago and they've got the votes of them. Now they're going to tax Australians. They're going to increase taxes. Rule it out.

I'm really glad we've got a bunch of students in the gallery today watching us, because what they're seeing here today is a lesson on what it looks like to see the simmering and bubbling start of a scare campaign. This is what it looks like. This is where the scare campaigns start: right here in the Senate, so you're getting a good little lesson about where scare campaigns start.

The scare campaign that's here today is about the tax on your spare bedroom—untrue—and proposing it as something that's our idea when actually it is not our idea. It wasn't mentioned once at the roundtable, not once, and they should know. Their shadow Treasurer was there, hopefully he was taking some notes. He would have noticed that not once was the spare bedroom tax mentioned—zero, zilch.

But it's really not surprising from those opposite to be serving red meat in this chamber to their base, because that is what they do. They serve red meat to their base. They certainly don't serve the Australian community. That's what we've been doing every day since we've been elected to this place.

I want to talk about a couple of things. One is that I wonder if those opposite have thought about what you need to be able to have a spare bedroom tax—a home maybe. You need a house. What we've been doing is building more homes for Australians. That's what we've been doing. You would've heard Minister Clare O'Neil after the roundtable announce that we're taking immediate action to cut red tape, by pausing and streamlining the National Construction Code and speeding up approvals by clearing the backlog of 26,000 homes waiting for federal environment approval.

On this side, we see housing as one of the defining challenges of our economy. We don't see it as an opportunity to run a scare campaign. We're getting to work, addressing those challenges every day. The way that we've done it on this side is setting ambitious targets. We're working hard across multiple fronts to meet them, and backing that effort with $43 billion in new investment to increase supply and help more people into their first homes. That's what we've been doing on this side. The investments that we've made and the policy focus we've put onto housing are delivering results.

More than 500,000 homes have been built since we were elected. We're also seeing the construction sector gain momentum. Building approvals are up almost 30 per cent since a year ago. Cost growth in construction was below one per cent over the past year. Dwelling commencements are up 14 per cent in annual terms. Dwelling investment is growing at more than five per cent, driven by higher investment in new builds. We know there's more to do. It'll be difficult, and we've said that repeatedly for some time. We're not shying away from the challenge that faces our country right now around housing. But we owe it to Australians to try—and we'd be much more advanced if those opposite, our predecessors, took the housing challenge seriously.

We're also helping more people get into their own home. We're unequivocally and unashamedly on the side of people trying to get into a home of their own. To get more Australians into their first home, the government must both increase supply and give people support to buy; both those things are linked. We've seen where demand-only housing policy gets us. It delivers nothing but worsening affordability for renters and falling homeownership; that is the dark ages of housing policy and nine years of coalition incompetence. There is plenty more to say about that.

As I said, we've delivered 500,000 homes. We're delivering 55,000 social and affordable homes, and building 100,000 homes exclusively for first home buyers. It's why we were given a mandate to continue our work to make the housing market work for all Australians. We were elected with a mandate for the Australian people, to get them into their first homes and to build more homes. That's exactly what we've done every single day.

I rise to speak on the coalition's matter of urgency motion. This is nothing more than a scare tactic by the coalition to distract us from their genuine lack of a solution to the housing crisis. Instead of talking about the tax rorts fuelling the housing crisis—negative gearing and the capital gains discount—the parliament is wasting time making up tax changes to debate. Crocodile tears and scare campaigns aren't going to house anyone. On the other side of the chamber, Labor continue to tinker around the edges, pledging to bring forward their home deposit scheme, which experts agree will only turbocharge house prices and saddle first home buyers with even bigger debts. We need real action on housing, not tinkering or scaremongering. Scrapping the tax breaks for property investors to push up the price of housing, however, just might start to ease the crisis which both sides of this chamber are responsible for creating.

In my home state of Victoria, any chance of addressing the housing and homelessness crisis is being bulldozed, literally. The Victorian Labor government plans to demolish all 44 public housing towers and displace over 10,000 residents. Handing property developers special deals and selling off public land will only make the housing crisis worse. Labor know this; they held an inquiry where experts and tenants told them exactly that. Imagine sitting here in Canberra talking passionately about the housing crisis while both major parties support the demolition and privatisation of literally every public housing tower in Melbourne.

You know what stops homelessness? Public housing. You know what brings down the cost of rents? Public housing. You know what the government has a responsibility to provide? Public housing. Yet, instead of investing in the public housing we so desperately need, the major parties are wasting this parliament on furphy taxes while fast-tracking laws to fund homes for US troops under AUKUS. Labor and the coalition are choosing to side with foreign powers and corporate interests instead of people who need a safe and affordable home and roof over their heads.

I'll be here with the tenants, the renters, the housing unions and my Victorian Greens colleagues, fighting this disgraceful abandonment of public housing tenants every step of the way. The Greens will be fighting to scrap negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount. We will be fighting to stop selling off our public housing. We want to make big corporations and fossil fuel giants pay their fair share so we can put affordable roofs over people's heads.

I thank Senator McGrath for this motion, which One Nation supports. This government is flooding the country with new arrivals who need a bed to sleep in. Home construction is 500,000 homes behind, and this figure is not reducing; it's growing. A sensible party would simply impose a moratorium on new buildings until housing catches up. That's One Nation policy.

This, though, is not a sensible government nor an honest government. The roundtable received a proposal to force Australians with spare bedrooms to take in new arrivals or pay a penalty tax. Elderly Australians living in their family homes, with children moved out and bedrooms galore, are terrified of this idea. Current best practice is for the elderly to stay in their homes for as long as possible. Now they are to be turfed out through taxation and forced into retirement homes. In answer to my question on this topic to Minister Gallagher yesterday, I did hear a qualified denial. The minister did not rule the idea out, though; rather she used vague words like, 'The proposal was not raised while I was in the room.' Really? That's not a clear statement. The idea must be dismissed and never considered again.

I would raise this simple question: what's a bedroom? Does 'bedroom' mean any room that can be used to house a new arrival? Studies, rumpuses, garages turned into granny flats? Who will make these decisions? SBS, who promoted the idea, has clearly never watched Doctor Zhivago, a movie depicting life under Soviet rule, which depicted this very thing. The Soviets actually did this, so it's an idea with precedent. Will the government include compulsion in addition to taxation? Will all those Australians who are buying their homes under Help to Buy or government guaranteed mortgages, who have the government as the shareholder or guarantor on the mortgage, be forced to comply? Will they? Who knows, because no-one is saying. They won't deny it. I call on the Prime Minister to rule out any new taxes on the family home, including land tax, bedroom tax and grave tax.

This is a matter of urgency because the radical proposal to tax spare bedrooms in family homes in a bid to fix the housing crisis has sparked widespread outrage across this country. Today there was an opportunity—Senator Walsh is over there laughing, thinking it's a laughing matter. Senator Walsh, this is no laughing matter.

Order, Senator Henderson! Senator Ciccone.

I was just about to raise the very point of order that you are addressing now. Comments should be directed through the chair, not directly at senators across the aisle.

You are reading my mind, Senator Ciccone. Senator Henderson, I will remind you that your comments should be directed to the chair.

I was doing so. I was making the point that Senator Walsh is laughing, and this is no laughing matter. This is no laughing matter, because the proposal to tax the spare bedroom to solve the housing crisis in this country was not ruled out today by this government.

We have today put to the government that if it opposes this scheme, this crazy idea which was one of the many controversial tax plans voted by industry leaders and economists during last week's Economic Reform Roundtable, then why hasn't the government ruled this out? We know that this government is coming after the money of Australians. Labor promised cheaper power, more homes, free visits to the doctor and lower taxes. Instead we see bills going up, housing targets missed, out-of-pocket costs skyrocketing and new taxes on the table. This is the cost of Labor—higher living costs, weaker growth and declining living standards and productivity. Why do you think we had the productivity roundtable? This was simply cover for this hopeless, incompetent government which for three years has told Australians that everything is fine. Now, after the election, we hear the cries for reform, that everything is not going so well. Now it seems that everything is on the table, courtesy of the government's roundtable.

I do note with concern Senator Hodgins-May's contribution, where she raised serious concerns about the Victorian Labor government's incapacity to invest in sufficient social housing. But something else is happening in Victoria, and that is attacks on the primary place of residence for anyone with significant business activity. Because land tax thresholds have dramatically reduced, Labor is now charging Victorians with home based businesses land tax on their own home if they make just $30,000 using a portion of their own home to do so. This affects startups, side hustles, freelancers, hairdressers, PTs, physios with home studios, Airbnb hosts, online businesses and allied health workers. Labor is coming after your home if you are a Victorian and you run a small business in Victoria. What an absolute disgrace. This has caused huge controversy in my home state. We are already seeing what this government is capable of, what Labor is capable of, through what they are doing in Victoria. They are going after people's homes.

If this is such an abhorrent idea, I ask why the government has failed to rule out this proposal here today. We've got the Prime Minister at odds with the Treasurer. The Prime Minister has insisted the government will not implement any new taxes before the next election, which is due in May 2028. So he's just sitting in his hands. The Treasurer, Mr Chalmers, has a very different view. He will not rule out introducing new taxes in the next budget, declaring that it remains to be seen. Now, of course, off the back of a study which showed that just over 60 per cent of houses are lived in by one or two people, with more than three-quarters of properties with three bedrooms or more, the Labor Party is opening the gates to the discussion about a spare bedroom tax. Labor has form in coming after your own home. They are doing it in Victoria for anyone trying to run a small business in their own home. Now they are failing to rule out a spare bedroom tax here in this chamber, and that is to be condemned. (Time expired)

What have we got here in this so-called urgency motion? This urgency motion shows us what the opposition have decided will be their agenda going forward, and that is scare campaigns. That is what this is all about. They haven't got any policy, they haven't done any work and they haven't learnt from the election result, so what they've done is wrap up a few scare campaigns. I can assure anyone that may be listening that this will be the first of many scare campaigns that the opposition will put to us today.

Why do they have to do that? Because this is an opposition with no housing policy, no housing plan and no credibility when it comes to addressing housing pressures across the country. When those opposite were last in government, they didn't even have a housing minister. Not once in nine years did they show the leadership needed to tackle housing affordability. Not once did they take responsibility for the growing challenge of supply. They spent their time building excuses, not homes. Now, from opposition, they want to come in here and lecture a Labor government that is actually delivering for Australians. This is the same opposition that has latched onto a so-called spare bedroom tax idea and dressed it up in a motion that is really just a scare campaign.

This spare bedroom tax idea is an idea that did not come from government and is not under consideration, yet those opposite continue to push it, misrepresenting our work and trying to scare Australians. It is a dishonest distraction. The truth is that, if the opposition had their way, we would still be stuck with the same neglect we saw for nearly a decade—a decade where housing approval slowed, planning reforms stalled and investment in social and affordable housing fell off a cliff. They left Australians with a shortage of hundreds of thousands of homes.

By contrast, this Labor government sees housing as one of the defining economic and social challenges of our generation. That's why we are investing $43 billion in new housing measures—real action that is already delivering results. More than half a million homes have been built since we came to government. Building approvals are up almost 30 per cent in the past year. Dwelling commencements are up 14 per cent. Costs are stabilising, and the construction sector is gaining momentum. Just this week, we brought forward one of our signature housing policies—five per cent deposits for first home buyers. Originally set to begin in early 2026, the scheme will now start on 1 October this year. From that date, all first home buyers will be able to buy a home with a deposit as low as five per cent, without paying tens of thousands of dollars in lender's mortgage insurance. For a young couple in the northern suburbs of Hobart, where the house prices are around $650,000, a five per cent deposit means they need just $32,500 to buy their first home. Under the old system, saving a 20 per cent deposit would have taken them years longer, and then they would have had to pay about $20,000 in mortgage insurance on top. This is about turning the dream of homeownership for Tasmanians into a reality sooner and with less financial strain.

So what have we got here today? We have an opposition that has come into this chamber with a urgency motion that really is just a scare campaign. They should be ashamed. They've come in here, they've done no work, and they've latched on to an idea that someone else has put out there that is not even under consideration by this government. (Time expired)

The reason that this matter of urgency is before the chamber is that the nation has clearly a need for more taxes under this government because we have a massive spending problem. Effectively, the problem that we all now face because of Mr Chalmers's management of the economy is spending GDP going from 24 per cent to 27 per cent under this government. As a result, you need higher taxes, and that's why the government has presided over an agenda to increase taxes over the last three years. I'll step through some of those in a moment.

The reason that this is an urgency motion today is to highlight the fact that the new taxes, whether it be the bedroom tax or other taxes on people's wealth or on people themselves, are necessary because of the government's spending problem. In fact, when Ken Henry and others that have long been advisers to both sides of government last week made the point inside the summit that fiscal rules were a good idea, he was told by Mr Chalmers that he was wrong, that the government wouldn't be having any fiscal rules and that the government would spend what it thought was required. That is the position of the Commonwealth government.

That is a complete misquote.

I'll take the interjection. The Commonwealth government has no fiscal rules. The Treasurer has decided there will be no fiscal rules, and, as a result, we have spending out of control, and we have a debate about tax increases to pay for Labor spending. In fact, we've seen just this week the expansion of the Home Guarantee Scheme, originally a government scheme designed to be for low-income earners which has now expanded to include anyone, without a means test. As I say, the children of billionaires can use this scheme. The Labor Party apparently once was for the workers. Now they're for taxpaying workers funding billionaires getting access to government programs. It's unbelievable. This is where we are.

There is a $62 billion contingent liability as modelled independently for the Home Guarantee Scheme, which apparently the foreign minister in question time today didn't know about. There is a cost to this largesse. What the nation is now paying for is the Treasurer's inability to restrain spending. That is the problem. In the last parliament, we saw an increase in personal income tax. Who would have believed that we would live through the last parliament, where the Commonwealth government reinstated a tax bracket abolished by the prior parliament? The 37c bracket was reinstated by this government, and that is now guaranteeing that bracket creep is part of the average worker's approach to their life. They have to now fund Mr Chalmers's excessive expenditure.

We've lived through the government reinstating a tax bracket which was abolished. We've seen new tax on superannuation. Apparently it will apply to unrealised gains. We've never had a tax like this in Australia, which would apply to paper profits. You might have a gain one year, but you could have a loss the next year. You pay your tax on the gain, on paper, which you don't materialise; you don't sell the asset. But, if you lose money in the next year, you don't get a refund. We've seen higher income taxes. We've seen a tax on superannuation. Now we see what is apparently part of their tax reform record—the build-to-rent tax concessions, which is all about giving foreign asset managers a tax concession to own houses that Australians will never own. What a warped priority! You must be so proud of yourselves to be promoting the idea that a foreign asset manager, maybe a foreign government—it could be the Abu Dhabi investment corporation, for example—will be able to avail themselves of a tax concession to construct and own in perpetuity flats that Australians will never, ever, ever own.

Maybe this is all part of the grand agenda to make Australians serfs to big institutions. When you look at the economic reform summit that happened last week, it's really big unions, big super and big government all in the same bed together. We're now getting to a position wherein the Australian people will have to pay for this, because it's going to be pretty ugly. Long story short, the reason we're having this debate is because the nation needs more tax dollars to pay for Dr Chalmers's spending. They're already paying more, and they'll pay more in the future.

The question is that the urgency motion, as moved by Senator McGrath, be agreed to.

At the request of Senator Hume, I present the report of the Economics References Committee relating to the re-adoption of its inquiry into microcompetition opportunities.

Ordered that the report be adopted.

I present the government response to the report of the Education and Employment Legislation Committee on its inquiry into the provisions of the Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024 and seek leave to have the document incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows—

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

Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024 [Provisions]

AUGUST 2025

Overview

On 18 November 2024, the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee (the Committee) released its inquiry report on the Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024 (the Bill). The Committee's report recommended that the Bill be passed and included three dissenting recommendations by the Australian Greens.

On 29 November 2024, the Bill received Royal Assent, after passing both the House of Representatives and the Senate without amendment on 26 November 2024.

The Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Act 2024 (the Funding and Reform Act) amended the Australian Education Act 2013 and enabled the Australian Government to lift its share of funding to public schools above 20 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard (SRS). The Funding and Reform Act allows the Australian Government to deliver on the school funding and reform agreements signed with state and territory governments, supporting all public schools to be on a pathway to full and fair funding.

This government response is a response to the Committee's report and the dissenting recommendations from the Australian Greens.

Response to the Committee's report

Recommendation 1

The committee recommends that the bill be passed.

Response

The Australian Government agrees with this recommendation. The Bill was passed on 26 November 2024 and received Royal Assent on 29 November 2024.

Response to the Australian Greens' dissenting report

Recommendation 1

That the Australian Government fully fund public schools in 2025 by lifting the Commonwealth contribution to the Schooling Resource Standard to a minimum of 25 per cent.

Response:

The Australian Government agrees-in-principle to this recommendation.

All public schools across Australia are on a pathway to 100 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard.

All states and territories, except for the Northern Territory, have signed the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement 2025-2034—Full and Fair Funding (the Full and Fair Funding Agreement). The Full and Fair Funding Agreement provides an additional 5 per cent of the SRS for public schools, lifting the Australian Government's contribution from 20 per cent to 25 per cent of the SRS by no later than 2034.

For the Northern Territory, the Australian Government will contribute 40 per cent of the SRS for public schools by 2029 through the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement 2025-2034 (the BFSA).

Recommendation 2

That the Australian Government remove the ability of States and Territories to count non-core education expenditure towards their Schooling Resource Standard contributions.

Response:

The Australian Government agrees-in-principle to this recommendation.

The Full and Fair Funding Agreement removes the ability of states and territories to continue to claim the 4 per cent provision for indirect school expenditure. This will take place by the end of 2034, and jurisdictions will be required to replace the provision with recurrent funding on eligible expenses.

Recommendation 3

That the Australian Government review funding arrangements for Australian schools, with particular regard for the adequacy of the Schooling Resource Standard in meeting the increasingly complex needs of school children across Australia.

Response:

The Australian Government agrees-in-principle to this recommendation.

The Better and Fairer Schools Agreements include National Enabling Initiatives, which are specific reform activities that require collaboration between the Commonwealth and states and territories who are party to the agreement. Through these initiatives, parties have agreed to conduct a review of the Schooling Resource Standard base and loading calculation methodology. The review is due to be completed by no later than mid-2029.

I present additional information received by the Education and Employment Legislation Committee, as listed on today's Order of Business.

I present the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee relating to the re-adoption of its inquiries into a national volunteer incentive scheme (climate army) and into compensation and income support for veterans.

Ordered that the report be adopted.

I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning the review of public sector board appointments processes authored by Ms Lynelle Briggs AO.

I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning the APVMA pesticides chemical review.

A message has been received from the House of Representatives forwarding a resolution agreed to by that House proposing a variation to the resolution of appointment of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission and requesting the concurrence of the Senate.

The House of Representatives message read as follows—

That:

(1) the resolution of appointment for the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission be amended to replace subparagraph 1(l) with the following:

"(l) the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the former Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission appointed during previous Parliaments;"; and

by leave—I move:

That the Senate concurs with the resolution.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Tax Assessment (Build to Rent Developments) Determination 2024, made under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, be disallowed [F2024L01729].

The point of this contribution is that the country is living through probably its greatest housing crisis since the end of the Second World War, and what we have seen—

And you should be ashamed of yourself for facilitating that!

I take the interjection. What we have seen is a failure of this government, and then we see a moronic repetition of slogans, as if all these things that they've announced are going to solve the nation's housing crisis. In fact, you can have your own slogans in politics. One of the reasons that people don't think very highly of politicians is they utter too many slogans and they're often prone to offering empty words. If you watched the debate this afternoon, you'd probably find politicians in this chamber actually reading their speeches because they're not really sure what they're supposed to be saying—but I look forward to seeing that.

The main point is that the government has failed on housing. That is not in question, and whilst you can have your own slogans you can't have your own facts. The facts are that we have never had a bigger population than we have right now in Australia. We've had a massive surge in population, the biggest surge since the 1950s, and we've had a massive collapse in completions. The biggest population we've ever had simultaneously comes with the biggest collapse in housing construction in decades.

The government says it's done a great job on housing, but the scoreboard shows that under the last coalition government we saw on average 200,000 houses a year built across Australia. Under this government, we're down to 170,000 houses a year on average. We've gone from on average 200,000 houses a year to on average 170,000 houses a year. Despite all the bluster about housing, Labor's bureaucracies have resulted in fewer houses being built than were built under the former government. The housing minister is fond of saying that the government has spent $43 billion. Well, big deal! They've spent $43 billion to build fewer houses than were built under the last coalition government. That is the position that Australia finds itself in. That is why the housing squeeze is so severe, because when you have a bigger population you need to find more houses, and when you've had a housing construction collapse you've got a big problem.

All you need to do is look at the government's own program, the Housing Australia Future Fund, which would be one of the greatest failures of public administration in my lifetime. It has had two years of operation now. It has $10 billion in its budget, and it has built, we think, zero or 17 or 2,000 houses. We don't know the actual answer because, according to the Centre for Public Integrity, this is the most secretive government since the Keating government. This government has gone out of its way to block access to information. We actually have no idea how many houses have been built by this Housing Australia Future Fund because the government has covered it all up. This is the most secretive government since the Keating government, according to the Centre for Public Integrity. What a disgraceful record for a government that campaigned on transparency and integrity; hypocrisy is thy name! The government's flagship program has built either zero, 17 or 2,000 houses in two years.

Then you have the broader failure to encourage the builders, tradespeople and developers to get the housing sector moving. We see there the failure of the Housing Accord. They're supposed to build 1.2 million houses, but they'll be lucky to get to a million. The starting point is a massive failure of supply, and that is why people are battling. If you build fewer houses, you create problems all the way down the chain. That is why Homelessness Australia says that homelessness has never been worse than it is right now under this government. Homelessness is a disaster right now under this government, despite all the bluster.

You've got to think to yourself: 'If I look at all their social media and all the speeches that the housing minister gives and all the press releases, you'd think that the housing problem has been solved. She keeps on talking about the $43 billion.' Yeah, that's right—43 billion bucks for fewer houses and more homelessness. What a shocking record! What a shocking record for a government that says it's committed to housing. That's the supply side.

Then we get to the demand side. We saw this week that the government proposed to expand the Home Guarantee Scheme, which it will be able to do without any parliamentary oversight. Again, this is the most secretive government since the Keating government. They'll make this change to the Home Guarantee Scheme. There's likely to be a $62 billion contingent liability in the budget, but, when you're already running 10 years of deficits, who cares! It's all just Monopoly money to Mr Chalmers.

The expansion of the Home Guarantee Scheme takes it from a scheme which was designed to be about lower-income people getting access to their first home when they have no or a low deposit—that's the idea. The Home Guarantee Scheme was not about paying or servicing a mortgage; it was about helping people who had no deposit or a low deposit. It has gone from a lower-income targeted scheme to a scheme that any Australian can use, including the wealthiest Australians. As I say, when you're running ten years of deficits maybe you don't give a rats about a few bucks here and there, but I would have thought that a $62 billion contingent liability would be material. The consequence of that is that the average worker potentially has to subsidise the children of billionaires accessing a government program.

You've said that so many times today, and it is absolutely rubbish!

I take the interjection. We believe in the idea that government programs should target the people that need it. We do not believe that programs funded by hardworking taxpayers, when you've got a massive burden on the working Australian, maybe the highest we've ever had—this comes from a government that reintroduced a 37c tax bracket in the last parliament. You've got to be very careful with how you spend people's money. I would say that subsidising the children of billionaires is not a good priority.

On priorities: of all the things for this government to do on housing, they chose something put forward by their mates at the big super funds and the big investors: 'I know! Let's give a tax cut to foreign fund managers so they can build and own houses in perpetuity that Australians will never own. We will dress it up as a build-to-rent measure.' In reality, it is cutting the withholding tax rate for foreign asset managers. What a warped and bizarre priority. When we did the inquiry into this bill, we asked the home-building association, the people who actually build houses in Australia, or used to build houses, where this priority would sit. Do you know what they said? 'It wouldn't be in our top 20.' The home-building association say that it would not be in their top 20. There you go.

This issue, a tax cut for Labor's big-end-of-town mates, has become the priority for the government. They now want to have a system where Australians never, ever own a house. Anyone who went to the economic summit last week with Mr Chalmers would have found that, in fact, a lot of the time was taken up by the big super funds trying to get the government to find dodgy ways for them to own and build more and more houses. Their Australian dream is for super funds to own your house, not for you to own your house.

That's the reality of this government. They believe that institutional investors should own houses. They don't give a rats that there are cities like Atlanta and cities in other parts of the US where 25 or 30 per cent of the houses are owned by institutional investors. That's what they want for Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. They want Cbus, BlackRock and AustralianSuper to own the houses in Australia. That is the Labor dream. The party of organised capital now wants to impose this disgusting idea on the Australian people. In fact, they've never liked the idea of individual Australians owning their own houses. If you go back into the annals of time, you'll find Labor ministers in the postwar period talking about not wanting to have Australians owning their own houses, because we don't want them to be little capitalists. That is the history of the Labor movement. Frankly, this is just more of the same.

We hear from ASFA, the super association, saying—

Government senators interjecting—

Order! Senators, interjections are always disorderly. I would ask senators to be mindful of that, particularly given we are so close to a maiden speech and we have an audience. We should all be on our best behaviour. Senator Ayres?

We will, of course, absolutely respect your warning. We were provoked by Senator Bragg naming an association that does not exist. He just made it up!

That's not in order under the standing orders. Senator Bragg, I'm giving you the call to continue with your contribution on the motion.

Thank you, Acting Deputy President. I thank Senator Ayres for his many, many interjections. I've noticed that he likes interjecting when I'm speaking. The Housing Industry Association does a lot of very good home building, I think you'll find. I encourage you to go to their website. You might find some facts about home building.

Through the chair, Senator Bragg.

I encourage the government to get better at understanding what builders, tradies and developers actually need to build the houses Australians want to live in. I have to say that Canberra based bureaucracies like the Housing Australia Future Fund that have been going for two years and that have spent $10 billion to build 17 houses haven't been very successful. So I take the interjection. I thank Senator Ayres for his many interjections.

I make the point here that I asked the super fund association, when they were giving evidence on this particular bill:

Do you think the Australian people want to rent their house from a super fund?

And the official said:

I think that they would be very happy with institutionally owned residential property …

I think that they're wrong. I think that is culturally jarring and that most Australians actually want to own their own house. Most Australians want to own their own house; they don't want to live in a house that is owned by a super fund. It shows you the institutional impact of the labour movement today. It is so obsessed with helping the super funds and the unions clip the ticket and become perpetual landlords that it now prioritises a policy of build to rent over the interests of Australian workers. That is effectively the basis for this disallowance. This is a warped priority. It will cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.

Of course, the cost that the labour movement doesn't want to talk about is the 30 per cent taxes the CFMEU impose onto all the new apartment builds in Australia. In fact, we saw that one of the first acts of this government, when it won the election in 2022, was to abolish the Building and Construction Commission. I think it's telling.

I've often said this is a government for vested interests, Senator Ayres. Senator Ayres, you are the king of vested interests and shovelling money and policy to your mates. The reality is that the first order of business for this government was to abolish the Building and Construction Commission. No-one thinks that was a good idea other than the Labor Party and its mates. It has imposed a 30 per cent tax on all new apartment builds for younger Australians. So, for many younger Australians, their first house is likely to be a small apartment. Imposing that cost on younger people seems very unfair to me, but, again, Labor really only care about their vested interests because they are, at heart, a government for vested interests.

The general point here is that we believe this is an important disallowance, because this is a warped priority that only a government for vested interests could conjure up. This is not in the interests of the Australian people. Because we want to have a country where individual Australians can own their own houses, we don't think that it's a good idea for big super funds and foreign owned asset managers to own Australian houses.

Honourable senators interjecting—

No, we don't. I take all the interjections. It must be a very sore point, but we don't believe that foreign asset managers and big super funds should be the perpetual owners of Australian housing. I'm sorry that the government is embarrassed, but we don't think this is the right priority. So we're moving this disallowance because we want to see Australians back in the vanguard of housing policy. We accept the election result, and we understand that the government have another couple of years to try and get it right on housing. We want to help the government be the best that they can be. The way that will be measured will be on the supply numbers. If you can build more houses that Australians can live in, then that's a good thing, but you've got to get the priorities right.

We encourage the Senate to consider carefully whether it's a good idea for the Australian taxpayer to be giving away money to foreign asset managers so they can own houses in perpetuity that Australians will never, ever own. Think very carefully about where we are heading in this country. There is a massive conspiracy between Mr Chalmers, the unions and the big super funds to become perpetual landlords, and it's not a good idea. The caterwauling and the crying from the Labor Party on the government benches really is a testament to their great embarrassment that this is finally going to be exposed.

We encourage the Senate to vote for this disallowance. More broadly, we want to see the government get serious on the supply side. Their measures so far been disasters. They've had three years; they've gone backwards. They've got another 2½ years or so, and we want to see the government get to the 250,000 houses that are required for Australia to hit its targets. While they're doing that, we want to see them be serious about the demand side.

Is it really a good idea for the government to be delivering a program which is now open to the wealthiest Australians to get access to government insurance scheme? We would say it's best to means test things. Taxpayer dollars should be treated very carefully, and giving away money to the wealthiest Australians when they don't need that money is really not appropriate. I encourage the Senate to consider this motion carefully once we get through the formalities of this next speech.

Debate interrupted.

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

I begin by acknowledging the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people, the traditional owners on the land on which we meet, and I honour their continuing culture and unbroken connection to this place we now call parliament. I also acknowledge the Tasmanian Aboriginal people, the first people of my home state.

I don't come here with a remarkable story but I do stand here with a proudly Tasmanian one. It's a story of how strong Australian institutions can open doors and give a fair shot to an ordinary kid from Hobart. I was lucky to grow up in a household that believed those things mattered. I never felt limited growing up in Tasmania—a community that cared, public services that did their job and most of all, my family's love and grounding. We didn't have everything but we had what counted. I pay tribute to my mum and dad, Judy and David; you provided a shield to life's struggles and a trampoline of opportunity.

Before I go on, let me thank my wife, Georgia, who I will speak more about a bit later; my family, friends and colleagues; and the labour movement, especially those who took a chance on me. A prime ministerial speechwriter once told me: 'Avoid lists of names in a thank you. The longer the list, the more offensive it is to the person you forget.' So I'll leave it at that. To everyone who helped me reach this place, thank you; you know who you are.

I went to public schools and I was taught by some outstanding teachers who nurtured my love for knowledge and numbers. My schools weren't polished but they were decent. They were full of kids who got their hands dirty, who looked out for each other and who taught me more about fairness than any book ever could. Even though Risdon Prison was just down the road, the neighbourhood never felt unsafe. It was the kind of place where everyone knew your name, and sometimes your business, but they'd also drop everything to help you when you needed it.

The so-called mainland felt like a distant land. Melbourne may as well have been the moon. Tasmania is often overlooked but it has a quiet strength, a deep sense of place and a resilience that shapes how we see fairness and community. But, even back then, growing up, I could sense where things were starting to fray. When I got to year 11, many of the kids I'd grown up with weren't there. They'd left school early—a culture that's all too common in Tasmania—not because they didn't want to learn but because too many of them didn't see the point. That's not a failure of students; that's on us.

My first brush with politics came through an old ABC show called Order in the House, a weekly wrap-up of parliamentary proceedings. I stumbled across it by accident and lost a good chunk of my childhood watching it. But I was hooked—the drama, the characters, the consequences. What happened in that building, this building, affected people's lives and could change them for the better. And that's where the fascination began.

At uni, I started to fall out of love with politics. The debates felt more like performance than principle, more karaoke than Keating. So I found a new love: the so-called dismal science of economics. I liked that it didn't pretend to be noble. It tried to explain how people really behaved, not how we wished they did. It gave me the tools to understand the world.

Initially I supported my studies by coating drumsticks with Colonel Sanders's secret herbs and spices at KFC. Part way through my studies I landed a cadetship at the Tasmanian treasury and went from the fryer to fiscal policy. With that promotion came the hefty responsibility of washing the treasury secretary's car! I also learned that responsible economic management is the foundation of any good government.

A few years after, I became chief economist at the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. I was in my early twenties—so I knew a lot—and I was in the local media a lot, talking about interest rates, exports and the dollar. There wasn't an economic issue I wasn't willing to do an interview about. On reflection, the chamber of commerce could have stayed neutral on the rising price of shoe hire at the Moonah bowling alley! Jokes aside, it's fair to say there was a mixed reaction to my commentary. One reader remarked:

Tell that kid … to give his dad's suit back.

Dad, I'll give it back tomorrow! Another asked:

When is Graph Boy … going to show us another one of his charts?

This is not the usual pathway to a Labor Senate seat, but I kept my party membership through that time, and I never bought into the idea that, in a modern economy, labour and capital should be enemies. Maybe that's a Tasmanian perspective. We're too small to be fighting each other.

Strong industries and secure, well-paid jobs go together. Indeed, after a day talking about markets, I'd often end up in the Australian Workers' Union boardroom after hours, engaged in spirited policy debate. Sometimes we came at it from different angles, but we cared about the same thing—dignity at work and a decent future for working people. I'm proud to be a member of the AWU two decades later. It remains one of the unwavering defenders of traditional industry, our export economy and the many thousands of Tasmanian and Australian families who rely upon it. And, yes, there's nothing quite like being called a 'comrade' and a 'capitalist' by the same person in the same sentence.

Eventually, I'd said so much about the local economy that someone in government either agreed with me or wanted me to stop. Lara Giddings, the Premier, offered me a job as her economic adviser. We joke that she hired me just to shut me up. I owe her a lot, and I acknowledge Lara here in the gallery tonight. She showed me that policy isn't just about numbers and graphs; it's about people. Behind every budget line is a life, a story, a community. Lara showed me what courage looks like in politics. She led through very challenging times, and she copped it, often in ways that were cruel and personal. But Lara Giddings never wavered. She stayed the course at great personal and political cost, and I'll always admire that.

By a fortunate twist of events, I also met my wife, Georgia, during this time. I was sitting in the government advisers' box—a bit like the one over there. It was a small chamber in the Tasmanian parliament, and I noticed a new face in the opposition advisers' box who was of far more interest than whatever motion was being debated. So I leaned over to the finance minister and asked if he knew who she was. He subsequently leaned to the Premier to ask if she knew. She subsequently tapped the Tasmanian speaker, who subsequently asked the opposition leader. Finally the answer travelled back via the same sequence of MPs, 'Her name is Georgia, and she's just started in the opposition office.' I eventually manufactured an excuse to meet her, and, over a decade later, she is still here with me. Whoever said politics can't bring people together? Georgia, you've stood with me through every storm, lifted when I faltered and steadied when I wavered. Georgia, none of this would be possible without you.

The start we had in Tasmania set us up to explore the world, and I went on to work at the cutting edge of health care, clean energy and technology. Having a front-row seat to the voracious entrepreneurship and innovation happening around the world showed me that this country could do with a dose of optimism. On the whole, most things are improving and human ingenuity is focused on solving our greatest global challenges. I walked the halls of Westminster, Washington and Brussels, and I maintain that, for all our shortcomings, we still do politics better. Those overseas experiences reinforced what's special about Australia and about Tasmania. After seeing up close the abject poverty present in some of the world's wealthiest economies and the indifference to it, the values of a strong social safety net, a more equal society and the same fair go that I was raised with were reinforced as core beliefs for me.

One area that I believe would improve fairness in our economy is of empowering people with better financial skills, from young people trying to understand credit cards to older people vulnerable to exploitation. It's been a passion for me for a long time. Many years ago, I met a young law student named Grace. She had incredible prospects, but she was distraught. She'd applied for a $500 credit card. The bank, in its wisdom, gave her a $10,000 limit—something no young student should ever be handed. Assuming the bank knew best, she began to spend, only to realise the repayments weren't even touching the principal. She was spiralling into debt without understanding how she got there. We sat down together and mapped out a plan. She got through it, but I'll never forget what she said: 'Why don't they teach more of this stuff in school?' She was right.

Today, it's not just credit cards; it's buy-now pay-later schemes, payday loans and online scams promising instant riches. The tools have changed, but the risks to people's futures are the same, and I don't believe the answer is simply more regulation. Regulation and enforcement have their place, but they will never keep pace with technology. We have to empower people to protect themselves and to thrive, because a confident, financially capable citizen is harder to exploit and better placed to seize the opportunities the economy offers. Australians are expected to navigate an increasingly complex financial world, but we don't teach them how. Budgeting, compound interest, mortgages, superannuation and investing—we still expect people to just figure it out by themselves. The result is that too many young Australians feel like they're falling behind before they've even begun and too many older Australians are vulnerable to scams, predatory products or silent stress about money. This is a fairness issue.

In well-off households, financial knowledge is often passed down. In families doing it tough, where every dollar counts, there's rarely time or headspace to pass those lessons on. Nowhere is this more important than in places like Tasmania where intergenerational disadvantage is too often passed down, not just in income but in information. That's why financial literacy should be seen not as a private virtue but as a public good. Surveys show only half of adults can correctly answer basic questions about inflation, interest and risk, and the cost is huge. Research shows that financial stress is estimated to cost the nation over $30 billion a year in lost productivity, mental health impacts and increased reliance on social services. If we can lift financial capability, we can cut those costs and, more importantly, save lives. It's a tool for dignity—a tool for economic empowerment. A fair economy doesn't just give people a safety net; it gives them the tools to build a future. And it pays off, not just saving health and social support costs. It could lift a huge emotional burden from families. Start early, even with small habits, and you change the trajectory of a life. Teach a kid to understand compound interest, and they start to understand their own potential—to save, to grow, to thrive.

The superannuation guarantee is a great Labor initiative. It gives working people a much better, dignified retirement. Improving financial know-how will grow that nest egg and it will protect it. If we're serious about equality of opportunity, we can't leave people to navigate the modern economy without a map. We need a national plan to teach people how money works, not just once but across the school years and beyond. Financial education should be as fundamental as literacy and numeracy. Labor has always been the party of opportunity. Now we have a chance to lead again by making financial literacy a core part of how we empower every Australian.

We like to think each generation leaves things a bit better than they found them. But, for many young Australians, that deal feels broken. Housing seems out of reach; secure work is harder to find. And, until recently, student debts were rising faster than wages. That's why the Albanese government acted, cutting student debts to give people a fairer start and removing barriers to building more homes. Too often, progress gets blocked by those who have already made it, opposing new homes, new industries and even new ideas not because it costs them anything but because they don't want things to change. This isn't about intergenerational warfare; it's about an intergenerational handshake, renewing the promise that effort will still be rewarded—that each generation will invest in the next, so each generation can share in prosperity and progress.

But a fair go isn't just about housing and education. It's also about having a future in your own state, with jobs that are secure, meaningful and tied to place. In Tasmania, that future depends on strong modern industry. For more than a century, sectors like mining, metal processing, agriculture, aquaculture and advanced manufacturing have been the backbone of private sector employment. That must continue—not out of nostalgia but because it's the foundation of opportunity. Young people deserve careers, not just casual work. They deserve to help build a state, even own part of it, not just serve those who are passing through. That's why we need to back the industries that back Tasmania and back Australia, by training the workers, building the infrastructure and delivering the clean, reliable and affordable energy they need to grow.

So, yes—I stand here as a proud Tasmanian with a deep sense of duty. I don't take myself too seriously, but I take this job very seriously. If I can nudge things even a little towards economic empowerment, intergenerational fairness and a fair reward for effort, then maybe watching all that weird parliamentary TV as a kid was worth it after all. Thank you.

Senator Bragg's disallowance seeks to throw a spanner in the works of the build-to-rent scheme. That's a very good thing and One Nation will be wholeheartedly supporting it. Foreign corporations used to pay a 30 per cent withholding tax on housing investments like build to rent. Labor cut that in half, to 15 per cent.

Let's be clear: this Labor government said to foreign, corporate landlords like BlackRock, State Street, Vanguard and first state, 'We'll cut the amount of tax you pay in half.'

Forget the Australian dream of owning your own home. Labor's dream is that you live in a stack-and-pack shoebox apartment paying rent to BlackRock forever, while those foreign corporations pay less tax than you do. That's what build to rent means.

Whenever you hear 'build-to-rent', remember 'renting forever to a foreign corporation, a foreign corporate landlord and a foreign global wealth investment fund'. They'll build homes, for sure, and Australians will never, ever own them—never. It's built to rent forever.

I'll quote from the Economics Legislation Committee report into the Treasury Laws Amendment (Build to Rent) Bill 2024 and the provisions of the Capital Works (Build to Rent Misuse Tax) Bill 2024. The provisions of the bills include 'reducing the final withholding tax rate on eligible fund payments—distributions of rental income and capital gains—from eligible managed investment trust investments from 30 per cent to 15 per cent, starting from 1 July 2024'. So there you go—a tax cut in half for those global, corporate, predatory investors, who own almost everything and are determined to own everything. I'll say that again: they own almost everything and are determined to own everything.

The report states:

The draft legislation was adjusted as a result of this consultation to ensure the government's policy objective of incentivising foreign investment in BTR—

Build-to-rent—

including affordable housing supply, is achieved.

They are admitting that the objective of the bills is incentivising foreign and predatory corporations into owning your home. The report also states:

The Property Council advised the 15 per cent tax rate for investment in housing is already available to Australian investors. The MIT—

managed investment trust—

withholding tax rate applies to withholding tax that goes back to overseas investors—

Predators and parasites—

but foreign investors can also capital partner with Australian investors.

That is the most telling part of all. This bill would only change the tax treatment of foreign, predatory, multinational corporations. That's all. There's nothing for Australians. Australian companies could do it. Foreign companies pay a penalty—that's a good thing. Yet the Labor Party of Australia would change that; you in the government would change that. Are Labor the party for Australia, or are they the party for global, foreign corporations? Build-to-rent answers that question clearly. Clearly Labor are for the foreign corporations like BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and First State. One Nation, though, is for Australians owning their own homes.

I'm going to do something a little unusual and quote extensively from the coalition senators' dissenting report on the build-to-rent bills—an outstanding report. I hope you don't mind, Senator Bragg. It goes to the very heart of what's wrong with the new Labor Party:

Build to Rent has had minimal cut-through in Australia because our tax settings are designed to favour individual, 'mum and dad' investors, not institutions. That is appropriate.

This legislation seeks to tip the scales in favour of institutions through tax concessions, in order to make Build to Rent projects profitable for industry super funds and foreign fund managers. Labor thinks that institutions need a leg up over Australian first home buyers.

Why? The report continues:

Dr Murray was critical of the Bill's attempted perversion of our tax arrangements:

It's not clear to me why local investors shouldn't be advantaged over foreign investors in Australian housing. I don't see that there's a good argument … for levelling the playing field there. It's not clear to me, if the intention is to attract super funds into this, why owning your own home via your super fund and renting your own home from your super fund is better than owning your own home and using that money to buy what is the best asset to own in retirement.

That's just like One Nation policy. The report goes on:

At the public hearing, the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia ('ASFA') suggested that Australians would prefer Black Rock and Cbus be the nation's landlords—

Really? You would?

and described mum and dad investors as undertaking a 'hobby activity'—

How condescending; how arrogant—

Senator BRAGG: Do you think the Australian people want to rent their house from a super fund?

Mr Clare: I think that they would be very happy with institutionally owned residential property where there is an option of having longer-term tenancies rather than the more-typical-in-the-market situation where there is a lack of assurance of continuity of tenancy because it's a small-scale, hobby activity for individual landlords.

The report continues:

This is the view of a vested interest. Most Australians would not agree with this proposal.

Other witnesses did not share ASFA's view. Grounded Community Land Trust Advocacy told the Committee:

Senator BRAGG: Are you concerned that we are seeing a corporatisation of housing in Australia?

Mr Fitzgerald: Absolutely. This is delivering horrifying results in the Northern Hemisphere, and this legislation makes no account of that—

No account of what's actually happening—

It perplexes me that this government, which purports to be in support of labour—

That is, workers—

is allowing rent-maximisation strategies to come through unabated. Yes, I agree: pushing mum-and-dad investors out of the housing market will result in less competition—

An oligopoly for the big fellas—

What we're seeing in the Northern Hemisphere is a horrific new software program called YieldStar, which in Atlanta coordinates rental increases for 81 per cent of rental properties. The board of supervisors in San Francisco has now banned this as a monopolistic practice—

Yet you want to bring it in—

There's just nothing in this legislation that even prepares us for what's coming.

The report goes on:

The Housing Industry Association pointed to the importance of Australia's housing market maintaining a focus on individual ownership.

Senator BRAGG: But isn't it the case that the character of the housing market in Australia is largely focused on individuals? … Do you think that's a good or a bad design feature?

Mr Reardon: I think that is a very positive outcome, with the association and connection with home and with location, and a sense of place and purpose—all of those dynamics.

This is reinforcing what we already know and what Senator Bragg has already discussed. Mr Reardon goes on:

All the evidence shows that people who own their own home are far less likely to be incarcerated and more likely to be gainfully employed. All of the evidence shows positive economic, social and cultural outcomes.

Personal responsibility is a cornerstone, a foundation of a safe and productive society. Personal responsibility enables and is the basis for a safe and productive society.

Senator Bragg's report then says:

Australians are not interested in subsidising institutional investors. When asked what organisations would be the key beneficiaries of Build to Rent tax concessions, Treasury confirmed that foreign fund managers would be at the centre:

There are a lot of foreign investors using the MITs because of the withholding tax concessions and other benefits from using that structure, but there can also be domestic investors using the MITs; they just get a different tax regime. Those investors will be working in partnership with commercial developers to develop these buildings.

The report continues:

Cbus Super has previously committed to scaling up in the Build to Rent sector, announcing a plan to scale up its portfolio to approximately $2 billion in apartments.

Some of the most alarming evidence from the public hearing was that the passing of this Bill could see Australian taxpayers subsidising foreign governments in their investment in our housing market. Dr Murray warned:

I find it interesting because we've already even got foreign investment funds doing build to rent. What's even funnier is that the largest one is a foreign government. We've got the Abu Dhabi Investment Council, who owns the Smith Collective on the Gold Coast, which is 1,251 build-to-rent dwellings, and we're now proposing to offer them a better tax treatment for something they're already doing—through a foreign government. I find that a bizarre outcome of this proposed bill.

It is bizarre. The report continues:

Approaches like Build to Rent endeavour to emulate the corporate housing model which has seen a downturn in the United States housing market.

Fund managers have become the predominant landlords in the US—

I will digress from Senator Bragg's dissenting report for a minute. The bankers in the United States said in the 1920s that their dream was a combination of predatory behaviour and legislation to get a monopoly and own every house that they could in the country—to control people—because once people have their residence at stake, they are easily controlled. The report says:

Fund managers have become the predominant landlords in the US. According to the US Government Accountability Office ('the GAO'), large institutional investors emerged following the global financial crisis, purchasing foreclosed homes at auction in bulk and converting them into rental housing.

In 2023, corporate housing funds held $1 trillion USD in assets. In Atlanta, Charlotte and Jacksonville, institutional investors own 25, 18 and 21 per cent of the rental stock respectively.

That is what you are wanting here. We don't want it. The report continues:

This corporate housing model, in order to generate a return on investment for institutional investors, relies on individuals being locked into a cycle of perpetual renting—

This is exactly what we've been warning for the last five years. It continues:

There is a growing consensus in the US that this model has failed and is hurting prospective first home buyers. Lawmakers from both sides of politics are introducing legislation to limit institutional investment accordingly—

Watch what's happening; this has failed—

While the US is moving away from corporate housing, the Australian Labor Party is forcing Australians into it.

Well, Senator Bragg, I'm not ashamed to admit we probably couldn't have written it better ourselves; thank you.

Build-to-rent is an abomination that destroys the Australian dream of owning your own home. One Nation raised this cruel reality years ago. One Nation rejects making Australians forever renters to a cartel of greedy foreign corporations.

An honourable senator interjecting—

Let's see if you repeat that: One Nation rejects making Australians forever renters to a cartel of greedy foreign corporations, predatory parasitic corporations and parasitic predators driving the World Economic Forum and the United Nations agenda, on your conscience. All Australians should be able to work hard and one day own their own slice of this great, big, wonderful country with so much potential. Only One Nation has the policy to make this real for everyday Australians.

I rise to speak in opposition to this motion from Senator Bragg. We have here yet another housing stunt from Senator Bragg that attempts to deny everyday Australians the right to safe and affordable housing. This is the second time in as many months we've had to come in here and remind those opposite of some basic truths about housing in Australia. Last month Senator Bragg told us that the Australian dream of homeownership is slipping away. This week he's called our policies on housing 'crazy ideas' and has vowed to stand in the way of real progress to tackle the housing challenges we're seeing across the country, and now, with this disallowance, he wants to raise taxes on builders and rip away incentives that are unlocking tens of thousands of new rental homes.

The Liberals have no credibility on housing. The Liberals are housing hypocrites, and Australians can see right through it; they know the facts. Under the Liberals, housing affordability went backwards. They slashed investment, left supply entirely to the market and did nothing meaningful for renters. They did not build homes. They didn't even have a housing minister at the cabinet table. And since they were booted out of government by the Australian people in 2022, they have done nothing but stand in the way of meaningful action to get more people into homes. They have opposed the Housing Australia Future Fund, they've argued to scrap our housing target and now they're trying to stand in the way of our build-to-rent scheme. Instead of working constructively with us to tackle this issue, they stand in the way.

The matter before us today relates to legislation passed last year to boost build-to-rent housing—new rentals with five-year leases and no-fault evictions. Ultimately, it's about increasing rental supply and giving tenants more certainty. Independent experts have said it strikes the right balance, and industry estimates show it will support 80,000 new homes across the country. Let me say that again: 80,000 new homes for renters. Are these guys serious? They propose to stand in the way of 80,000 homes for Australians and to stand in the way of affordable rental housing for Australians who need it. It's really no wonder that the coalition went backwards at the election in May.

Senator Bragg claims our build-to-rent reforms are a foreign investor tax cut and promote the Australian nightmare of lifelong renting. That's pure fearmongering. We know that, in order to tackle this housing challenge, we have to pull every lever. We must do everything we can. Build to rent doesn't stop anyone buying a home. It builds new rental supply, which we desperately need, and, after a decade of Liberal neglect on housing, threatening to rip away the incentives to drive 80,000 rental homes is the real nightmare.

To qualify for these tax settings, developments must meet strict conditions: at least 50 dwellings under single ownership for 15 years, minimum five-year leases as the default, at least 10 per cent of dwellings offered at affordable rental rates capped below market and stronger renter protections, including bans on no-fault evictions. It's targeted policy to deliver long-term rental supply and stability. This is just one part of Labor's $43 billion Homes for Australia plan, because we know that tackling the housing crisis, which has come from a decade of neglect from those opposite, takes work from every angle. That's what we're doing—building more homes, getting more people into their first homes, getting more people into affordable homes, making renting more affordable and making renting fairer. This is the most comprehensive housing agenda in a generation.

We are investing at every stage. Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced we will bring forward our plan to deliver five per cent deposits for first-home buyers to 1 October. We're delivering the biggest boost to rental assistance in three decades. We're building 55,000 social and affordable homes and making record investment in crisis accommodation. We're setting an ambitious target of 1.2 million new well-located homes in five years. We're training more tradies in construction and attracting more of them too, with our $10,000 incentive payment. We're streamlining planning, cutting red tape and supporting modern methods—like prefab construction—to speed up builds where we can. All of this is about one thing—more homes for Australians, making it easier to buy, easier to rent and easier to build more homes. Finding an affordable place to live should not be a struggle. Whether you're a renter or a homeowner, we are standing with you to make housing more available and more affordable.

Senator Bragg has brought two motions on housing to this chamber in two months. He spends a lot of time talking about our housing agenda, but not once has Senator Bragg put forward a credible plan to build a single home, and his colleagues are much the same. All we get is negativity and obstruction, but Australians deserve better than that. Australians who are renting or looking to rent deserve better than that. Australians who want to buy their first home deserve better than that—better than the negativity that we're seeing from those opposite. Only Labor has the plan, the commitment and the determination to deliver more homes. That is why I urge the chamber to defeat this motion.

The Liberals and Nationals say that they want more homes, but they keep standing in the way and they have form. I was here in the first term of government, in the other place, and I distinctly recall how the Liberals, Nationals and Greens political parties teamed up and delayed the Housing Australia Future Fund. They delayed that fund—$10 billion to build social and affordable homes—for a year. Now, Senator Bragg stood up here, in this chamber, and said that it's been operating for two years and hasn't built a single home. In fact, the Housing Australia Future Fund went live in September 2024. That was the first round of funding. It has had two rounds of funding, and, right now, there are 28,000 homes that are either in planning or in construction, not just due to that but due to other measures as well.

The second important housing program that they delayed—using the same strategy: they palled up with their new best buddies, the Greens political party—was the Help to Buy scheme. That can was kicked down the road. I remember it distinctly because I told my entire electorate about it, and they weren't happy. You are gifting me another one. Thank you. I will be telling everyone in Victoria about this little stunt. You kicked that can down the road. Help to Buy was designed for the people at the bottom of the pile, the people with the most modest incomes—cleaners and people who have never dreamt of having a home. Help to Buy was designed for them. The Liberals, Nationals and Greens took it upon themselves to delay that scheme. Help to Buy enables homeowners to enter the market with as little as a two per cent deposit, with the government stumping up 30 to 40 per cent of the equity so you only need a very low deposit and have very low mortgage repayments. We're getting the states to sign on to Help to Buy, and that will also go live, providing another plank in our housing program.

But that's not all. Build to rent is a really important pillar in our housing program. For those who aren't sure about it, build to rent has actually been operating in the UK for the last 13 years. It is well-established in the UK. The UK has around 300,000 build-to-rent properties either in construction or already built. It is well-established. Yes, they are supported by the likes of pension funds. Given the scale of the problem that we are facing in Australia, which is essentially market failure staring us in the face, we have to pull multiple levers. This is a complex problem. With complex problems, just like in medicine, you've got to tackle them on multiple fronts. You don't do one thing; you do everything. Build to rent is a welcome tool in our armamentarium. It means that we deepen our access to capital markets. Increasingly, building property needs a mix of domestic capital as well as offshore capital, and that offshore capital may come in the form of pension funds from overseas or sovereign wealth funds. If they want to build homes for Australians—great; we welcome it. That was the whole point of this. Often, that capital is mixing with capital domestically as well to build these homes.

The Property Council estimate that 80,000 homes will be built over the next five to 10 years, of which 10 per cent will be ring fenced for social and affordable. These properties will have five-year tenure and prevent no-fault evictions—again, speaking to the work we have done with the states in protecting and improving renters' rights. It does mean that Australians will now have options. So, just like on 1 October, those who want to enter the housing market will now have an opportunity as we launch an expanded version of the Home Guarantee Scheme. We will now have an opportunity for those people who wish to rent for longer to do so.

But there is a presumption in this chamber that build to rent stops there, that it's lifelong renting. That's not the case. People often start renting at some point in their life, and they may transition out into homeownership. We're creating those pathways for them by expanding the Home Guarantee Scheme. There are also newer products that are emerging in Australia. It's not just build to rent anymore. Speaking to super funds here in Australia, I know that there is now a new product, build to rent to buy, which actually enables people to first enter into a build-to-rent model and then, subsequently, have the option to purchase that apartment or unit—whatever the case may be.

You can see that, by creating an ecosystem with a variety of different products out there, the market starts to shift and change to meet the needs of the consumer. That's what we're trying to facilitate as a government. We're not trying to dictate; we're trying to provide Australians, particularly young Australians, with a choice so that, if they want to enter the housing market, they can put their hand up, line up their ducks, go and see the bank, get their finances in order and delve into homeownership. On 1 October, the Home Guarantee Scheme will open up to all first home buyers. It will not be means tested. We have removed the income caps. There will be caps on properties. For example, in Victoria, in Melbourne and Geelong, properties will be capped at around $950,000. For everywhere else in Victoria, it'll be around $650,000. It's hardly the case that the children of billionaires, as Senator Bragg asserts, will be purchasing these properties. What an overexaggeration, a complete hyperbole. We are also interested in accelerating the building process by slashing red tape. We're doing that by taking the National Construction Code, for example, pausing it for a period of four to five years and simplifying it in that interim period, because we've heard feedback from the construction industry.

It was coalition policy.

I'll take that contribution. It was a suggestion by the coalition, but we're improving on that, which is worth doing. I'll also note that the Home Guarantee Scheme was a coalition legacy. What we did in our first term of government was expand the eligibility of that scheme and tune it up. What we found was that it was wildly successful. Over 100,000 households took up the modifications that we made. And so we have now gone further. We have gone further by opening it up further to first home buyers irrespective of their income, and that has garnered so much interest that the website crashed yesterday. The website crashed.

So I think it is genuinely perplexing, given the scale of the problem—and we see it every day on our streets in Australia. We see it on the footpaths, people sleeping on our footpaths, even in wealthy electorates, like mine, as it was, Higgins. There it was. I also knew that families were living in cars in council car parks in Higgins—in Higgins, one of the wealthiest electorates in Australia. If it's bad there, imagine what it's like elsewhere. We have not just people living in tents; we now have people living in tent cities. There are around 122,000 Australians who are homeless every night, based on data from a census four years ago. We think that number is much worse now. Back then, around 8,000 people slept rough, including around 200 children under the age of 12. Those numbers may well be worse now.

This is an emergency. Start treating it like an emergency, Liberals and Nationals, and stop blocking our housing agenda. This is an emergency. You don't do one thing; you do everything. At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is the outcome. The outcome is more homes for Australia and more homes for Australians.

I'm going to change the start of my speech because I won't be lectured in this chamber by a party that has facilitated the worst housing crisis our country has ever seen. You lecture us on what we should and could do, when you have stood by and allowed this to occur. For the best part of 20 years, I assisted young people and everyday Australians to purchase their own homes. Not once did anybody walk up to me or sit down with me and desperately say, 'I want to be a forever renter.' They came to me and said, 'Can you please help me buy a home? Can you please help me find a way to have a roof over the head of my family that belongs to us?' The problem with the build-to-rent scheme is that it focuses too much on build-to-rent. This government focuses far too much on build-to-rent as a solution.

A number of times today in this chamber, in different speeches, I have heard people from the other side say that build to rent is a supply-side solution. Build to rent is not a supply-side solution for people who need to buy their own home. It is a solution for people who need to rent, but it is not a solution for people who wish to buy. It is in no way a supply-side solution to the five per cent deposit scheme. They are not connected.

The five per cent deposit scheme—as Senator Henderson correctly stated, a coalition policy and coalition measure in a previous government—is something that you require supply-side mechanisms for. On 1 October, this will be opened up to everybody, and guess what? We don't have the houses for the people to buy. Newsflash: that's not helping anybody. What it will do is artificially increase prices, because the supply-side mechanisms have not been put in place. That is the reality of what we're dealing with here.

This disallowance motion from Senator Bragg intends to stop the government handing out a tax cut to foreign investors—which promotes renting rather than homeownership. The coalition is not against foreign investors. The coalition is not against business making money. What we are against is the falsehood that build to rent is somehow a fair and reasonable alternative to people owning their own home. It is not. We want Australians to own their own homes; this government wants super funds to own those homes and for Australians to rent those homes. That is what we have a problem with.

Somebody actually made a comment to me today about masterplanned communities and how important they are in the construction sector. It made me realise that this is actually a masterplanned rental cycle from the government. The super funds will own the homes, the CFMEU will build the homes and Australians will rent the homes. We're here to tell you that we're not okay with that. We absolutely want to see fair and reasonable rentals available to Australians that want to rent or need to rent. But we must make sure that there is adequate housing stock, adequate supply and proper focus from this government to ensure that people that want to buy their own home can, not the unfair scenario of providing a five per cent deposit scheme with no additional supply of housing for young people to buy them. How disheartening is that? Thank you for that; what am I going to buy? Where is it? Where are the houses?

The HAFF, the Housing Australia Future Fund, has built 17 houses. That is extraordinary. Supercharging foreign institutional investment and ownership of Australia's housing stock in a perpetual rent-forever cycle is absolutely not acceptable. While build to rent absolutely can be part of the mix, it should not require a tax concession for foreign investors to own the homes that Australians live in. That is unacceptable. While we support foreign investment, as I said earlier, it must fit within the culture of fairness. That doesn't meet the pub test. That's just not on. This government has got their priorities completely confused. They should be focusing on people, on young Australians.

We've heard today a great deal about intergenerational fairness—that would be to facilitate young people to buy their own homes, not to give potential handouts to foreign investors to own those homes that young Australians will rent. That is not okay.

The construction code is another significant issue that feeds into the problem of housing in this country. It is a document that's almost some 2,000 pages long that is nothing but obstructive in terms of facilitating greater supply. We articulated that before the last election. We took that as a policy to the last election, and what did this government do? This government said that we were bad, that it was dangerous, that we wanted dodgy housing, that we wanted Australians to live in dodgy housing—more falsehoods that are completely untrue. What has happened now? Now they've adopted the same policy. They've changed it a little bit, tinkered around the edges, but it's pretty similar, and now the narrative is not that it's bad or promoting dodgy housing. Now, the narrative is, 'When we see good ideas, we'll acknowledge it.' Well, there you go. I'll leave you to think about that.

I think the thing that bothers me the most about this whole scenario is the suggestion that we on this side are blocking the supply of housing. We've done nothing but fight for fairness for young Australians and everyday Australians so they can own their own homes. We talk about that constantly. I've talked about it for a long time. Senator Bragg raises it very regularly as well; there's been some mirth about that from the other side. But we talk about this because we hear about this all the time. People talk to us about this every day. We are totally cognisant of the fact that there is a housing crisis in this country, but we need this government to do something that facilitates the supply of housing so that the people who wish to own their own homes can buy their own homes.

The thing that I'm going to finish with is something I've said many times, and I'm going to say it again. I have a massive problem with the fact that this government thinks it's okay for a super fund to own my own home, but I am not able to access my own super, my own money, to purchase that home. That is entirely unfair. That is entirely unreasonable. Today, there was a mention in one of the speeches around homelessness and the prevalence of homelessness. The largest growing cohort of homeless people in this country is women over the age of 55. A woman over 55 can access her super under special provisions as an emergency to pay rent to somebody, but she can't access it to buy her own home. You explain that to me and tell me that you are focused on Australians owning their own home.

It's a real delight to follow the remarks of my colleague. There was a lot of common sense and wisdom in that presentation. I've got here the State of the housing system 2025 report from the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council. If you were to listen to those opposite, they would say to you that all the issues in relation to housing supply occurred under the previous government. But this report actually tells the truth. This is the government's own agency giving its report with respect to what the reality is of housing supply.

I want to quote a number of the key findings of this report. I quote from page 1 of the report:

The supply of new housing is near its lowest level in a decade. 177,000 dwellings were completed in 2024, falling significantly short of underlying demand for housing, which was estimated at around 223,000 for the same period—

This is under Labor—record lows over the decade in relation to new housing constriction—

This shortfall added to already significant unmet demand in the system.

…   …   …

938,000 dwellings are forecast to be completed during the Housing Accord period, which falls short of the 1.2 million target. Scenario analysis indicates that even under optimistic economic scenarios, the target will not be achieved—

Even under the most optimistic scenarios, it will not be achieved—

No state or territory is forecast to meet the share of the target implied by its population—

So you're not going to meet the target on a national level, and no state or territory is going to meet the target of its share of the 1.2 million target. The report goes on to say:

When factoring in demolitions, the net new supply is expected to total 825,000 over the Housing Accord period, which is 79,000 dwellings fewer than expected new underlying demand.

Then page 5 says:

Over the Housing Accord period that commenced on 1 July 2024—

under Labor—

the Council forecasts that gross new housing supply will be 938,000 under baseline macroeconomic conditions and current policy settings … or around 188,000 per year on average. This implies a shortfall of 262,000 relative to the 1.2 million Housing Accord target, which is a little more than the 256,900 shortfall forecast in State of the Housing System 2024.

So the shortfall actually went up in 2024-25. That's what the independent analysis is telling us.

Then, if senators representing various states and territories want to look at the position in their own state or territory, they can do so at a table on page 7. This indicates the following in terms of gross new housing supply and its ratio to share of target: New South Wales, 65 percent—so the government's own agency is saying that New South Wales will only meet 65 per cent of its share of the new housing target; Victoria is doing much better at 98 per cent; my home state of Queensland, 79 per cent; Western Australia, 81 per cent; South Australia, 71 per cent; Tasmania, 51 per cent; ACT, 78 per cent; and the Northern Territory is at an extraordinarily low 31 per cent. The report goes on to say:

After accounting for the expected demolition of around 113,000 dwellings, net new housing supply is projected to be 825,000 over the Housing Accord period, or just over 165,000 dwellings per year on average.

In comparison, new underlying housing demand is forecast to be 904,000 …

So 825,000 is projected compared to housing demand of 904,000. Houston, we have a problem, and that's what the government's own National Housing Supply and Affordability Council is telling us. There's a real issue.

During the contributions made by those opposite, they failed to refer to the positive policies the coalition took to the last election which would have made a real difference in relation to housing supply. I want to refer to some of those policies to correct the record in this place. I think one of the best policies the coalition took to the last election was to provide a $5 billion fund for road, sewerage and power works—infrastructure works—that could be applied by state and local governments to open up new land for development and to provide the infrastructure for new land to be opened up.

There was also a very good policy, in my view, with respect to processing environmental approvals under the EPBC Act. My office is in a beautiful place called Springfield in what's called the south-west corridor in Queensland, which is one of the fastest-growing areas of Queensland. There are thousands of lots which could be built on tomorrow and which are stuck in the EPBC Act process in Canberra. Some of these thousands of lots have been stuck in that process for up to five years. It is madness.

I assisted one owner of a property—I won't provide their details to protect their confidentiality—who wanted to build a childcare centre, which the area was also desperately in need of, and the rigmarole that they had to go through in terms of dealing with the EPBC Act was extraordinary. It made absolutely no sense at all; on any objective rational basis, it made no sense. It was a question of the bureaucracy simply saying no and being obstructionist until, after numerous representations, a pathway was found. The system has got to work better than that. It's just ridiculous. Thousands of lots which could have been built upon are still going through an EPBC Act process—absolutely absurd. So the coalition was right to take a policy to the last election with respect to that.

I commend Senator Bragg on this disallowance motion. I think the dream of the vast majority of Australians is to own their own house or apartment; it is not to be renters for life. You have the most control over your future destiny by being an owner of a place where you live. Owning your own house, owning your own apartment—I think that is the Australian dream, and it should be a realisable dream. Every single Australian family should have the opportunity to own their own house or apartment. I don't want us to pass policy which contributes to this notion that we're going to become a nation of renters; I think it will be extraordinarily unfortunate if that is the Australia we become.

In relation to the mechanics of the relevant regulation, I'll give you my definitive legal advice with respect to the regulation and the details. It's extraordinarily complicated. It's a maze of requirements you need to go through in relation to meeting the build-to-rent development determination. For a start, in order for something to be an affordable dwelling:

… the rent payable under a lease for the dwelling must be 74.9% or less of the market value of the right to occupy the dwelling under the lease

Just think about that. We're saying that, for something to be an affordable dwelling in a build-to-rent development, the rent payable has to be less than 75 per cent of what the market is saying the rent should be. How's that going to work? And the landlord needs to go out and test the market in terms of demonstrating that a comparable property in the same area would have a rent which is at least 25 per cent more than what the build-to-rent affordable dwelling is to have.

Then we've got income thresholds for those who are renting. If a tenant is a single adult, the income threshold is 120 per cent of average annual earnings, which I find curious. I'm not sure what the policy reasoning is behind that threshold but I find it a bit curious, if we're talking about affordable housing, that the income threshold for a single adult is 120 per cent of average annual earnings. I'm not sure why that's the case. I would have thought that, if you're providing affordable housing, your target market should be those who aren't earning over average annual earnings; that's my thought, anyway. If the tenants include two or more adults but no dependent children, then it can be 130 per cent of average annual earnings. I would have thought that what you're trying to achieve is providing dwellings for people earning less than annual earnings, so I'm not sure why the thresholds are at that rate. Then you need to test the annual earnings of your tenants on the basis of certain events which occur; you've got to do that after each assessing event, and then there is a list of assessing events. So this is complicated. And there are situations where the owner of these developments can go get a tax ruling. There's got to be monitoring and supervision of this. There will have to be auditing et cetera. Wouldn't it just be simpler to come up with policy parameters and settings which incentivise builders to go and build dwellings? Wouldn't that be simpler than coming up with this complicated scheme, which is giving tax benefits to offshore investors? It's quite extraordinary. And this will just be a tangle of red tape which will add to development costs every step of the way.

It'll be very interesting to see how this works in practice. But, on the face of it, I find it difficult to understand what the incentive would be for someone to build a dwelling—for an investment manager who's investing the funds of someone they owe fiduciary duties to with respect to how their funds are invested. I find it difficult to see how it can be in the best interests of investors to build dwellings for which they can only charge less than 75 per cent of the market rate. How do you justify that? If I was investing in a fund and someone was saying, 'I'm going to build a dwelling but charge less than 75 per cent of the market rate,' my question would be: 'Well, why am I investing in your fund? Why don't I go invest in a fund that charges the market rate?' So I'm not really sure how this is going to work in practice, and I'm not sure how withholding tax dispensation actually provides the motivation for people to do this. But it is a tangle of red tape. There's no question about that. And I really do question whether or not this will work the way it's intended to in practice.

That's why I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to support Senator Bragg's disallowance motion. I would like to take this opportunity, Acting Deputy President—and I'm sure you would agree with me—to commend Senator Bragg with respect to his advocacy in relation to housing issues. He has been a champion of the Australian dream. You dream of every single Australian owning their own home.

The question is that the disallowance motion moved by Senator Bragg on the Tax Assessment (Build to Rent Developments) Determination 2024 be agreed to. A division is required. It being after 6.30 pm, we will defer that vote until the next date of sitting.

Debate adjourned.

It's my pleasure to rise and speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill 2025. I do join with my colleagues in raising serious concerns about this bill. In doing so, I just want to commend the excellent dissenting report handed down by coalition senators Kovacic and Sharma in the bill inquiry by the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee. The coalition supports penalty and overtime rates; that is not in question in any respect. But, on this side of the chamber, we are concerned about the long-term impact of this bill on employee choice, flexibility, business viability—particularly the viability of many small and family businesses—as well as national productivity.

As this excellent dissenting report makes clear, this bill hits small businesses extremely hard. It risks retrospective application. It does give rise to all sorts of uncertainty. It impacts on employee choice. And it also imposes a risk to work-from-home arrangements.

From my perspective, the biggest concern with this bill is the risk to small and family businesses. Small businesses are being hit with new compliance burdens almost every month under the Albanese government. Evidence shows that owners spent 15 hours a week on compliance, which is time taken away from running their businesses. The very big difference between a small business and a large corporation is that small operators cannot absorb the extra costs of meeting regulatory burdens. Of course, that does lead to real pressures on so many small businesses and business quotas. At a time in our country when so many families and so many small businesses are under pressure, they do not need anything to make their job more difficult. I really don't think the government cares very much about small business. If it did care about small business, there is a very good case for an amendment to exclude small business, which will be put forward in this debate to be agreed to by the Senate.

I do want to make this very important point. The Fair Work Commission already has adequate powers to safeguard penalty rates through the better off overall test. This bill is a solution looking for a problem. The bill has arisen as a result of the retail industry wanting to pay their workers 35 per cent more. Labor has introduced this bill to kneecap this attempt to pay workers more, because it would undermine the influence and power of the unions. So here we have a sector in our economy wanting to reward workers, and the government—because, as we know, every Labor senator in this place is a representative of the union—come in here and they undertake and fulfil their union business and agenda. But, of course, the unions don't care about small business. This government doesn't care about small business. This bill is further evidence of this. The bill would enable unions to bring applications to vary existing awards, placing an unfair burden on employers trying to maintain stability for their businesses and their employees. This adds considerable red tape to small business, which already faces 35 major Fair Work Act changes under Labor, 34 of which disproportionately affect small business.

The other really important point I would make is that, by constraining the commission, the bill undermines independents and risks unintended consequences in award variation. As coalition senators Sharma and Kovacic have so competently reiterated in their dissenting report, this bill could operate retrospectively. The committee in its majority report denied that, but the evidence to that effect was absolutely clear. Of course, this creates a greater burden for businesses, particularly small businesses, and greater uncertainty for them. It exposes employers to union-driven variations of existing awards.

As I said, this bill poses a particular concern for small business. One of the amendments that's been put forward is that small businesses should be exempt from the bill's operation. If Labor cared about small business, it would agree to this amendment.

COSBOA is one of the key stakeholder groups which has warned that this bill will discourage employment and drag down productivity. The minister, in fact, has no idea how many small businesses will be impacted by this bill. What we really need from this government is a clear, focused plan to address the needs of small business in the economy. We need policies that make it easier for businesses to expand, hire young Australians and provide opportunities for them to get a foothold in the workforce.

I have to say, as a Victorian senator, that the situation is particularly dire in Victoria everywhere I go because of the regressive policies of the Allan Labor government in Victoria and the massive debt and deficit at a state level, combined with the massive debt and deficit of this government. Businesses are saying, 'We don't want to trade anymore in Victoria.' Businesses are actually saying, 'We are looking to go to other states.' I know of multiple businesses which either have packed up shop or are planning to move interstate because they do not get a fair go in Victoria.

Small businesses make up 97 per cent of all Australian businesses, employing millions of Australians and driving innovation, diversity and resilience across every community. They embody the liberal value of enterprise where hard work, risk-taking and initiative are rewarded with success and opportunity. Small businesses are not just economic units; they are often family owned and community based businesses supporting local jobs and community organisations. However, under this government, small businesses face record insolvencies, higher compliance obligations and rising operational costs. Unlike those opposite, we will always back small businesses, not burden them, so they can create jobs, build prosperity and keep communities strong. That is exactly what we are trying to do with this amendment. I don't have a high degree of confidence, but Labor can try and restore the faith of small business by supporting this amendment.

The bill also removes choice for workers who may prefer higher base salaries, stability in income or flexible arrangements over fluctuating penalty rates. The bill could limit work-from-home flexibility, with employers first forced into intrusive monitoring to meet recordkeeping rules. Many workers prefer the stability of a higher, more consistent base salary. This helps with budgeting, growing superannuation, borrowing capacity and avoiding income volatility. Women, in particular, highlighted problems where fluctuating penalty earnings make Centrelink and child support estimates very unreliable.

Employers should have the freedom to choose pay structures which best suit their circumstances. By forcing a one-size-fits-all framework, the bill locks employees out of arrangements which might better support them. Even if the majority of employees want a particular arrangement, the commission—and this is particularly egregious—is prevented from approving it if any hypothetical worker might at some point be worse off. This denies employees the ability to strike a balance between financial security and workplace flexibility, and this goes to the heart of denying employees proper choice in the workplace. It also undermines debates on remote work and flexible hours—issues that matter deeply to today's modern workforce. Instead of empowering employees, the bill strips them of genuine choice. True reform should expand workplace options. True reform should drive the will to invest. True reform should excite young small businesses to grow and to hire more employees, not hamper their growth, not hamper investment and, in many cases, not shut them down. Of course we've heard a lot about productivity in the last few weeks. The productivity roundtable was nothing more than a cover, after Labor spent three years telling Australians that there was nothing wrong with the economy—everything was going just fine. We got through the election. Now the government, at least the Treasurer, is admitting that reform is required, and much more needs to be done to address rapidly declining productivity, rapidly skyrocketing costs of doing business and a very depressed investment framework for so many businesses.

Australia and Australian businesses need policies which boost output not entrench, rigid one-size-fits-all arrangements. Business groups warned that the bill would make rostering more rigid and complex, diverting resources into compliance instead of productive work, and that existing above award arrangements that deliver higher pay and stability could be invalidated, leaving some workers worse off. Again, that goes to the lack of flexibility in employee choice. We know, in the climate where Australia's productivity has gone backwards under Labor in just three years, it has fallen by more than five per cent. This is the last thing that so many businesses need.

Since the coalition left office, living standards have plummeted by around six per cent. Australians are working harder, but they are getting less in return. The government needs to understand that it's not the government that creates jobs; it's businesses—large, medium, small and family businesses. In this depressed climate that we are currently in, where our economy is whimpering along, businesses need every possible opportunity and encouragement to invest. As I say, in Victoria, so many businesses are struggling just to keep the doors open, while looking further afield to states like South Australia and New South Wales where they see a much more investment friendly climate.

This is a disappointing bill before this parliament. As the Senate committee inquiry heard, this government did not want to have confirmed the Fair Work Commissioner has both the power and proven track record to safeguard penalty and overtime rates.

The important point to also make is that the 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. The Fair Work Act is several thousand pages. It is an enormous burden particularly on small businesses. This is going to make things so much tougher, and, frankly, small and family businesses deserve better.

I'd like to thank senators for their contributions to the debate on the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill 2025. This bill is a clear, simple and practical amendment to protect penalty and overtime rates as fundamental entitlements relied on by millions of award reliant Australian workers.

The Albanese government is committed to delivering workplace relations reforms with a clear goal insight: to get wages moving for Australian workers. We've heard strong support for this bill and the fundamental importance of penalty and overtime rates for employees, particularly from some of the lowest-paid workers in our country—those who keep Australia running on weekends, public holidays, early mornings and late nights.

We prioritised this bill as one of the first legislative acts of this government because we will always act to protect the pay and conditions of Australian workers. Currently, penalty and overtime rates in modern awards can be rolled up into a single rate of pay, leaving some employees worse off. And, in fact, we're actually seeing attempts by some employer groups to do that at this very moment in time, particularly in the retail, banking and clerical industries. This should not be possible to do. Award reliant employees, who rely on their penalty and overtime rates deserve steadfast protection of those entitlements in the minimum safety net.

This bill introduces a new principle into the Fair Work Act to protect penalty and overtime rates in modern awards. It specifically ensures that these rates cannot be reduced or substituted in ways that do not fairly compensate employees for the penalty and overtime rates that they would otherwise receive. This bill enshrines protections for penalty and overtime rates in modern awards while not affecting individual flexibility arrangements, the bargaining framework or the Fair Work Commission's ability to correct errors or clarify award terms.

This amendment sets out the important principle that penalty and overtime rates cannot be reduced. It does this by adding a new section to the Fair Work Act which says that, when exercising its powers, the Fair Work Commission must ensure that, firstly, the specified penalty rate or overtime rate in modern awards is not reduced and, secondly, modern awards do not include terms that allow employers to roll up penalty or overtime rates into a single pay rate that does not fairly compensate employees for the penalty and overtime rates they would otherwise receive. This bill introduces a simple amendment to ensure that penalty and overtime rates in the modern awards safety net are protected.

I'd like to thank the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee for their report on the bill. I know that recommendation 1—the only recommendation of the committee—is that the bill be passed. The committee process provided stakeholders with an opportunity to share their views publicly and it clearly demonstrated the importance of the bill and the strong support it has received.

I thank the Australian Greens for the support of the chair's report, the intent of the bill and the recommendation from the committee to pass the legislation. I note the Australian Greens' additional recommendation 1, which was that the Australian government consider amending regulation 3.34 of the Fair Work Regulations 2009 to make it an explicit requirement of employers to keep time and wage records, even if exemption rates or an equivalent is in effect. The government's view is that an amendment of this nature is not necessary. The new principle requires the commission to ensure that any rolled-up pay arrangement must fairly compensate employees for the penalty and overtime rates they would otherwise receive. It will be a matter for the independent commission to satisfy itself that this new standard is met.

In contemporary considerations of terms that substitute penalty and overtime rates, the commission has required recordkeeping as a means of assessing whether an employee is left worse off. Annualised wage arrangements, for example, contain a recordkeeping requirement to ensure an employee receives their full entitlements for their actual hours worked. If an employer does not meet their recordkeeping obligations under the Fair Work Act or applicable modern-award term, the Fair Work Ombudsman is there to take enforcement action.

In relation to the coalition's dissenting recommendations, recommendation 1 from the coalition mentioned that the Australian government should be required to prepare a comprehensive regulatory impact statement assessing the costs, benefits and productivity effects of the bill before its passage. Let me be clear—the government is firmly committed to evidence based policy development and decision-making. This reform, as is the case with all reforms, was assessed to determine the appropriate level of impact analysis required. The Office of Impact Analysis determined that an impact analysis was not required for this reform, because it does not impose new obligations on employers, nor does it introduce any new regulation or processes for them to comply with. It's actually about sticking with things as they currently stand rather than imposing new obligations.

To address concerns about the bill's impact on productivity, it has never been and never will be the solution—at least for this government—to make workers do more for less. This government is committed to improving productivity and enhancing economic resilience, but we do not accept that sending hardworking award-covered workers backwards through reductions to their penalty and overtime rates is the way to do this. The path to achieving flexibility and productivity gains can be found in cooperative and good-faith enterprise bargaining rather than by undermining award entitlements.

Our bargaining reforms increased access for workers and employers, including small business, to negotiate agreements with their employees and unions. This includes greater access to multi-employer bargaining, reducing the cost and effort of the bargaining, and changes to improve clarity and certainty for agreement approval. We're now seeing record enterprise agreement coverage with significantly improved wages outcomes for workers. A number of points have been made about the role of the Fair Work Commission. We respect the commission's role as the independent industrial tribunal. 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 or uncertainty or to correct an error in a modern award. We've listened to concerns raised following its introduction that this bill could require the commission to review all modern awards for compliance with the new principle or to review penalty and overtime rates even beyond the scope of a specific application. This has never been the intent of this bill. We are confident the bill as introduced would not have operated in this way; however, this government is committed to genuine consultation, including with employer representatives and unions, and we amended the bill in the House for the avoidance of doubt and to further provide certainty to stakeholders. The bill is unequivocally clear. It will not require the commission to undertake a review of all modern awards, initiate a review of any award terms outside the scope of an application before the commission or exercise its powers under parts 2 to 3 of the Fair Work Act to make, vary or revoke modern awards.

In conclusion, for many award-reliant employees, penalty and overtime rates are a critical part of their take-home pay. As we know, it's low-paid workers, women and young people—as well as those working in retail and hospitality, who often work unsociable and irregular hours—who are more likely to be reliant on awards. This bill is about fairness. It's about respecting the millions of Australians who work public holidays, weekends, late nights and early mornings. If you get your penalty rates, you deserve them. This bill is about making sure the safety net does what it's meant to do—protect those who need it most. On that basis, I commend the bill to the Senate.

The question before the chair is that the second reading amendment that was moved by Senator Kovacic be agreed to. It being after 6.30, we'll have to defer this division until the next day of sitting.

I rise to speak on the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 and the Aged Care (Accommodation Payment Security) Levy Amendment Bill 2025, which are integral in delivering the Aged Care Act 2024. Hence, they are absolutely essential to delivering the recommendations of the aged care royal commission, which was instituted under the former coalition government.

We will not be standing in the way of the passage of these bills, but—let me be very clear—the Aged Care Act 2024 was a package of reforms of the Labor Party's making. It was not an act co-designed alongside the coalition. That's why it is of no surprise that, in the first week of the 48th Parliament, this government has introduced this bill, in particular to amend 325 items of the Aged Care Act 2024 that they pushed through this parliament, refusing to pass any sensible amendments put forward by anybody in this chamber. Many of those could have been rectified during the debate on the Aged Care Act had the government listened to the sector and to the people in this chamber. The coalition always knew a reform of this size could not be implemented in just a matter of months. That's why, during the debate on the Aged Care Act, the coalition moved amendments to ensure that the Home Care Packages Program in particular could exist on a transitional basis without the need to amend the Aged Care Act or to delay its enactment.

This amendment mitigated the risk of department and sector readiness by creating transitional provisions to ensure the Aged Care Act 2024 could come into effect on 1 July 2025, as the government had been promising, and by ensuring that the new Support at Home program, with the promised additional 83,000 home-care packages, could commence on 1 July 2025. But those opposite voted against it, and now, as a result of their failure to actually listen to sensible reforms—to provide the flexibility to implement the reform—older Australians have been denied their rights for many more months. And they've been denied the care that they've been assessed as needing by this government. That's because of their failure to be prepared and put the transitional provision in place—

Debate interrupted.

Western Australia has long been the engine room of Australia's economy. Our iron ore industry not only built our economy; it has underpinned our nation's export strength for decades. Last year alone WA mined more than 860 million tonnes of iron ore, and behind every tonne are thousands of workers—miners, train drivers, engineers, maintenance crews, port operators, contractors and many more. Many of them are union memberless whose labour has built our nation's prosperity. Behind them are families and communities in Karratha, Port Hedland, Newman, Tom Price, Paraburdoo and Onslow that depend on the stability of this industry.

But, as the world moves to net zero, the way we make and use steel must change. That is why green iron is a great opportunity for our nation. It's an opportunity that will safeguard our economy, create secure jobs and help us cut our emissions. It's an opportunity to create a new multibillion-dollar manufacturing industry. If we stand still, we risk our largest export industry being left behind. That would mean fewer jobs, a much harder path to net zero and, frankly, a weaker economy.

My union, the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union, has been clear about what is at stake and what is possible. The AMWU has been clear about how we can do this right, guaranteeing secure union jobs and strong collective bargaining, with all green iron projects receiving the support they need for enterprise agreements and unions along the journey from day one, to ensure decent wages, safe workplaces and secure conditions. There is investment in TAFE and clean energy training, particularly in the Pilbara in hubs like Karratha and Port Hedland so that locals, apprentices and young workers have the pathways they need into the jobs of the future.

There is consultation with First Nations communities, with genuine co-ownership stakes and agreements for projects built on their land. There are commitments for local housing, child care, health and community services, so that the growth in these towns doesn't repeat the housing crises of the past. There's support for onshore processing and green steelmaking so we're not just exporting green iron but building domestic manufacturing jobs in WA and across the country.

That's why the Albanese Labor government is investing a billion dollars through the Green Iron Investment Fund to help set up new facilities and supply chains. This is a priority for our government under the Future Made in Australia plan. Our government is committed to working with industry, unions and communities to see this future come to reality. Labor will always be the party of the worker and the only party that has taken real action to work in partnership with industry, workers and community for a transition. When those opposite would rather us ship the jobs out, Labor is doing the work that we need to build the industries for the future right here under our Future Made in Australia plan. WA has always built the industries that power our nation, and we can do it again.

Back in 1990, the media landscape was quite different. The only media channels which existed then were mainstream television, radio and newspapers. Control of the narrative was limited to a few select outlets, meaning it was easy to control. The connections between the security state, the intelligence community and the media are well established; look no further than Operation Mockingbird in the US in the early years of the Cold War. Do you think it's just in the US? Rest assured that the mainstream media all over the world is replete with friends of the corporate sector, the Five Eyes intelligence sharing network, between Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK and USA, and the administrative state. In the USA, this has been called 'the blob'. The mid-nineties brought about the mass market adoption of the internet, which spread across the globe, and the blob championed this new tech with the establishment, lauding the information superhighway with its potential to boost education and spread free speech. It's hard to imagine that anyone predicted the enormous shift in the media landscape, though, as smartphones and social media allowed the rise of independent media returning real journalism to our screens.

Before long, people started to switch off the mainstream media, and, today, people like me have begun to understand that what we get from these outlets, basically, is bread and circuses at best and outright propaganda at worst. I have to say that I barely bother with a single word written in mainstream newspapers and never switch on the radio or the TV, because now you can get your news from people who are free from the corporate media landscape. This has dented the control the blob once had over your life. Twitter's internal files, released between March 2022 and December 2023 in the United States, showed the cosy link between the US intelligence services, big tech and government. And US journalist Michael Shellenberger described what he found as the 'censorship industrial complex'. They were creating blacklists and pressuring social media platforms to sensor, deamplify and even outright ban people from free speech.

That only happened in the United States, right? It wouldn't be happening in Australia, would it? Well, think again. The Department of Home Affairs here in Australia got caught red-handed dobbing in Aussies to big tech during COVID. The effect of the new media has been quite devastating for the blob, who swung into full censorship mode to shut down inconvenient political narratives. They've infiltrated everywhere across the country, including this building, and they're pouring their ideas into our legislative chambers by presenting arguments which are all about safety online for children and hate speech. But the truth is it's all about censorship, control and returning the media landscape to the digital form it was in back in 1990. By year's end, it won't just be social media platforms asking to verify your age. Age verification requirements will also extend to search engine accounts, and age verification will be proven to be basically a vector for identity verification.

Last year, I opposed the government's hate speech laws and the under-16 social media ban for these and other reasons. The mainstream media is cheering these laws on. They don't care about your children; what they care about is their market share. By the way, how come the same censorship dragnet is being played out across the Western world at exactly the same time? How come the intelligence communities in the US, Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand all use the exact same language of disinformation and hate speech and demand legislation for governments to curb real-world harm online—I suppose that's just a coincidence.

National leaders, representatives of international organisations and philanthropists have expressed their commitment to fostering free speech and open societies, but, sadly, their actions tell a very different story. Five Eyes intel gives Australia high-level intel capabilities, but does the alliance's secrecy and US-centric focus expose us to external pressures? Who checks on this unchecked surveillance and what's the real agenda? The blob's leaders, frankly, are driven by the fear that the internet and social media platforms empower populist alternative views, which they regard as unhelpful.

Tonight I bring to attention an issue that is being raised loudly by the Western Australian community. The health and longevity of our environment cannot be sacrificed to a further mining development. Many in the community hold a deep appreciation for WA's beautiful jarrah forests. What many don't know is that a US based mining corporation, Alcoa, has been clearing WA's jarrah forests for 60 years. If this wasn't bad enough, this corporation is now wanting to clear an additional 11,408 hectares of our jarrah forests. Alcoa's proposed expansion could impact over 100,000 potential nesting trees for black cockatoos and clear critical quokka habitat. Cockatoo nesting trees can take hundreds of years to develop, but Alcoa wants to clear them away with one devastating sweep.

This project not only puts our vulnerable wildlife at risk but, for the 2.4 million residents in Perth, there is a high risk of contamination to our water supply. If the Serpentine Pipehead Dam is contaminated by these operations, over 100,000 Perth households could be consuming contaminated water within hours. These kinds of hard lines are precisely those which must not be crossed under any circumstances. Our community will not take this lying down. Thousands of people have called on the government to hold Alcoa to account, and I want to thank everyone who submitted to the WA EPA in opposition to the expansion of Alcoa's mine. The Greens, including my Greens WA colleagues, are with you and will passionately campaign alongside you in opposition to this. I want to highlight the incredible engagement, advocacy and dedication of tens of thousands of people in WA and across Australia who are pushing back against these destructive environmental projects. Thank you to everyone who recently made a submission to the EPA regarding Alcoa's expansion. Thank you to organisations like the WA Forest Alliance and other environmental campaigners who have organised across the state of WA to ensure that people's voices are heard.

We know that WA has a deep history of mining companies coming into its regional areas and leaving when the money has been made. Mining developers like Alcoa have a poor track record of environmental clean-up and rehabilitation. Indeed, according to the WA department, Alcoa has failed to meet its very own rehabilitation targets for over 27,000 hectares of native vegetation already. Australia's lands and oceans are being mined, trawled and exploited for corporate profit, with little given to our communities. We have over 5.7 million tonnes of material in our oceans from the gas and oil infrastructure that is the product of these industries. It is equivalent to 110 Sydney harbour bridges worth of steel. All of this material is in our oceans because of these polluting industries, and this is an opportunity to create a truly circular economy by salvaging this material and making it new again.

The recently released WA can't wait report paved a clear way forward to resolving these issues. Labor must act.

Last week I stood in a tiny town, Marnoo—population 99—in the heart of the Mallee. I stood with Anne Webster, their local federal MP, with local councillors and with hundreds of farmers and their families who are standing up for their future. They'd asked me to bring their fight here to the Australian Senate to make sure, particularly, the Labor Party and the Greens understand the impact of this reckless race to 100 per cent renewables. It is an absolute case of out of sight, out of mind when it comes to Chris Bowen's and, indeed, Premier Jacinta Allan's energy policies, and it is rural and regional communities who are paying the price through the desecration of our land, our livelihoods and our very communities. Similar protests are happening not just across the Wimmera Mallee but right across regional Australia, because government is now pushing this project onto these communities. That day we burnt the draft plans for the VNI West project—a 500 kV double-circuit transmission line running approximately 240 kilometres across Victoria then north into New South Wales to link with the EnergyConnect project. The Victorian section alone will likely need around 600 transmission towers, every single one as tall as the Parliament House flag mast above us, at 80 metres.

And the cost? AEMO's own figures show it has blown out from $3.9 billion, with some estimates now hitting $11.4 billion. Net zero does not mean net zero costs. That's been the hoax from the start. Someone has to pay, and it turns out it's rural and regional communities.

This community in Marnoo were very, very clear last week that they will be locking their gates. They are prepared to go to jail against a government that is determined to override their private property rights and determined to enter their farms without permission, with the inherent biosecurity risk. This project has not only caused economic harm, with property values plummeting on intergenerational assets, and harm to food security and food production. It also has environmental and social costs, with families torn apart as a result.

This Victorian Labor government has form. It's the same government that sent police into people's homes during COVID, that locked up citizens without a second thought and that now gives itself new powers to force entry onto private land and silence objections from farmers whose livelihoods are at stake. It's a government with the worst instincts of authoritarianism and zero care for its citizens when it wants its own way.

Net zero is just a marker in time—a date on a calendar. It measures neither the path taken, nor the fairness, reliability or affordability of the transition. And, remember, this is a 95 per cent renewables target by 2035. They're in a hurry, and that is to appease urban voters in the middle of Melbourne who don't have to put up with the social, economic and environmental costs that this project brings.

Right now, we're intent on creating two classes of citizens in Australia: those who advocate for and benefit from the national emissions reduction effort and those in the regions who are paying the price through falling property values, loss of amenity and, in some cases, the broken bonds of their communities and families. If we want to keep faith with the people who actually feed this nation, then before those first 600 towers start going up the Victorian government needs to stop this project and go back to the drawing board. The National Party stands with those farmers and their families in Marnoo, just like we stand with every single rural and regional community that is putting up with Labor's rush to renewables.

At Senate estimates earlier this year, I asked for a breakdown of gifts from Salesforce to NDIA officials, with as many as a hundred going undisclosed, contrary to the NDIA's own finance policies. I want to start by thanking the minister for responding so quickly to the order to produce documents made in the last sitting fortnight. I also acknowledge the interference of the election, ministerial changes and the NDIA machinery-of-government change that no doubt complicated the process. However, it should not take six months, plus a warning from me that I would seek an explanation from the minister after question time, for the minister's office to finally deliver answers. And even then, with just nine minutes left of question time, they scramble to drop a flimsy, inadequate response to what was a serious and extensive line of questions. That is not good enough.

The documents tabled were quite revealing as to the scale of Salesforce's wining and dining of NDIA officials. The document referred to as confidential annexure E paints a particularly concerning picture, and it is no wonder that Salesforce requested, in a letter to a Chair of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, that the document should be kept confidential and not published. The annexure shows 23 NDIA officials accepting gifts and hospitality worth over $15,000 between 2019 and 2023. One senior executive service labour hire employee alone racked up more than $9,000 in hospitality before quietly leaving the agency.

Let's go through a few of these gifts for the benefit of the Senate and the public out there, who deserve transparency. I note that I will be referring to the total cost of the gift rather than the value per NDIA attendee, as is listed in the document. Some of the gifts are as follows: 7 June 2019, golf and lunch at Kingston Heath Golf Club, valued at $172; 18 June 2020, lunch at Cicciolina and taxi, $231; 19 January 2022, dinner at Matilda and taxi, $357; 13 December 2021, lunch at Supernormal, $494; 3 December 2020, dinner at Vue de monde and taxi, $531; 26 May 2021, dinner at Tonka, $646; and, finally, 18 January 2023, dinner at French Brasserie and taxi, $1,170. There are 111 more entries on that list, so you can imagine that the relationship between the NDIA and Salesforce during this period was quite friendly. During the same period, Salesforce's contracts with the NDIA ballooned by 500 per cent, from $27 million in April 2020 to $135 million in October 2023.

This matter has rightly been referred to the National Anti-Corruption Commission, so I won't ask the government to speculate on individual culpability. But what the government must confront is how they will address the culture of flouting disclosure requirements within the NDIA. They need to ensure our integrity framework is effective in not just rooting out corruption but also acting as a deterrent. In July, when the NACC chose not to name the senior Home Affairs official found to have corruptly promoted her sister's fiance, what message did that send? That you won't be held accountable even if you get caught doing the wrong thing. If findings of corruption are made, particularly against the SES official who accepted nearly two-thirds of Salesforce's gifts by value, then those names must be published. It needs to be set as an example—that, if you betray the trust of the Australian people, you will pay a heavy price, because at the end of the day it's in the name, Public Service. You're not there to play rounds of golf and you're not there to gourmandise thousand-dollar dinners; you are there to serve the Australian public. If you can't remember that, you have no place in the service of our nation.

I rise tonight to pay my respects to a remarkable Tasmanian, the Hon. Sir Guy Green AC KBE CVO, a distinguished statesman who lived a life of service and commitment to Tasmania. Sir Guy, who passed away earlier this month at the age of 87, lead a life of exceptional service which was driven by his deep passion and love for our island state home. Throughout his many roles in arts, law, education and governance he will be remembered as a passionate and determined leader who had a great sense of humour and love for his community. One of his most notable positions was as Tasmania's 47th governor, a role that he held between 1995 and 2003. Significantly, he was the first Tasmanian-born person to hold this prestigious role. As Governor, Sir Guy will be remembered for his dedication and devotion to Tasmania, often going above and beyond his duties.

Sir Guy was born in Launceston in 1937 and attended Launceston Church Grammar School. He graduated with a Bachelor of Law from the University of Tasmania's Hobart campus in 1960. After a career in private practice, Sir Guy served as a magistrate from 1971 and was appointed Tasmania's Chief Justice in 1973. As Chief Justice he pioneered modern judicial processes and presided over important cases while upholding the integrity of the law. Tasmanian Liberal premier Jeremy Rockliff remembered Sir Guy Green as an exceptional statesman and true leader with a passion for Tasmania, summarised with this tribute:

Sir Guy's life reminds us that true leadership is measured by purpose and service. Tasmania is richer for his contributions, and he will be remembered with deep respect and gratitude.

Sir Guy was heavily involved in the community, including his 10-year tenure as Chancellor of the University of Tasmania between 1985 and 1995. During this time he navigated a difficult period in the history of the university, when the southern based UTAS amalgamated with the northern Tasmanian State Institute of Technology. He was closely involved with the amalgamation process, helping to draft the enabling legislation, which invented the new University of Tasmania. His leadership guided the university during a tumultuous time, transforming UTAS into the institution it is today and assisting many Tasmanian, national and international students to get the modern tertiary qualifications they require to enter the workforce in an ever-changing world.

In recognition of his outstanding career, Sir Guy was made a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire in 1982. He was appointed a Companion of the Order of Australia in 1994, made a Companion of the Royal Victorian Order during Queen Elizabeth II's visit to Tasmania in 2000 and awarded the Centenary Medal in 2001. Sir Guy had an eminent career deserving of this recognition.

Even after his formal retirement, Sir Guy's commitment to his community continued as he served on several boards, particularly around his interest in arts and cultural institutions, including those of the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, or TMAG, and the Ten Days on the Island event. The depth of his engagement and commitment is evidenced by the length of tenure with each. For example, he served as chair of the TMAG board for over 11 years, and during this time he oversaw significant projects at TMAG, including the redevelopment of the Hobart city site and the creation of the collection and research facility, as well as many important acquisitions and bequests.

Interestingly, the many tributes published noting his passing also highlighted the personal side to Sir Guy. Reflections of his wicked sense of humour, profound intellect and deep commitment to Tasmania highlighted how he will be remembered most by his family, friends and former colleagues. Sir Guy was a complex and passionate individual whose legacy will be felt in Tasmania for decades. I extend my condolences to Lady Green and Sir Guy's family and thank them for their part in Sir Guy's journey of service to all Tasmanians.

Productivity and AI—they're words everyone in this place is obsessed with, but no-one seems to know exactly what they mean by them. Maybe it's 'the vibe' or something. Well, let me tell you what I think they mean. When this government talks about productivity, it means squeezing more output from fewer people. When they talk about AI, they mean replacing human workers with machines that don't need inconvenient things like wages, sick leave or human dignity. Even if the government doesn't think that's what they mean, the corporations flogging AI certainly do. 'Clankers' are being rolled out across our country with virtually no oversight, and it's telling that our youngest generation has already given AI this new slur. Generation alpha can smell the false promise of technology that won't actually benefit them but will likely impoverish their lives and devastate the planet they'll inherit.

The Prime Minister promises this will make us a productivity powerhouse. Well, I call bull on that. It's 'workhouse', more like, and the lesson of the last decades is clear: we need more humanity, not less. When robots decide entitlements, people die under robodebt. We need to stop just asking billionaires, 'Please be nice to us,' with their rapacious, extractive technology. The choice is clear: we can have technology that serves humanity or humanity that serves technology. We must act now before the clankers have become so embedded that we lose control of our own destiny. The future of work, creativity and human dignity hangs in the balance.

Ayman, a proud Palestinian Australian, reached out to tell me this today about his family in Gaza:

My family, my father, my siblings, my cousins, who live in Gaza City, in one of the old neighbourhoods in Palestine, are facing two choices: to be killed or displaced.

We have seen Israeli tanks, 15 minutes from my family.

There has been total destruction of the northern neighbourhoods in Gaza City. People have been witnessing unimaginable bombings.

The families, the people, have been pushed to the heart of Gaza City.

That is where my family is. Now I have heard from my cousin in Gaza City, that random missiles and tanks are just hitting constantly where all the people are.

The random bombing is just paving the way for the troops to occupy Gaza.

I want to say to the media and the Australian politicians, you are talking about the 2 million people in abstract.

But these are people I have hugged, eaten with, and laughed with. They are trying to survive, live through this unbelievable suffering.

Israeli troops are now asking people to be displaced again. Unlikely when they did this at the start of the genocide, they are doing this, starved, after witnessing loss and being displaced so many times.

Many are not able to walk, people stay home not just because of the bombs falling but to conserve their energy because there is no food.

We need to act now.

Yes, Ayman, we do. In fact, we needed sanctions against Israel yesterday.

While the genocide in Palestine has impacted all, I spoke to Christian Palestinians this week who have relayed some horrific information. The compound of St Porphyrius Greek Orthodox Church and the compound of the Holy Family Latin Church in Gaza City, which sit side by side, have become shelters for hundreds of women, children and the elderly. Like the rest of Gaza City's residents, the people who are sheltering within these walls are listening to the bombs drop around them and fighting off starvation. Members of the community told me that, today in Gaza, fewer than a thousand Christians remain in what was once a vibrant community. In their words:

Leaving Gaza City and trying to flee south would be nothing short of a death sentence for them. For this reason, the priests and sisters have decided to stay and continue caring for all those who remain inside the compounds.

We do not know exactly what will happen on the ground, not only to our faithful but to all residents. We can only repeat what we have said before: there can be no future built on captivity, displacement, or revenge against Palestinians.

Thank you for those words.

Israel's attack on the Christian community in Palestine is not just in Gaza. In Jerusalem they have frozen the bank accounts of the Greek Orthodox Church, crippling the church's ability to serve their community, while priests and nuns are assaulted and spat on. The wall around Bethlehem, the birthplace of Christ—and I've been there—has turned into an open-air prison. In the West Bank, Israeli settlers are attacking Christian villages like Taybeh, uprooting ancient olive trees and seeking to erase the Christian presence and more than 2,000 years of history.

Regardless of faith, regardless of age, regardless of history, Gaza has become a killing field and occupied Palestine has become a prison and a place of fear and displacement. This is the reality, and this is why the world is crying out to free Palestine and ensure equal rights for all.

It's a cliche to say that we all get here on the back of the hard work of others, but when it comes to civil construction it's literally true. Everyone who travelled here has a team of civil construction workers to thank for making it to Canberra in one piece. Yet when was the last time you thought about the people who built the road you're driving on or the airport your plane is landing at?

Last Friday evening I had the privilege of attending the Civil Contractors Federation Earth Awards in Tasmania. It was their night of nights—the one evening each year when over 2,000 civil construction workers swap their steel-cap boots for dress shoes and celebrate the best of the state's big builds. You could tell they'd been looking forward to it. The people in the room were representatives of businesses big and small all through the sector, all through the supply chain, and you'd be forgiven for thinking there'd be some tension. Supply a table of business rivals a night to cut loose and a bar tab, and you'd be forgiven for expecting some frostiness. But the vibe in the room didn't feel like competitors in a crowded field fighting for supremacy; it felt like a room of colleagues, with people happy just to not be at work and to get a chance to hang out and let their hair down.

Friday's ceremony was particularly moving because it honoured the late Ashley Cooper with a new award established in his name: Civil Apprentice or Trainee of the Year. On the night I heard one story remembering Ashley that I loved.

Back in his university days at Swinburne, the university noticed his grades slipping—and he was on scholarship with minimum grades to maintain. They brought him in for a 'please explain'. In he shuffles, tail between his legs. Where had he been, they asked. Uganda. Doing what, they asked. Building an orphanage. There aren't many people who could walk into a meeting about losing their scholarship and walk out with a second, even bigger scholarship, but that's exactly what Ash did.

It was beautiful to hear the way that Ash and his wife, Tarsh, together made such a massive contribution both professionally and personally to so many lives all over to world.

I heard about a man who had backed his abilities: project management, problem solving and building something from nothing and using it to genuinely changed the world. So I'm really excited to see what the inaugural winner of the Ashley Cooper Civil Apprentice or Trainee of the year, Lynette Richards—yep, a lovely woman—backs herself to deliver. No doubt she will do the honour proud.

The awards themselves showcased extraordinary achievement. Hazell Bros, a family owned Tasmanian company of over 80 years took home five awards. Their projects from the Blackman River Superstructure Replacement to the Devonport East QuayLink works demonstrate that local companies can deliver world-class infrastructure while employing hundreds of Tasmanians.

Tasmania's $786 million New Bridgewater Bridge has been short listed for the 2025 Australian Construction Achievement Award. This is the biggest transport infrastructure project in our state's history, and it's being delivered by Tasmanian workers for Tasmanian communities.

What struck me most at Friday's celebration wasn't just the scale of these projects but their impact. This industry doesn't just pour concrete and lay asphalt. It connects our communities, enables our businesses to compete globally and builds the platforms on which Tasmania's entire economy stands. As we consider Tasmania's future, the message from Friday night was clear: civil construction is more than the $2 billion a year it brings in or the over 2,000 people it employs directly. Civil construction's shaping what the next 30 years of Tasmania will look like.

I want to thank the Civil Contractors Federation for their invitation and congratulate all nominees and winners. After witnessing the skill, dedication and quiet excellence of this industry, I'm genuinely heartened to know Tasmania's future infrastructure is in such capable hands.

These are the Tasmanians who, without fanfare or recognition, are quite literally building our state's future. They deserve our respect, our investment and, at least once a year, our applause.

Earlier today the Australian public and the Australian parliament heard frankly alarming news about the hostile acts of a foreign power directed against Australia and Australian national interests. In comments by Director-General of Security Mike Burgess, he made clear that ASIO's formal assessment is that the Iranian government directed at least two, and quite possibly more—quite likely more—attacks on Jewish interests in Australia.

This has included the attack on Lewis' Continental Kitchen in part of Sydney that I know very well, in Bondi, and also the Adass synagogue in Melbourne. I cannot overstate the severity and the gravity of what has been unfolding here in Australia over these last several months, and I cannot overstate the severity and gravity of a foreign nation acting like this on Australian soil.

We have all been alarmed in Australia about the deterioration in social cohesion and social harmony. We have all been alarmed in Australia about the rise in antisemitism. We have all been alarmed in Australia about the increasing hostility turning into property damage and firebombing directed against a particular group of Australians. To now learn that a foreign power was orchestrating those, directing those and supporting those and doing all it could to fan the flames of social discord in Australia is a shocking discovery indeed.

I want to commend the work of our security officials, ASIO and others, for their painstaking investigation to uncover this. And I want to commend the government for the firm steps they have taken at least in the response to this initially. It is right and proper that the Iranian ambassador be expelled from Australia, declared persona non grata, sent packing and sent home. It is right and proper that the Iranian revolutionary guard corps, an arm of the Iranian regime and state, is added to our sanctions list and designated—and it is only prudent that Australian officials stationed at our embassy in Tehran are evacuated for their own safety.

But let's be very clear about the sort of government we are dealing with here—a regime, more properly—in Iran. Not only do they repress their own citizens at home, not only do they persecute minorities and women, not only do they execute gay people, and not only do they hound civil society to the point of extinction; this is also a regime in a country that has done a huge amount to destabilise the world, that has been responsible for exporting terror across its region and now we find as far away as Australia. This is a country, a regime, an ideology, that nurtured, created, funded and supported Hezbollah, the terrorist organisation that has basically rendered Lebanon in a state of failure, a state of chaos, for the past two decades. This is the same country that funded, supported, armed and trained the Houthis in Yemen, again, having now rendered Yemen an ungovernable state, threatening commercial shipping all across the Red Sea. It is the same group—the same country, rather—that funded, supported and egged on Hamas, including for Hamas's terrorist attacks on 7 October 2023, which have done such awful damage to the Middle East, which have unleashed unbelievable chaos and unbelievable suffering, including on the Palestinian people of Gaza. Iran's hands have been in all of this.

Now, we learn that Iran's tentacles have spread even as far as Australia. We have maintained diplomatic relations with Iran for several decades. No, we have not agreed on any number of things, but I thought we were at least bound to respect the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and other underpinnings of formal relations. To learn that Iran has perpetrated hostile acts on Australian soil, directed against the Australian people, directed against the Australian community, is shocking indeed.

I would say that I commend the government for the strong steps it has taken, but I think more needs to be done. I do believe the government should be orchestrating an international campaign of condemnation and making sure that the rest of the world knows that the Iranian regime is doing this. If they're doing it in Australia, you can bet they are trying to do it or perhaps are already doing it in places like Canada, in places like the United States, in countries like New Zealand, in countries like the United Kingdom and all across western Europe. Australia needs to make sure that this terrible regime is held to account for their aggression against our nation.

The New Zealand Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19 Lessons Learned invited several former ministers in New Zealand responsible for the damaging, inhuman and fatal COVID response. These were Jacinda Ardern, the former prime minister; Chris Hipkins, the former health and COVID-19 response minister and current Labour leader; Grant Robertson, the former finance minister; and Ayesha Verrall, the former health minister. All four refused to testify, instead choosing to provide the Hollywood version of their actions in writing, avoiding cross-examination. Jacinda Ardern went so far as to call the royal commission a witch-hunt. One Nation calls it accountability. To refuse to be held to account for their actions is a signed confession of wrongdoing. Australia and New Zealand reacted to COVID with measures designed to force mass vaccination at huge financial benefit to pharmaceutical companies. This money flowed through to shareholders who are the world's predatory billionaires. It's terrifying that this entire thing, from the development of the COVID virus to the COVID measures, including the vaccine injections, was one giant fundraiser for the world's wealthiest people. Yet that is the truth.

We know COVID itself is a man-made virus developed under Anthony Fauci with funding from the United States's NIH, National Institutes of Health, administered through Peter Daszak's EcoHealth Alliance. The research was conducted first in the USA and then moved to the Wuhan Institute of Virology from 2014, where it escaped in a lab leak in September 2019 before development was completed. Documents released through the FBI and others prove these facts. This is why the amazing United States secretary of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, announced the opening of a criminal investigation into Anthony Fauci and his cronies. I wonder if Ms Ardern considers that a witch hunt. The wheels of justice turn slowly, though they do turn. Ms Ardern can stare down a royal commission now, yet the truth is coming out.

It's important to note that in its 2020 press release Australia's own CSIRO confirmed it was involved in this gain-of-function research. Last February, a new paper was published through CSIRO Publishing entitled 'Impacts of long COVID on disability, function and quality of life for adults living in Australia'. It found that people with long COVID reported worse disability than 98 per cent—almost 100 per cent—of the general Australian population. A total of 86 per cent those with long COVID met the threshold for serious disability compared with nine per cent of Australians overall. Complex areas like housework and socialising were badly impacted. People could often meet basic needs, yet their ability to contribute to their homes, workplaces and communities was limited. Quality of life was badly affected. Energy levels and social life were the most impacted, reflecting how fatigue and brain fog affect activities, relationships and connections. It is without a hint of irony that the CSIRO published a study showing health damage resulting from the virus they helped create through their support for gain-of-function research. All the evidence we have at the moment suggests long COVID can come from exposure to COVID or from the vaccine, the injections, the shots, and from some batches more than others. This is because for the first year the COVID shots were not made using good manufacturing processes, so batch variation was enormous.

Almost immediately when the virus appeared, we knew that COVID was the product of gain-of-function research. Nobel Prize winning virologist Luc Montagnier sequenced COVID in April of 2020 and found unmistakeable evidence human intervention, including the inclusion of a large segment of the HIV virus. Luc should know; he won his Nobel prize for discovering the HIV virus. The bat virus was spliced in to confuse the human body's immune system into producing in the wrong immune response to make the virus more deadly, deliberately. Then, for good measure, they spliced in most of the HIV virus to make it more contagious. Let me be clear. Those who died from COVID died from a manmade virus developed using gain-of-function research to be more deadly and more contagious than the original SARS virus which was the starting point for the development of COVID. Then the virus was sold to the public is an unfortunate outcome of human interaction with pangolin animals in a wet market in Wuhan in China. It's concerning that so many believe that fanciful story and overtrust in authority, resulting in a medical tragedy that continues to unfold in new peer-reviewed and published articles.

Here are the latest such articles. Chen and others say mRNA injections cross the placenta and reach the fetus. mRNA-1273 crosses within one hour, accumulates in fetal organs, translates into spike protein and persists after birth. Thorp and others say CDC and FDA safety signal thresholds were breached for 37 adverse events following jabs in pregnant women, including miscarriage, stillbirth and fetal arrests. Karaman and others say mRNA shots destroy 60 per cent of a woman's egg supply, known as primordial follicles. Manniche and others, on a sample set of 1.3 million women, found 33 per cent fewer successful pregnancies in women who had the shots. Freiberg and others, on a sample of 493,000 people—almost half a million people—found a 23 per cent increase in autoimmune disease post shot.

Did anyone hear about this study conducted from the United States Centres for Disease Control and Prevention epidemiologist Dr Feldstein, published in the Paediatric Infectious Disease Journal, an Oxford University Press peer-reviewed publication? Amongst children aged six months to four years with no prior COVID infection, those who received the Pfizer-bioNTech mRNA shots were 159 per cent more likely to get infected and 257 per cent more likely to develop symptomatic COVID-19 compared to unvaccinated children without prior infection. This study from the US's own CDC clearly shows that a COVID shot in young people has negative efficacy. It makes children more likely to get COVID, and, when they do, they experience worse symptoms. That study has resulted in the FDA and now Australia's TGA at long last announcing the end of COVID vaccination for children, after they told us it was essential. Add that to the mental health damage, developmental delays and academic damage done to children during lockdown, and the picture is scandalous. This is criminal. This is inhuman.

In O'Keefe Media's recent hidden camera video, Johnson & Johnson's lead scientist in regulatory affairs, Joshua Rys, admitted the typical clinical process was abandoned for the COVID-19 vaccine. J&J knowingly bypassed standard testing protocols under pressure from the Biden government. Joshua said:

This was just, 'let's test it on some lab models … and just throw it to the wind and see what happens.

He acknowledges that the public was not informed about the shortcuts, which were not acknowledged. Did the TGA know that there was no proper safety testing on the J&J product before it was given approval in Australia? While public officials claimed the vaccines were 'safe and effective', Rys pushed back saying:

There's no proof. None of that stuff was safe and effective.

He added that the industry relies on a benefit-to-risk trade-off to justify product launches. What this means is that the product is justified if it helps more people than it harms. In that scenario, harm is tolerated. If the pharmaceutical company has its thumb on the scale, making harm less and benefit more, then the faulty product makes it to the market. That's exactly what happened with the COVID products and 20 other products, like Remdesivir, that were approved in Australia.

Now the latest instalment in Frankenstein science is upon us. Listen to this. Self-amplifying RNA vaccines—saRNA—are being tested. These are shots which replicate inside the human body after injection, turning our bodies into genetic material production units which shed on those around us. This is uninformed consent to vaccination taken to a whole new level. A paper published in the peer reviewed Journal of Clinical Medicine found that the COVID-19 replicon saRNA injections caused severe blood abnormalities in 93 per cent of trial participants. Symptoms include increased risk of internal bleeding and suppressed immune cells, which raises infection risks. Renowned American cardiologist Dr Peter McCullough last week commented on saRNA technology, saying:

Vaccinologists have made a critical error in the design of genetic vaccines. Injection of the genetic code for any foreign protein including parts of viruses causes the body to respond with an immune attack against its own cells.

This leads to intense vaccine injury syndromes all through the human body

He said:

Giving the vaccines their own 'life' with the ability to reproduce themselves is inhumane, reckless, and from the outset, should be flagged as dangerous and potentially lethal to the recipient.

COVID vaccines were released without proper testing and caused 1,200 deaths in testing alone, in Pfizer alone. Pushing COVID shots killed tens of thousands of Australians—homicide. If saRNA shots are pushed, it will be genocide—deliberate. Those responsible for COVID have not been held to account, yet now they plan to turn every person and every animal into a genetic material production facility. I have now given seven of these COVID updates, 70 minutes of proof—scientific proof, medical proof—that we must investigate this criminal enterprise, or this next generation of Frankenstein science, the saRNA, will kill and maim huge numbers of Australians.

Eden Westbrook would have turned 26 on 12 August, but Eden died a very public death in tragic circumstances in St Helens, Tasmania, in February 2015. She was found hanging by a rope in St Helens park in the early morning. The police decided quickly—much too quickly, if you ask me—that Eden committed suicide, but the Westbrooks and I, and many others, are convinced that Eden did not take her own life. Eden's mum and dad, Amanda and Jason Westbrook, have fought for over 10 years to get to the truth. There are just too many facts that don't stack up. For example, when Eden's sister saw her body before the cremation, Eden had bruises on her face and neck, and her teeth were absolutely shattered. The Westbrooks and others have repeatedly asked the Tasmanian coroner to release Eden's autopsy photos. They also want an inquest, and they want an independent coroner to assess the fresh evidence. Unfortunately, the Westbrooks have been frustrated by the refusal of the coronial authority, including Tasmania's Chief Magistrate, to release the damn photos.

Thanks to the Tasmanian Attorney-General, Guy Barnett—and I do thank him from the bottom of my heart. On 19 August, the first day of parliament since the election, he tabled a revised bill to compel the provision of the autopsy photos to the Westbrooks by the coroner within 28 days. Those autopsy photos are key to unlocking this case. What do Eden's autopsy photos show? This is what we want to know. Do they show a fractured cricoid cartilage in the lower neck, inconsistent with hanging; damaged teeth; bruising to the neck or face inconsistent with blunt force trauma; bruising or ligature remarks on the wrists; or any other undocumented injuries or signs of sexual assault? Why was the autopsy not undertaken by a qualified forensic pathologist in a NATA accredited mortuary that met national pathology standards? Why weren't samples like material from beneath her fingernails taken for DNA testing?

The Westbrooks asked Dr Byron Collins, a respected independent forensic pathologist, to review the available forensics and crime scene photos and consider issues like the manner and cause of death and time of death. Dr Collins produced a preliminary report in March 2025, and now there is independent expert evidence of a possible homicide. A copy of the report was provided to the chief magistrate in April this year. The Westbrooks believe Eden died on 18 February, not 17 February 2015, because, in the days after Eden's death, a trusted police officer told the Westbrooks there was CCTV footage of Eden at the skate park at 2 am on 18 February 2015. His viewing of the relevant footage is confirmed under RTI. That officer, unfortunately, is now deceased.

There are also relevant Facebook posts by a person of interest, including recent ones, which have not been investigated. Importantly, Dr Collins's written report found that there was no reliable evidence to assist in determining the time of death. The evidence provided by police in affidavits, concerning body temperature and rigor mortis, was of little no supportive value. The requests by the Westbrooks, Dr Collins and myself for the release of the autopsy photos have been refused essentially on the basis that there was no legal proceeding on foot and it was not appropriate for any third party to receive autopsy photos. What a load of rubbish. It seems that early requests to the Tasmanian coroner's office did not include disclosure of the autopsy photos as they were never on the corpse coronial file. So does this mean those photos were never even considered by the coroner? Good question for her to answer tomorrow! The content of the autopsy photos and the final expert opinion from Dr Collins are absolutely critical to reopening of the investigation. The chief magistrate recently responded to another request for the photos on 14 April 2025 after she had been provided with Dr Collins's report, saying that she was considering the issues and would respond 'in due course'.

Well, four months later, there's still no respect for the family, and I still haven't had a response from you, let alone anyone else. Dr Collins's report was outlined in the Our Little Edey podcast in April 2025. By the way, there are six million people following this podcast. Dr Collins found evidence of possible blunt-force trauma to Eden and a second injury to the voice box or lower neck inconsistent with hanging. It was of the type that should have rung alarm bells. This is contrary to the chief magistrate's comment—that there was no sign of any trauma to Eden—in her decision several years ago to not reopen the matter. Dr Collins advised he was considerably 'ill at ease' concerning the adequacy and completeness of the police investigation and autopsy report. The pathologist who undertook the autopsy didn't even check to see whether Eden had been sexually assaulted. I mean, seriously!

It was Dr Collins's opinion that at the completion of the autopsy the most appropriate cause of death should have been at very least 'undetermined'. Dr Collins is frustrated and disappointed, like we are, and, in his 50 years as a practising forensic pathologist, he is unable to remember such a denial of access to photos. Two additional crime scene photos have recently been discovered after the coroner's office forwarded a complete set to a rope expert in Canada who is assisting the family. One item, a hair band, could have been useful in determining who was at the scene that night. Why wasn't it seized as an exhibit? More importantly, why wasn't the rope seized as an exhibit? The Westbrooks have endured more pain than most. They struggle to understand how the coronial system can be so hostile. As if their grief wasn't enough, they and their families have had to endure gaslighting, intimidation and harassment from local police, particularly in the days and months following Eden's death.

Amanda and Jason's resilience and determination is remarkable. It is unbreakable. But they shouldn't have to go through this. They need answers. I want answers, and so do the people of Tasmania. Eden's death was treated as a suicide within hours. Minimal forensics were even undertaken, and on the evidence available under the RTIs we've been collecting, the only police exhibit was a set of 10 fingerprints—wouldn't you guess—from Eden. Police did her fingerprints, but they couldn't do under her nails—go figure. Police did not seize Eden's mobile phone or nearby CCTV footage to ascertain her movements that night. They didn't check her social media accounts. They didn't interview critical witnesses. They didn't even check past records of grooming—inappropriate approaches by persons in authority to young women and similar events in the St Helens area involving violence. What inquiries were conducted given allegations of paedophilia activity and other inappropriate behaviour by police in St Helens around that time?

I certainly hit a nerve with the Commissioner of Police in Tasmania when I raised this issue in parliament in a previous speech. Upon recent inquiries with her, I was advised that one officer of interest was still the subject of an ongoing professional standards investigation. I was very worried about the involvement of Senior Sergeant Paul Reynolds as a coroner's associate in the investigation of Eden's death. The coroner, in delivering her three-page finding, without inquest, stated in 2016 that the late, disgraced paedophile Senior Sergeant Reynolds had provided regular oversight and direction to the investigation.

Section 13(1) of the Tasmanian Coroners Act 1995 states that a coroner may delegate to a coroner's associate any function or power of a coroner other than the power of delegation or a power prescribed by the regulations. What powers, if any, were delegated by the coroner to Senior Sergeant Reynolds in Eden's case and in other cases? It is very worrying to think that Senior Sergeant Reynolds may have been exercising significant powers on behalf of the coroner. We can only hope Reynolds had no role in drafting the findings in Eden's case, which fail to list the forensic science and autopsy evidence taken into account in determining suicide and which fail to outline the reasons for determining Eden's death occurring on 17 February rather than 18 February.

The Weiss report, commissioned by Tasmania Police, failed to examine Reynolds's role in Eden's case despite comprehensive written and oral submissions from the Westbrooks and their then lawyer. In fact, the Weiss report failed to even mention Eden's case. The Weiss report failed on a lot.

The coroner's findings also state there was no available evidence as to the origin of the rope, clearly contradicting police investigative findings which were never followed up or confirmed. Police didn't even check the docks right across the road. To them: how lazy are you? You didn't consider the nature and configuration of the rope and what that meant about its likely source—lazy! Police investigation documents indicate the rope was never seized. Contrary to this, the coroner's office advised in writing that the rope was believed to have been destroyed as a result of a 2016 disposal order under the act.

Which account is accurate—which one? How are the Westbrooks supposed to mount a case for reopening when the coroner's office won't provide critical information. There are wide-ranging and possible systemic issues involved in Eden's case and there is a concerning lack of NATA accreditation of both Tasmanian police forensic services, involving crime scene investigation, and mortuary autopsy photos within the hospital and forensic medicine environments in Tasmania.

Tasmania is well behind its interstate colleagues when it comes to adopting and following accepted best practices. The Tasmania Police manual is about as pathetic as a wet paper bag when it comes to required standards and providing information on police powers and criminal investigation procedures. That's probably where you need to start, or you've gone wrong.

An independent inquiry, without any doubt, needs to be established, effective immediately, to address the systemic issues in this case to ensure ethical and best practice investigation and forensic science, a less hostile approach by coroners and the development of much-needed trust and confidence in Tasmania Police and, for god's sakes, our coronial system down there. I will have much more to say over the next week.

I rise to take note of the shocking revelations today of the involvement of the Iranian regime in relation to terrorist acts in Australia, including the firebombing of the Adass Israel synagogue. First, I acknowledge the contribution that my dear friend Senator Sharma made and his advocacy over quite a period of time in relation to matters involving the Iranian regime and the proposed listing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a prohibited terrorist organisation.

My thoughts are with Australia's Jewish community at this point. My thoughts are also with those wonderful members of the Iranian disapora—many of whom came to Australia on humanitarian visas or are still going through processes to have their refugee status resolved—who have been so courageous in standing up publicly against the human rights abuses of the Iranian regime.

On a number of occasions in this place, following representations from the wonderful Queensland Iranian community, I've made statements calling for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to be listed as a prohibited terrorist organisation. I did it on 27 March 2024, I did it on 1 July 2024, I did it on 8 October 2024, I did it on 9 October 2024 and I did it on 21 November 2024, in a conference room in parliament, in this place, where I met with representatives of the opposition to the Iranian regime.

Following that meeting on 21 November 2024, when I again put on the record my dismay at the human rights abuses—atrocities—being committed in Iran and I called for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to be listed as a prohibited terrorist organisation for the simple fact that it is a terrorist organisation, I received a letter. I want to quote from that letter, dated 4 December 2024 and addressed to Senator the Hon. Paul Scarr, today. The writer of this letter referred to the parliamentary session I attended on 21 November 2024. He said:

Among other things, there were also some accusations against Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a recognized sovereign armed force. IRGC does have a brilliant record in safeguarding the Islamic Republic of Iran's territorial integrity …

The writer of this letter happened to be the ambassador of Iran, who was today declared persona non grata and expelled from this country—as he should have been months before, I should say, when he made egregious antisemitic slurs on social media.

Further, the Islamic Republic of Iran's ambassador said:

I would be more than glad to meet you for a fair and balanced informative discussions on different subjects of your interest on the Islamic Republic of Iran and our bilateral friendly relations with the Commonwealth of Australia.

Sincerely yours,

Ahmad Sadeghi

Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Australia

Two days after the Iranian ambassador wrote me that letter, the Adass Israel Synagogue of Melbourne was firebombed, with the direct involvement of the embassy of Iran. What a disgrace. What an absolute disgrace. It is fit and proper that he be declared persona non grata and he be expelled from our country.

On 19 August 2025, I was delighted to attend a multicultural career and job expo in Logan, which I consider to be one of the most successful multicultural cities in the whole of Australia. I take this opportunity to commend the mayor, Jon Raven, and his whole team in relation to the great job they do. This multicultural career and job expo was hosted by Multicultural Mailer Inc., which is a wonderful grassroots multicultural organisation. This was the fourth time this event had been held, and more than 1,400 jobseekers attended this event from a whole raft of multicultural communities. More than 60 potential employers were in attendance at the jobs fair, and I have no doubt that many people obtained jobs through this wonderful multicultural jobs fair.

I'd like to place on the record my heartfelt thanks to the executive committee: Dr Zakaria Amin, Travis Windsor, Peter Hodges, Paul Bailey, Simon Nicholls and Matthew Perry. Thank you so much for everything that you did. I'd also like to congratulate the expo team: Laura Windsor-Cahill, who was the expo coordinator and whose outstanding leadership and commitment was central to the success of the expo, and also Nasreen Noorudeen, Stephen Gang Yu, Nurul L Mulyaningtyas, Amber Anjum, Sajjad Hossen Naeem and Sameera Mahmood. Thank you so much for everything that you did. It was an amazing event, and it just shows the positive things that happen when grassroots multicultural communities are empowered to help people in the community. Thank you very much for everything you do.

On 12 July 2025, I was delighted to attend the St Mary and Archangel Michael Eritrean Orthodox Tewahdo Church for a very successful ninth annual pilgrimage and the grand opening of the renovated church and youth culture centre. This is a congregation that has grown from 60, originally, to 400. The St Mary and Archangel Michael Eritrean Orthodox Tewahdo Church has been growing at a great rate, and it was truly a wonderful event. We were blessed with the presence of His Grace Bishop Shinoda. We were also blessed with the presence of the senior reverends of the church, Reverend Ghebreberhan Fiseha and Reverend Paul.

I want to thank all the members of the building committee of the church in particular, who did an amazing job raising nearly half a million dollars to renovate the church and add a youth centre, which is doing really important work in the community. I want to place their names on the record. Dr Tuquabo Tesfa-Michael, Mr Kibreab Abraham, Mr Kibrom Woldai and Dr Michael Habte: thank you so much for everything that you do for the Eritrean community. Our Eritrean community is a great blessing for our beautiful country.

On 19 July 2025, I was delighted to attend the opening of the Mskaye Hizunan Tigrayan Orthodox Tewahedo Church in Ipswich. We have a wonderful Tigrayan community in Queensland. Many members of that community have been through a great hardship and ordeal, and the church is so important to their wellbeing. They obtain spiritual support and sustenance from the church, and I heard stories when I attended the opening of the church of how important the church is to their lives. Thank you to Father Sahlemariam Tessema and his congregation for inviting me to the event. At the opening of the church, we had His Grace Archbishop Efrem, the Tigrayan Orthodox Tewahedo Church's Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Europe, in attendance. We also had Archbishop Sinouda from the Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church and a number of other special guests. There were a number of people who were recognised because of their involvement in the Tigrayan church and I want to place their names on the record this evening. Deacon Kinfe Hadgu, Deacon Tesfamichael Desta and Deacon Tesfalem Beyene were all recognised and they were all given certain titles in recognition of the wonderful contribution they've made to the church. Again, I would like to place on the record what a blessing our wonderful Tigrayan community is to my home state of Queensland.

We are locked in an all-or-nothing fight for Australia's very soul. On one side are the Australians who built this country: the battlers, the people from the bush, the people who contributed to this country with their hard work and their blood, sweat and tears, the diggers who fought to defend the rights and principles on which this nation was founded, and the Australians now left disenfranchised as their country has changed for the worse right in front of their eyes. On the other side are the rabid far-left—the Marxists, the communists, the socialists, the toxic Labor Party and the hateful Greens, the hypocrites who bring hordes of people here in the middle of an unprecedented housing and rental crisis, and the idiots who flood Australia with people who mean us deliberate harm, despise our values, laugh at our complacency and take advantage of our leaders' weakness.

Today it's been revealed the hideous Iranian regime actively organised and orchestrated crimes on Australian territory against Australian people. What is absolutely certain in this space is that Iran had fertile ground to plant and grow its hatred in Australia, because current immigration policy allows people who nurture these hatreds to come here and commit these crimes. Labor has given 3,000 people from Gaza permission to come here. That's 3,000 potential agents for the Iranian revolutionary guard. We should immediately and permanently ban immigration from any countries where this hatred prevails. We cannot afford to take any risks with the safety of the Australian community.

Immigration has gotten so out of control that many Australians no longer recognise their own country. This isn't just about housing or jobs; this mass migration is tearing at the fabric of who we are. When I see our flag flying, I see the sacrifice of those who built and defended our nation. It should unite us all, but Labor's agenda is to divide us and to destroy our culture, our identity and our love for our country. If we lose that unity, we lose Australia itself. This is the true cost of mass immigration: the slow destruction of our nationhood.

Labor told us they were going to bring the numbers down. They lied. They've brought about 1½ million people here since they were elected. Today Labor is bringing 1,544 people per day. That's more than 560,000 a year. Where are they supposed to live? Where are struggling Australians supposed to live? In the past three years, Labor has effectively dumped 1½ million people into our housing market and onto our health and education systems, our roads and our waters—even adding 12 million tonnes a year to our emissions. Australians are left in the cold while Labor just waves more people through the gate.

And make no mistake: this is no accident. It's deliberate. It's intentional. It isn't about a skills shortage or education exports; it's about importing voters and keeping Labor in power. It's about Labor remaking Australia in Labor's perverted image. It's not the politicians and the bureaucrats paying the price. It's ordinary Aussies paying the price, with higher rents, lower wages, homelessness, poverty and our unique culture—envied around the world—being chipped away piece by piece.

If you want an end to this crime against Australia, if you want an end to out-of-control immigration, then you stand with One Nation and you stand with me. If you want a safe and united Australia, one people under the Australian flag, you stand with One Nation. We must make sure immigrating to Australia is a privilege to be earned, not an entitlement. Immigrants must have fluent English and definitely no burqas. We must enforce the law and deport the 75,000 people who've breached their visas and the 100,000 failed asylum seekers who were told to go home but haven't—no excuses, no endless appeals and no loopholes. We must cut the numbers drastically. One Nation's policy is to cap immigration at approximately 130,000 per year, numbers we can actually accommodate. When we can, then we can look at increasing those numbers over a period of time. We have no problem with immigration that serves the national interest. We acknowledge this is a country built on immigration, and we acknowledge the immigrants who have adopted our values and contributed to our country. We must shut down the rorts and the backdoor channels. We must put Australia back in charge of who comes here. We must withdraw from the UN Refugee Convention, reintroduce temporary protection visas and refuse entry from nations that foster extremist ideologies incompatible with Australian life. It's basic common sense. It's fairer and it's what most Australians want.

Yet our politicians tend to forget about that. I think they're living in their own world and don't really understand how Australians are struggling out there with the cost of living. High immigration is the cause of it. Yet they're on about these renewables and carbon emissions. Why would you bring so many people—1,500 people a day—into the country if you're worried about your carbon emissions and the Paris Agreement that you've signed? It doesn't make sense. As I said, you're adding 12 million tonnes of emissions a year to it. Why would you bring in such numbers when it's affecting the housing and rental accommodation, services, health, education, nursing homes, roads, infrastructure—everything, you name it.

The Australian people are fed up with it. They've had a gutful of it. Yet you keep bringing them in. You have no regard for the Australian people. You go on about the housing issue in this parliament and say that you're going to build 1.2 million houses. What an absolute joke you are. I cannot believe this. You believe the rubbish that you're telling the Australian people. You actually believe it. I listen to the Labor senators get up and espouse all of this. It's just an absolute, ridiculous joke. Australians feel that they've been stripped of their own identity. They're ashamed. They're ridiculed by even their own councils if they fly the Australian flag. It's alright to see the Palestinian flag out at these protest rallies—even Hamas flags, terrorist flags.

On Sunday there is supposed to be this march for Australia. To those Australians out there that want to go out and have their say and wave the Australian flag: good on you. I congratulate you because you're standing up for the values that you feel are being stripped from you by governments, whether it's this government or former governments. You feel that you're not being listened to. This country is not the country that I grew up in. I'm ashamed of where we're headed—all this wokeness, the escalating crime, the cost of living, high electricity costs and the decline in our moral values that is happening. There's all this transgender rubbish and what's going on with women spaces. It's just absolutely disgusting. So many of you support it here. Where are your morals, your principles and your values? I can't understand it. We're supposed to represent the Australian people.

I see the decline in my nation—and I feel sorry for those men and women that have fought and sacrificed their lives to give us the democracy and nation that we should all be so proud of. All I can do is keep fighting for the Australian people with the best I possibly can, to keep raising these issues to bring awareness of what is happening in our country, and I stand by my fellow Australians with pride, with dignity and with love for this country. I will continue to fight for the Australian people to the best of my ability.

Senate adjourned at 20 : 52