If there is no objection, the meetings are authorised.

I move:

That private senators' bills be considered this week as follows:

(a) Right to Protest Bill 2025, today; and

(b) Members of Parliament (Staff) Amendment (Providing Certainty and Improving Integrity) Bill 2025, on Thursday, 28 August 2025.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

A few short weeks ago I and, I think, all of my Greens colleagues across the country joined thousands of people—300,000 of whom walked across the Harbour Bridge—in an historic march for a free Palestine and an end to genocide. In that moment, I saw solidarity and the possibility for a better world. I saw people of all ages, all abilities, all backgrounds uniting in the driving rain to stand up for conscience and to end the suffering of the people of Gaza.

But where I saw solidarity and possibility, where I saw hope, where I saw my beautiful hometown of Sydney come together for peace and for humanity, the New South Wales Labor Party just saw a problem. Like too many state and territory governments, New South Wales Labor sees protest not as a fundamental part of our democracy, not as a human right, not as the most powerful tool for driving progress in societies; they saw the protest as an irritant—as a political problem. They would far rather we had not marched. They would have liked Sydneysiders to stay at home, watch their Netflix and passively let governments fail to oppose a genocide. They would rather our voices had not been heard. They want to keep power in the walls of parliament and in the offices of police commissioners they appoint, and they desperately want to stop power being exercised in our streets and in our workplaces, as we come together as people with good conscience who care about the future.

The right to protest is under assault in states and territories across the country. That is having real impacts our democracy and our collective ability to come together to demand changes, to end unjust laws, to protect nature, to stand up for decency. The environment and justice movements are increasingly under threat of legal sanctions and arrests for acts of nonviolent resistance to the extractive industries, especially logging and fossil fuels.

Here, I want to say, to place on record, my party's gratitude to those forest defenders who are in tripods protecting old-growth forests as the bulldozers are coming. I want to express our solidarity and gratitude to those First Nations elders whom we know, when they step out on the streets with us, face the real threat of police violence and arrest in a way that many of us don't, because we have a different privilege when we walk and exercise our rights to protest. I thank those hundreds of thousands of my fellow Sydneysiders who walked beside Australian Palestinians and Australians from across society to cross that bridge for justice. I want to make sure that they are not arrested for the act of showing their dissent and standing up for a better world.

So today we push back on this and we say, clearly: we will protect protest and we will keep marching and striking and sitting in and locking on, and we will defend those who take actions on behalf of our environment, to defend human rights, to protect nature, and to hold onto what they believe in. We do this because now more than ever the future demands bravery right now, from all of us. Protesters must not be met with repression, with batons, with capsicum spray, with horses, with police violence or with long prison sentences for the act of peaceful dissent. And Australian politicians, including in this place, where you can just smell the hypocrisy rise, time after time, are quick to condemn other nations who criminalise and attack peaceful protests. I've heard it. Within 24 hours, we will get a member of the Labor Party or the coalition attacking some other country because of their laws criminalising protests or their police brutality, then at the next moment, back in their own state and territory governments, they are passing new laws to police protests and prevent people coming out and exercising their right to dissent. While politicians in this place are quick to condemn those other nations, under our very noses, state and territory governments across Australia have been chipping away at—not just chipping away at but axing away at—this fundamental right.

I have been arrested under unfair protest laws when I stood between row upon row of riot police—puffed up like highly armed turkeys, puffing their chests out—and school students who were protesting against a climate disaster. At that time, Sydney was surrounded by fire, ash was falling from the skies across our city, and those students were outside the then prime minister's Kirribilli place while he was off holidaying in Hawaii. Our country was burning, ash was falling from the sky. Students were in a cul-de-sac in front of an empty house, because the prime minister was on a holiday in Hawaii, and the police sent the riot officers in to move them and clear them from the roadway because, they said, they were blocking the cul-de-sac in front of an empty house with an absent prime minister. And what were the students doing? They were school kids, mainly. They were calling for action on climate. And the New South Wales police used anti-protest laws and move-on orders to stop the students from blocking the cul-de-sac in front of the PM's empty home. They arrested people, one after the other, including myself. And as that expensive and failed police farce played out—and they took it to court and were hosed out—I saw the system close up. It's nothing to do with public safety, nothing to do with national security. It wasn't to open an empty cul-de-sac to an empty house. It was being used by the rich and powerful to avoid accountability.

We know that these laws are mostly used against young people and, especially, First Nations communities who are resisting damage to their land, their water and our collective future.

Young protestors who stand up for the right to a liveable planet are being hit with criminal penalties, while the owners of the corporations that pollute our water, destroy our land, damage sacred sites and mortgage those young people's futures are being green lighted by this place and by state and territory governments, and even subsidised by governments, for the damage they cause.

This bill is an attempt to rebalance the scales towards justice. This bill operates by clearly defining the right to peaceful protest as a federally protected right, drawing on long-standing international precedent from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This bill establishes that a person, a human being, has the right to engage in peaceful protest in a public place and that any restrictions on that right must be justified in accordance with principles necessary in a democratic society. We're finally legislating for the right to protest as enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Right to Protest Bill affirms that all Australians have the right to engage in peaceful protest in public spaces and that any restrictions on that right must be strictly limited to those necessary for national security, public safety, public order, public health or the rights of others, and they must be proportionate, and that includes the excessive penalties that have been passed by the New South Wales government, the Victorian government and the Tasmanian government. There are no exemptions for the feelings of state premiers, who would rather you don't speak up and would rather you stay behind.

The bill ensures that excessive penalties, such as lengthy prison sentences and exorbitant fines, are considered unnecessary and disproportionate limitations on the right to protest. It reads them down. The bill provides that, where state or territory laws conflict with this federal protection, those laws will be invalid, and they'll be invalid to the extent of the inconsistency. This bill is an essential reset. Some might criticise it as being too reasonable and to proportionate a protection of the fundamental right to protest. I'll face those criticisms. What we're doing here today is placing the protections that the federal government agreed to when it entered into these international agreements into domestic law.

I want to place on the record one person who was critical for me, my office and my team. I want to give a shout-out to my chief of staff, Kym Chapple, for the enormous work she's done on this. I want to point out one person who was critical for getting this work done, former Greens leader Bob Brown. Some 18 months ago I caught up with Bob in Hobart. Bob, the Tasmanian Greens and countless forest protectors in Tasmania have been putting themselves on the line to protect that old growth forest. They have seen firsthand how those state laws in Tasmania were designed to criminalise the very act of protecting a forest and standing up for those beautiful natural assets, arresting protesters and grabbing them, even before they get to the forest, on public land. I want to thank him for his courage, his support and his pressure in bringing this bill to the chamber today. We call on all parties in this place, who live and breathe only because we have a functioning democracy, to join us today to legislate for the right to peaceful and essential protest.

I commend the bill to the Senate.

I'm delighted to speak on the Right to Protest Bill 2025 put forward by the Australian Greens. I'm delighted that we're on broadcast while I do it, because the Australian people need to understand that (a) they already have the right to protest in Australia, and (b) let's call this bill what it really is. It's been put forward by the Australian Greens for this reason—to give legal cover to the Greens activist base.

For every small business listening in to this broadcast, these are the same groups who block highways, chain themselves to machinery, disrupt small businesses and—listen to this, mums and dads of Australia—even prevent emergency vehicles from getting through when they need to.

This bill has got nothing to do with the right to protest. Let me tell you what this bill does. We're going to go through a few of the clauses. When you go through the clauses you actually understand what this bill does. It is basically seeking to legislate the right to cause chaos. Senator Shoebridge says that this is an essential reset of the right-to-protest laws in Australia. It depends on what you mean by reset, doesn't it? I would have thought that the right to cause chaos and basically have a society based on anarchy is possibly not something that the Australian people will accept.

Let's have a look at the bill. To say that it's an absurd bill is an understatement. It is designed to take away safety and civility from our streets, in favour of the Greens' activist support base. Let's have a look at what the bill actually does. When you look at the bill, as opposed to listening to the comments of Senator Shoebridge, it is a one-clause bill of rights. Let's be very clear about what that does. The right is one that enshrines protest rights in a completely unfettered and unprecedented manner. It's never been done before in any international human rights instrument or in any legislative charter of rights. I want to read the definition in the bill. Once you read the definition in the bill, you basically know that you can only go downhill from there. This is what section 5 says:

In this Act:

protest includes the following:

(a) actions that are political in nature;

(b) actions that are disruptive, or that seek to be disruptive.

Again, for those listening in to the broadcast, this is what the Greens want to do. They basically want to give, by this bill, legal cover to their activist base—those same groups, as I said, who block highways and cause you inconvenience, chain themselves to machinery and disrupt small businesses. God help any small business—they don't need any more disruption; it's bad enough under the Albanese government.

Collateral damage.

That's exactly right. You've got to be kidding me. I have to say that it's pretty offensive when their activist base stops emergency vehicles from getting through.

Let's be clear. That is what the Greens want to entrench as a fundamental right for all Australians—the right to take actions that are disruptive or seek to be disruptive. Let's have a look at the practical effect of that on the ground. For all of those in their workplace today, I can come to your workplace and disrupt you because I don't like your race or religion or because you're an ex-partner and I don't like the way you're raising my kids. That is actually a right that I would have under this bill. In the Greens' weird political-fantasy world, if this bill were to pass, this is what would happen: Australians would no longer have the right to be safe from crime and wouldn't have the right to live in accordance with their religious beliefs or to be educated in a faith based school. Guess what you would have? You would have the right to disrupt whoever you like. The fact that the Greens can even put forward a bill of this nature in the Australian Senate shows that, as a political party, they are not serious and they are certainly not credible.

That was only the definition. As I said, if you actually read through the bill, it only goes downhill from there. The bill pretends to have a couple of guardrails in section 9. This is how they define those guardrails: 'restrictions on right'. 'Guardrail', though, I have to say, is probably too strong a term to use. This is perhaps a better way to say it: a wobbly fence made of sticks. You and I might say, 'Well, okay, clearly a right to protest can't be at large.' Such a right could be abused.

Let's face it. The current right is abused by almost anyone with ill intent and puts at risk our public safety and national security or even, given this has occurred before, our public health.

But then, as we do in the Senate, we actually look to the detail of the bill. Looking at clause 9(1), guess what that actually does? It is a limitation on the ability to actually restrict the right. This is what the clause says: you can only have restrictions 'as are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of' those sorts of things. Then you go down to clause 9(2), and, again, the devil is always in the detail when the Australian Greens put forward a bill. It's a great title—a bit like Labor—but guess what? If you read the clauses, Australians will start to get very, very scared. This is what clause 9(2) says:

(a) a restriction is only necessary if it is intended to, and appropriately adapted to the goal of, addressing an unacceptable risk of harm related to a matter in paragraphs (1)(a) to (e); and

(b) an excessive penalty—

Get this, everybody. Let me go back to what the Greens are good at—the activist space and blocking highways, chaining themselves to machinery, disrupting small business and even preventing emergency vehicles from getting through. This is what the bill says:

(b) an excessive penalty is an unnecessary restriction regardless of whether the penalty is imposed for contravening a necessary restriction.

Quite frankly, I'm not even sure the grammar is actually correct in that clause.

But this is what it actually says: exposing someone to a penalty for going to a public place or a workplace or a hospital with the deliberate intent of disrupting that place, under this bill, is now a right you would have. We would be legislating, if this were to go through, the right to chaos and, as I said quite frankly, the right for society to dissolve into anarchy, which is probably a long-held wish of the Australian Greens. So you would now have that right, but the bill also says that you could never be exposed to an excessive penalty. You have to be kidding me!

It's not enough to take a completely reasonable position and say, 'I want this hospital or this school or this business or this street to function as intended for the benefit of society at large,' because in the Greens's weird, fantasy world this would actually be a restriction on a right to protest. There is no two ways about it. This bill has been brought forward because the Greens do not want—and this is where it's so dangerous—law-abiding citizens to go about their day. They do not want that. We have an arbitrary rule that something called an 'excessive penalty', whatever that means, is an unnecessary restriction. Under this bill, go ahead and cause as much chaos as you like, because guess what? If the bill were legislated, you could, and what's worse is that the court can't then impose upon you an unnecessary restriction of an excessive penalty. Honestly, you could not script this unless you actually lived in the Greens's weird, fantasy world.

But it actually gets worse, and I know that was already pretty bad. The real kicker is in clause 10. This is what clause 10 does, for everybody listening in, to a state or territory: clause 10 is an override of every state, territory or Commonwealth law that might seek to protect the community or provide essential services or guarantee the ordinary and rational functioning of civil society. Let me just read that out again, because most people would say, 'You're making things up.' No, it is actually there in writing in the bill that we currently have before the Senate. This is what clause 10 does: it is an override of every state, territory or Commonwealth law that might seek to protect the community or provide essential services or guarantee the ordinary and rational functioning of civil society. Clause 10 says that every such law, regardless of who passes it, has no effect if—you're going to love this—it contravenes the Greens's right to protest.

Let's look at the practical implication of that.

I have a point of order in that the senator is misleading the chamber by purporting to read from the bill, when she knows she's just making it up. She's made up everything she's said.

Senator Shoebridge—

She just makes it up. It's not the bill.

Senator Shoebridge, this is a debating point.

But you can't mislead the chamber intentionally. She's the shadow—

Senator Shoebridge, resume your seat. That is a debating point. Your colleagues will have plenty of opportunities to reply.

For anybody listening in, can I tell you, you know you're on the right track and you're telling the truth when, mid-debate, the lead senator from the Australian Greens has got to jump up and interrupt you.

Senator Shoebridge, on a point of order?

First of all, I'd like Senator Cash to refer to me by my title. Secondly, it is disorderly for the senator to respond to interjections.

No, it's disorderly to interject; it's not disorderly to respond if you have the call. I will remind Senator Cash that she should refer to members of the Senate by their correct titles.

I clearly hit a point, because Senator Shoebridge couldn't wait to jump to his feet for interjection No. 2. For all the Greens—we love the Australian people and we understand how they function. Senator Shoebridge, I am delighted to give you your correct title because I would hate for people listening in to not understand who is responsible for the bill that would literally seek to legislate chaos and anarchy in society.

As I said, clause 10 bells the cat. Let's just override every other law in the country! No criminal law, no public safety law, no workplace health and safety law, no public health law, no law about traffic and orderly management of our streets and infrastructure, no zoning law, no law about permits or protests, no terrorism law—now, that's an interesting one, given what we now know about the Islamic Republic of Iran, which has actually caused terror on the streets of Melbourne and could have killed Australians. Forget that—no terrorism law. There's no law that might provide for another right or freedom—nothing. It is a complete override, and it is an override without limits for every government everywhere.

I've got to give them credit, Senator Scarr. You and I would love to draft this type of law, seriously. Can you imagine you and I sitting down? We're both lawyers. Would we have fun, Senator Scarr! Let's override whatever law we can in Australia—

I know I can't stop the senator from misleading, but I can ask you to direct the senator to direct her contributions not behind her and over her shoulder to Senator Scarr, like she obviously wants to, but through the chair to show you respect.

All senators should direct their comments through the chair.

What do they call it in cricket—a hat-trick? A trifecta? I'm actually surprised, because I would have given Senator Shoebridge—through you, Deputy President—a little more credit than jumping up to interrupt me when I am clearly now hitting a sore point in relation to what is possibly the most contentious part of this bill—a complete override. For Australians who have turned on this debate, probably by accident, and are wondering, 'Good God—are they talking about actually legislating chaos and anarchy in the Senate?' Well, yes, absolutely. That is what this bill is.

Let's be very careful about what we're talking about and what has so offended Senator Shoebridge on behalf of the Australian Greens—the fact that Senator Scarr and I have actually read the bill. Senator Scarr and I have interrogated the clauses in the bill, and, yes, Senator Scarr and I are prepared to come in here and expose the Australian Greens for what they are: a party that, by this bill, is happy to legislate chaos. Australians, quite frankly, have enough chaos in their lives on a daily basis. They do not need a bill to legislate even more. As I said, section 10 overrides everything. It's a complete override. It is an override without limits for every government everywhere.

Let us be very, very clear. We already have, and I think Australians appreciate, broad freedoms to protest.

Every week people rally in our cities and towns. They march on Parliament House. They gather in public squares. They demonstrate for causes they believe in. That is, quite frankly, a healthy sign in a vibrant democracy. But Australians also know there is a line between legitimate protest and dangerous and disruptive conduct, and this bill deliberately blurs that line. What makes this worse is the rhetoric behind it. The Greens claim that Australia is sliding into authoritarianism simply because states have chosen to impose penalties on reckless and disruptive protesters. Let us be clear. The bill is ill-thought-out, undergraduate, excessive self-adulating pap from the most immature party in our political system. It deserves to be consigned to the dustbin of history.

I rise to speak in strong support of the Right to Protest Bill 2025 and commend Senator Shoebridge for bringing it on. At its heart, this bill is about protecting one of the most fundamental pillars of democracy: the right of people to gather, raise their voices and demand change from those in power. Right now, across Australia, that right is under attack. Instead of addressing the crises we face globally, from climate change to genocide and from inequality to environmental damage and systemic injustice, governments are criminalising those who dare to speak up. This is not an exaggeration. Across almost every state and territory, Liberal and Labor governments have chipped away at the basic freedom to protest. They've introduced harsher laws, longer sentences, bigger fines and sweeping new police powers.

In many places today, Australians risk arrest simply for planning protest action. We must be honest about what is happening here. When governments are confronted with rising public concern about climate change, deforestation, mining, war and genocide, they are not responding with solutions; they are responding with suppression. Anti-protest laws aren't about safety; they're about silencing dissent. This bill would seek to reverse this dangerous trend. It codifies the rights already guaranteed to us under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Australia has ratified. It makes clear that Australians have the right to engage in peaceful protest in public places. That right can only be limited in the narrowest of circumstances, and, even then, those limits must be proportionate.

The bill ensures that excessive penalties like the exorbitant fines and lengthy prison sentences we've slapped on climate activists cannot stand. It ensures governments cannot criminalise protests simply to protect commercial interests and it ensures that vague excuses like public inconvenience are never again used to justify crushing democratic freedoms. Once we need permission to protest and once it becomes a privilege instead of a right, we've already lost the battle.

The warnings couldn't be clearer. Melbourne Activist Legal Support, a community of human rights advocates in my home state, put it bluntly in their submission to the UN Human Rights Council. They said that Australia is failing to meet its international obligations to protect freedom of assembly. They warn of a raft of repressive anti-protest legislation, the dangerous escalation of police tactics and the obstruction of the vital work of legal observers who monitor abuses at protests. Their conclusion was stark: if left unchallenged, these attacks on protest rights will have a devastating effect on our democracy, stripping citizens of their power. International human rights and democracy organisations agree. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Australia Institute have all documented the erosion of democratic freedoms in this country. And, in December last year, the Australian Democracy Network released its In defence of dissent report, showing how activists—especially climate and environment defenders—are facing unfair punishments simply for speaking out. That same month, the ABC reported that Australia now leads the world in arresting climate activists. We lead the world in arresting climate activists—think about that for a moment. On the global stage, our country is ranked No. 1 for locking up people who demand climate action. What a shameful legacy of successive governments in this country.

The examples are everywhere, including close to my home. The Victorian government recently introduced new anti-protest laws. These laws, amongst other things, sought to ban face coverings at protests and create broad, ambiguous safe zones around places of worship, exposing protesters to fines or penalties for simply exercising their democratic rights.

Thankfully, following strong opposition from human rights groups, community campaigners and the Victorian Greens, these provisions were significantly watered down. But the fact that they were ever proposed should ring alarm bells about the ongoing erosion of our right to dissent, because right now it is easier for a multinational logging company to flatten a forest than it is for a group of citizens to peacefully protest its destruction. It is completely upside down.

Native forests are some of our most precious ecosystems. They are vital carbon sinks. They are habitat for endangered species. They are part of the solution to the climate crisis. Yet those who defend them are treated like criminals. I also want to acknowledge former Greens leader and staunch forest defender Bob Brown, who has put his body on the line time and time again to protect our environment, to protect our forests and to protect our rights.

We've also seen Aboriginal forest defenders dragged before courts in Tasmania for standing on country to protect it. We have seen climate activists in Newcastle threatened with lengthy jail sentences for blockading coal exports. We have seen peaceful rallies for justice for Palestine in Melbourne—rallies that I am so proud to have joined—face military-style policing tactics simply for standing up against genocide and forced starvation. Shame on this government. The message from governments could not be clearer: if you dare to dissent, you will be punished.

While fossil fuel corporations continue to receive billions in subsidies, climate activists are thrown into jail. While logging companies level old-growth forests, people who gather to protect them face crippling fines. While governments fail to act on the climate crisis, they pour resources into policing those who demand action. This is the police-government nexus at work: state governments captured by powerful police forces who are pushing for even greater powers to suppress dissent. And it is all done in the name of protecting order, or commerce, when in truth it protects the profits of powerful interests.

But democracy requires disruption. Protest has always been disruptive; that is the point. The eight-hour workday, LGBTIQA+ rights, women's suffrage, land rights, environmental protections—none of these were gifted by governments; they were won by people taking to the streets, taking risks and demanding better. If we criminalise disruption we criminalise democracy itself. These laws reach into every corner of society. They silence First Nations people's fight against the long history of criminalising land rights and cultural heritage protests. They target the campus demonstrations and rallies of students and educators. They undermine workers and unions whose ability to strike or protest against unsafe or unfair corporate practices is already under siege. They threaten civil liberties more broadly, as police surveillance of protestors expands and laws against so-called inconvenience become a template for silencing all dissent. And they reach into foreign affairs, with recent demonstrations in support of Palestinian rights facing intimidation and restriction. This is why protest rights are the canary in the coalmine. Once the freedom to dissent is eroded, every other freedom is next.

Australia is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. We have accepted recommendations from the United Nations to protect freedom of assembly. But, instead of implementing them, we are going backwards. Unlike almost every other liberal democracy, Australia doesn't have a national human rights act. That means our protest rights are left vulnerable to a patchwork of inconsistent and increasingly repressive state laws. This bill begins to change that. It ensures that, where state laws conflict with these international obligations, they'll be invalid. This isn't radical; this is simply Australia doing what we said we would do when we signed the ICCPR.

Dissent is not a crime. Protest is the lifeblood of democracy. We are living through a time of escalating crises: climate breakdown, inequality and injustice. If governments refuse to act, the people will.

That is how progress has always been made, and that is how it will continue to be made. This bill is about protecting the ability of ordinary Australians to hold the powerful to account. It is about ensuring that future generations inherit a democracy that is alive not hollowed out by repression. I urge every member in this chamber to remember the movements that made your own rights possible—the protests that built the world. You and I now have a responsibility to enshrine and enhance them. I again thank my colleague Senator Shoebridge for bringing on this vital bill. Protest must endure if our democracy is to endure.

The government will not be supporting the Right to Protest Bill 2025. The Albanese government recognises the rights of individuals to assemble and protest peacefully. This is an important right in any democracy. Freedom of expression and freedom of political communication are fundamental human rights that are enjoyed by all Australians and all people who are in Australia. These rights of freedom of political communication and the right to assemble and protest peacefully are rights that I've exercised myself on many occasions, along with my family, my friends, my Labor comrades and many other Australians. They are rights that Labor has always fought for.

These freedoms are, of course, subject to limitations that are reasonable and necessary in a free and democratic society to achieve an appropriate balance between freedom of expression and the protection of groups and individuals from offensive or harmful behaviour. These rights are protected under international law, which also recognises that they must be balanced with other important considerations. The key international treaty which guarantees these rights is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 21 of this treaty says:

The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order … the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Even in the treaty on which this proposed bill is allegedly based there is recognition that the right of peaceful assembly is not unfettered.

In Australia finding the right balance between these considerations is generally a matter for the states and territories. Communication about political and government matters is already protected from undue burdens by the implied constitutional freedom of political communication, which the High Court has determined is essential to the proper functioning of Australia's system of democratic and representative government. The implied freedom operates as a constraint on laws passed by state and territory governments as well as the federal government.

The implied freedom of political communication is not an absolute freedom and is not infringed by laws that are reasonable appropriate and adapted or proportionate to advancing a legitimate purpose, such as protecting public health and safety. Under the current case law, three questions must be answered when deciding whether a law infringes the implied freedom. First, does the law effectively burden the freedom in its terms, its operation or its practical effect? This is known as the burden question. Second, if so, are the purpose of the law and the means adopted to achieve that purpose legitimate in the sense that they are compatible with the maintenance of the constitutionally prescribed system of representative government? This is known as the legitimate-end question. Third, if the answer to the second question is yes, is the law reasonably appropriate and adapted to advance that legitimate object? This is known as the reasonably appropriate and adapted question. This question involves a proportionality test to determine whether the law is justified as suitable, necessary and adequate in its balance.

If the first question is answered yes and the second or third question is answered no then the law will be invalid. There is essentially a three-step process to determining whether a particular law infringes the implied freedom of political communication. This implied freedom provides an existing avenue for challenging the validity of laws that restrict protest activity as a form of political communication, and the courts have considered the application of the implied freedom to protest activities in a number of cases. For example, in Cotterill v Romanes, a Victorian case, the Supreme Court of Victoria rejected a challenge to the Victorian COVID-19 stay-at-home and other health directions on the basis that they infringed on the implied freedom of political communication.

In Brown & Anor v The State of Tasmania, a majority of the High Court held that provisions of the Workplaces (Protection from Protesters) Act, a Tasmanian piece of legislation which restricted onsite protest activities, were invalid because they 'impermissibly burden the implied freedom of political communication'. I guess the point I'm making is that the implied freedom of political communication already operates as a method of challenging laws that unduly seek to limit protest activities, especially of course where they do breach that implied freedom of political communication.

While the implied freedom does not provide a personal right to protest, there would likely be a substantial overlap between the kinds of activities that would be protected by this bill and those that a court may find to infringe the implied freedom. The extent to which the bill may afford greater protection against laws that unjustifiably constrain protest activity is unclear.

Even if a law does not infringe the implied freedom of political communication, courts will still interpret legislation having regard to the protection of fundamental common law rights, such as the freedom of speech. This bill also includes a vague standard that would be difficult to apply in practice. There is an exception to the right to protest that would be established by the bill, where the state and territory law is necessary in the interests of national security, public safety, public order, the protection of public health or the protection of the rights and freedoms of other persons. In practice, the only way to clarify whether a particular state or territory law crosses this line would be through litigation, which creates needless uncertainty and expense.

In making laws, it is a matter for the Australian parliament and the state and territory parliaments to weigh the right to protest against other important considerations, such as upholding other rights and public safety concerns. As I've illustrated, there are a number of issues with this bill regarding its potential constitutionality or lack thereof. The fact is that we do have an implied freedom of communication—which is already is being used to challenge state laws which overly restrict that kind of activity. On balance, our system of government allows voters to judge whether parliaments have struck the right balance between competing freedoms and other critical considerations, such as upholding public safety concerns.

For all of those reasons, the government does not support this bill.

If you come into my office you'll immediately see two things: a photograph of John Stuart Mill, the famous author of that wonderful essay on liberty, and a waxwork of the great French philosopher Voltaire. Those two historic figures, great advocates for freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of expression encapsulate the values which I seek to represent in this place. Both of them recognised that in terms of striking the right balance between the exercise of one person's rights, one person's freedoms, one has to consider the rights and freedoms of others. This has been articulated in various ways. One person's liberties should be granted except to the extent that they infringe upon on another person's liberties. There have been other formulations in relation to this balancing endeavour.

I believe in freedom of speech. I believe in freedom of association. I believe in freedom of expression. I believe in the right of Australians to make sure that their views are heard clearly and loudly, and I commend those Australians who exercise those rights within the legitimate limitations of the law. I've attended assemblies outside this place, and I know Senator McKenzie has attended assemblies outside this place of the stakeholders from her rural communities, which she so passionately represents, who come to this Australian parliament for their voices to be heard. When they do that, they do it in a lawful way, they do it in a respectful way and they do it in a way which doesn't cause disruption.

The question we have in this debate is whether or not the private member's bill put forward by the Greens and circulated by authority of Senator Shoebridge—I'll be very clear: I respect Senator Shoebridge's convictions and passions with respect to these freedoms of the individual. In the previous parliament I served with him on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, so I do respect his views in this regard.

However, having read the bill—I come back to the points which were made by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Cash—there are deep concerns with respect to the drafting of the bill, and I want to walk through those issues and place them on the record.

The outline of the bill, this Right to Protest Bill 2025, rightly refers to Australia's obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and many of these rights are part of our English common law history and have been rights which have been fought for over centuries. Article 19 of the ICCPR states that restrictions on the right to hold opinions without interference must only be those provided by law and which are necessary for, among other things, respect of the rights of others or the protection of national security, public order and public health. Article 21 of the covenant requires recognition of the right to peaceful assembly—I'll come back to that expression, the right to peaceful assembly—with minimal restrictions placed on this that are necessary in a democratic society. These covenants contained in the international treaty engage in this balancing process, which I think all Australians, or the vast majority of Australians, would agree with. An Australian has the right to express their point of view and a right to peaceful assembly to promote those views in assembly to have greater impact with respect to the expression of those views; however, it is not unfettered. Senator Watt referred to some of the legal tests which are applied in relation to the application of protecting the implied right to political communication under our Constitution. So there is balance already there in the system.

One of the curious things in this bill—if Senator Shoebridge has an opportunity to respond to this debate, it would be useful for him to respond to this question—is the definitions. The international treaty refers to peaceful assembly, yet section 3 of Senator Shoebridge's bill says:

The objects of this Act are:

(a) to recognise the right to engage in peaceful protest …

Well, what's the difference between assembly and protest? And why Senator Shoebridge using the term 'protest' instead of the term 'assembly', which is used in the international treaty? We then go to the definition of 'protest', and the definition of 'protest' is an inclusive definition that includes the following:

(a) actions that are political in nature—

and here's the issue—

(b) actions that are disruptive, or that seek to be disruptive.

So Senator Shoebridge isn't just talking about a peaceful assembly of people, of Australians exercising the right to freedom of speech; he is expanding that to encompass a protest that includes actions that are disruptive or that seek to be disruptive. That is the issue.

The vast majority of Australians would agree, in accordance with our fundamental values, that every single Australian, whether they are a senator or a new citizen, has the right to exercise their views and to express those views in public. However, there have to be limits. There necessarily have to be limits, and those limits are recognised in the international covenant. Those limits relate to things like public order, the right of other Australians to go about their business without being disrupted and the right of Australians to have access to emergency services. It may well be that, when some of these protests are organised, the intent is not to impede emergency services, but the reality is that if you conduct disrupt protest on major thoroughfares, major roads or major highways, at certain times you are going to have the collateral impact of impeding emergency services. People have a right to go about engaging in their jobs without their health and safety being impacted.

In Queensland, we've had protesters gluing themselves to pieces of equipment, gluing themselves to roads, and attaching steel mechanisms to their arms and then attaching themselves to roads and infrastructure—and, through you, Acting Deputy President Cox, I think Senator Shoebridge should reflect on some of the terminology used in one context in his contribution in that regard, and I'll come to that. People have attached these steel mechanisms to their arms and then attached them to infrastructure. To disassemble these things, our poor old emergency services personnel have to deploy the equipment they use to cut victims of car crashes out of their cars. There have to be limitations. This private member's bill doesn't recognise those limitations. In fact, as Senator Cash eloquently referred to, it has provisions which say, 'Oh, and, by the way, even if you breach the limitations, which are reasonable, you can't impose excessive fines.' What's to prevent someone from going out and doing exactly the same thing tomorrow and the next day and the next day? We don't have any answers to that in this bill. There are no answers to that in this bill.

The other point I would like Senator Shoebridge and others to reflect on is this: we are having this debate in the context where there was a march with hundreds of thousands of people across Sydney Harbour Bridge. There were marches across all of our capital cities over the last weekend, including in Brisbane, in my home state. So I ask, didn't the system work? We didn't see riot police out there preventing people from marching. They actually did march. Senator Shoebridge marched with them. So what's the mischief he's trying to address in this bill when the march actually occurred? Doesn't that mean the checks and balances under our current system worked? Whoever was organising the protests in Sydney—and someone organised a protest in Brisbane—went through a process. The public order authorities went through their process and raised their legitimate concerns with respect to the hasty convening of the protest and what it meant for their obligations to keep people safe in their city. That was considered by the judge. The judge made a determination, which was respected by all Australians. What's the problem? What's the mischief? I would have thought that that all suggests that the system actually works. That suggests that the checks and balances that we have in the system work. Senator Shoebridge, through this bill, would inadvertently—I'll say inadvertently—give people a right to engage in extreme conduct without there being checks and balances to protect the rights of other Australians. That is of deep concern.

I want to make a comment with respect to the police service. These are the people who keep us safe while we sleep in our beds at night. One of the things that struck me in relation to the discussion over the march which eventually happened over Sydney Harbour Bridge was the commentary from one of the senior officers of the New South Wales Police Force. Listening to his comments, that officer was genuinely concerned about the logistics and the impacts of having such a large-scale march with tens and tens of thousands of people convened at short notice. He was genuinely concerned as to whether or not the people participating in that march may be exposed to threats to their personal safety, just through the logistics. He was genuinely concerned as to whether or not the police service had enough time to cordon off the streets and manage the huge crowd in such a way that would protect the participants. When you heard the remarks from the senior New South Wales police officer after that march was held, you heard the sense of relief that they'd managed to get through that event without anyone being hurt.

There have been concerns raised, rightly, with respect to some of the banners that were used et cetera. But, in terms of the logistics of the march, you could sense and hear the relief of the senior member of the New South Wales police service who had the responsibility of trying to manage this huge endeavour—hundreds of thousands of people. I think that also needs to be recognised—that our emergency services personnel do their best in order to manage these issues. In my home state of Queensland, there was a recent march which showed how unnecessary this piece of legislation is.

From what I see, every single Australian who wants to exercise their view or opinion in a peaceful way has a means in which to do that, and that's how it should be. I agree with the comments of Senator Cash, I agree with the comments of Senator Watt and I acknowledge those who provided assistance to Senator Watt in preparing those comments—I'm assuming it wasn't all your own work, Senator Watt; maybe it was! I think it was very useful to get those legal principles on the record as well. With that, I am happy to conclude my remarks.

One Nation leads the way on freedom of speech. We have done so since 2020, with the horrific impediments against freedom of speech and the withdrawal of free speech and human rights that occurred with COVID mismanagement under both Labor and Liberal governments at a state and federal level. I start by thanking Senator Shoebridge, who has, largely through his work holding governments accountable—this one and the previous one—earned my respect for his work on human rights. I do not, though, trust the Greens as a whole. They often, and usually, contradict data and evidence, so I don't trust them. But I do trust Senator Shoebridge.

Let's go through a quick list of positives. What do we like? This bill, the Right to Protest Bill 2025, recognises the right to peaceful protest. We support that right wholeheartedly. This bill also recognises that the right to peaceful protest is subject to issues of national security—rightly so—and also subject to public safety, public order, the protection of public health, and, importantly, the protection of other people's rights and freedoms. That's very important. Sadly, this last protection, the protection of people's rights and freedoms, is just a motherhood statement, and the body of the bill contains nothing specific about those protections.

What are we not comfortable with? The definition of 'protest' in section 5(b) includes the phrase 'actions that are disruptive or seek to disrupt'. We do not support disruptive matters, disruptive events or protests, or those that seek to disrupt; we oppose that. The bill does not specifically consider conflicts with other people's individual or group rights, including the right to free movement and travel. I have a list of freedoms I keep in mind: the freedom of life, the freedom of belief, the freedom of thought, the freedom of faith, the freedom of speech, the freedom of association, the freedom of exchange, the freedom of movement and travel, and the freedom to live life free from government interference. These are basic freedoms. One Nation supports these, but we do not see any consideration in this bill for the rights of others specifically, including the freedom of movement and travel.

Nor does the bill guide or address the resolution of conflicting needs when people in society have conflicting needs, when one group wants to protest and the other group sees an infringement of its rights. The bill does not consider offensive language or intimidation through noise or numbers of protesters. For One Nation, it is extremely important, as we have said in the past on similar bills, to have Australians feeling safe. Australians must feel safe.

We cannot abide by any intimidation of Australians.

My next point is that the bill encroaches on areas that should remain under state law. One Nation is very strong and clear on states' rights because we believe in competitive federalism—a fundamental tenet of accountability in this country. What we have seen is that the states have had their rights robbed, stolen by encroaching, greedy, all-powerful federal governments that seek to run the country with no accountability under both Labor and the Liberals. We don't like the encroachment into other areas that should remain under state law. The bill tries to limit penalties for contraventions that may be considered to apply to necessary restrictions, without defining the word 'excessive'. There's no definition of the word 'excessive'. Sadly the word 'peaceful' is not defined, and that's extremely important.

Our conclusions are that we thank Senator Shoebridge for introducing this bill and debating the bill, but we are concerned about the vague wording. Is there poor drafting? Let's give Senator Shoebridge the benefit of the doubt because, although the Greens can be disruptive when it suits them, Senator Shoebridge has not done anything malicious in my experience with him.

Not actually malicious!

Thank you, senators. Please direct your contributions through the chair.

I support the concept of peaceful protest. It's very important to get that on the record. This bill, as it is, suffers from deficiencies that need to be addressed. Thank you.

Obviously, the coalition won't be supporting this bill. However, I am a firm believer in the right to protest in a democracy. Throughout my life, I have participated in a lot of protests that I wish Senator Shoebridge had joined me in—Keep the Sheep protests where, outside this very parliament, farmers from Western Australia, sheep farmers from across the country, livestock transporters and those that support the agricultural industry sought to get Labor to overturn their ban on the live sheep export industry, which is cruelling the livelihoods of thousands of people, particularly in regional Western Australia.

The right to be heard, though, is not the right to hold everybody else hostage. And I really want to go to the view of the Greens in Victoria about the VicGrid project, which is rolling out across regional Victoria, where farmers are standing in solidarity against hundreds of 80-metre wind towers and transmission lines rolling out across their prime agricultural land—an authoritarian Labor government supported by the Greens in Victoria is taking away the right of these people to appeal decisions of government—to lock the gate against officials seeking to get these projects off the ground.

I'm also against protests which do hold other people hostage and impede their freedom of movement. I've spoken with Jewish communities in Australia, in particular in Melbourne after the Adass synagogue bombing, who told me that they were restricted—

Minister Ayres on a point of order?

Yes, it is a point of order. I just took a bit of time to reflect on a comment that Senator McKenzie made. I don't want to make a lot of it, but I don't think today—

Minister, what is the point of order?

I'm seeking a withdrawal. I think today is not the day to describe the Victorian government as 'authoritarian'. I reckon enabling that kind of discourse is not very helpful at the moment.

Thank you, Minister. There is no point of order. Senator McKenzie, please continue, noting that you probably only have about two minutes left.

Democracy runs on persuasion, not on threats and coercion.

I take the minister's objection to me calling the Jacinta Allan Labor government in Victoria authoritarian. I would like the minister to come with me to regional Victoria, where they want to lock the gate against her officials who seek to take away their private property rights so that she, along with the Greens, can roll out their 100 per cent renewable dreams, trash the property values, destroy environmental ecosystems along the 240-kilometre transmission line corridor and destroy community cohesion as they pit family against family in the rollout of this project. The minister thinks he knows what authoritarianism looks like. Well, he doesn't. It looks like Jacinta Allan in Victoria—the same government that locked Victorians up during COVID, that arrested pregnant women for going for walks and that actually sought to destroy the social cohesion of our community in Victoria.

But then we go to protests against the Gillard government's carbon tax—an incredibly successful protest—or against the Labor Party's Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, when truckies descended en masse from across the country to say this was a bad Labor government doing bad things to small businesses and the employment options across the country. And we sought to overturn that. And there were the 'never again' protests against antisemitism, which I would love to see Senator Shoebridge and the Greens senators join me in to march against antisemitism and actually put their feet to not just the pro-Palestinian movement, which does intimidate Jewish Australians from attending capital cities. The minister interrupted my comments about a Jewish man from Melbourne who, after the Adass synagogue bombing, spoke to me personally about being warned against taking his young family into the Melbourne CBD on the weekends because of Senator Shoebridge and his colleagues in the Greens taking to the streets to support Palestine and chanting antisemitic—

Unfortunately, the time for this debate has expired. Senator Shoebridge?

I'd ask the senator to withdraw that. It was a reflection on myself and millions of Australians.

I don't believe there is a point of order, there—

Well, did you listen?

I did, and thank you very much.

This is in relation to order for the production of documents No. 28. I just advise the chamber that, in response to this order, Treasury officials have been undertaking a substantial review to identify documents relevant to the Senate's request. The request is being advised and actively progressed consistent with standard practices, and I expect to be able to respond to this order as soon as practicable. I look forward to the standard contributions from other colleagues about this matter.

I move:

To take note of the minister's answer.

I have to say, I'm not surprised that the government have come in here today and not provided appropriate answers to the questions that were put to the Senate and agreed by this Senate. This is about the expenditure of public funds. It's a $10 billion scheme which has been running for two years and has only built—we think—maybe 17 houses, 2,000 houses or no houses. The point of this particular order for production was to ascertain exactly what happened with the $277 million remaining in the HAFF fund at 30 June 2025. The HAFF is required to spend $500 million each financial year.

The Department of Finance reports that only $223 million had been debited in 2024-25, so we wrote to the Auditor-General to seek a performance audit. They wrote back and said that, in fact, the remaining $277 million had been debited and given to Housing Australia to spend on round 1 of the HAFF. The problem is that we can't actually see where that $277 million of taxpayer funds has gone.

The reason I say that I'm not surprised about this is that this is the most secretive government since the Keating government. It's a secretive government. It has a shocking record of responding to orders for the production of documents. The Centre for Public Integrity has actually marked the government's work here and said that this is the worst in 30 years. This government is more secretive than a government led by a man who swore himself into secret ministries. That is the standard of this particular government. It campaigned on being transparent and showing great integrity, but it has shown that it is obsessed with covering up its use of public funds.

The use of these off-budget funds is massively problematic. Here you have a $10 billion scheme—that's a lot of taxpayer funds—and we can't even see where the money is going. We have no idea which projects it has funded. We have no idea what the commercial arrangements might be. When the Labor government feigns surprise when we come in and ask questions about the Housing Australia Future Fund, it's because we can't get any answers. Freedom of information requests are blocked and blacked out. When you get a freedom of information request back from this government, all you see is black ink and no material information. The orders for the production of documents are blocked, blocked, blocked.

One of their favourite tools to use is the public interest immunity claim. In fact, Mr Chalmers, the Treasurer of the Commonwealth, has been found to have used false public interest immunity claims when he made them in relation to documents provided to him by the Cbus super fund. The Treasurer filed a public interest immunity claim with this Senate, which said that it would not provide the documents that Cbus had given the Treasurer because they were commercial-in-confidence. We appealed that because we had a parallel piece of paper in with the Information Commissioner, and the Information Commissioner found that, in fact, that document should be provided because it was not commercial-in-confidence and that what Cbus was doing was lobbying the Treasurer to try and get preferential access and deals. In this case, it was trying to cover up the stamp duty fees paid by the super fund to its members. Now we see that one of the outcomes of the economic roundtable was that the government wants to help the super funds cover up stamp duty fees to their members so that they can become the corporate landlords of Australians.

I've often said that this is a government for vested interests. But I thought that, when they had a productivity roundtable, it was genuinely about productivity. In fact, it was all about lining the coffers of their mates with the ideas that were already provided to them in the last term, such as helping the super funds become massive corporate landlords. That is what stinks about this government. Beyond it being the most secretive and untransparent government since the Keating government, it won't even say where it is spending taxpayer funds. I suspect that there is a range of unsavoury financial arrangements that exist between the unions, the super funds, Minister Chalmers and his government, and the Housing Australia Future Fund.

On a point of order, Senator Bragg has just reflected in the most inappropriate way on Mr Chalmers in the other place. I think he should withdraw it.

On a point of order, I was listening very closely to Senator Bragg, as I'm sure all Australians are, and, from my perspective, his comments were very well chosen and certainly consistent with other practice I've seen in this place. I saw nothing disorderly in the comments whatsoever.

Senator Bragg, it would be helpful if you could clarify that the remarks you made about the Treasurer do not go to any of the standing orders or breach any unparliamentary language. It would be helpful if you could assist the chair and the chamber, particularly around your last comments about the Treasurer. I also remind you to refer to members in the other place by their correct titles.

I'm happy to clarify my point, which is that the Treasurer filed a false public interest immunity claim with this Senate to cover up documents that he received from Cbus and that the Information Commissioner later found should have been made publicly available. It was a disgraceful occurrence that the Treasurer of the Commonwealth used his position to cover up secret lobbying to aid his corporate housing agenda.

I do really wonder what the government has to hide on something as straightforward and simple as asking and seeking to understand how this government has spent $277 million of taxpayers' money. It's not the government's money and it's not their personal bank account; it is the money of taxpayers being apportioned and expended. We are not sure how it's used. We are just seeking to understand, and that is all Senator Bragg has been asking for. He's been asking for clarity on how this large sum of taxpayers' money—a resource that underpins the operations of public services provided by government—is being utilised. It's for the $277 million debited to spend on houses between 1 April and 30 June this year—a pretty straightforward request.

The minister has come in here with what some would describe as an explanation—I'm not sure it does fit the bill, frankly—and suggested that the usual practices are being applied, that they're going through the processes and that progress is being made by officials. Seriously! This is the expenditure of money relating to a significant amount when it comes to public housing and the Housing Australia Future Fund. It should not be that difficult to provide documents that outline to this place, a place where the government is accountable to the people of Australia, how that money has been spent and what it has been used on.

The government come in here day after day to tell us how amazing their program is when it comes to building houses for Australians. As we know, and as Senator Bragg has said, 17 houses have been built in the 3½ years that the Australian Labor Party have been in government, which is fewer than when the last government was in power. So to have put aside $10 billion of taxpayers' money, to not tell us how they're using it and to have only built 17 houses—something stinks to high heaven here, and they don't want us to know what it is.

There is a concerning pattern of secrecy emerging in this government. It was only 3½ years ago that the Prime Minister promised to Australians that his government would be a fairer, kinder and more transparent government, and one that would share information with Australians about how their money was being used. Well, here we are again today. This is the latest in a series of damning indictments of this government. They are hiding information from taxpayers and members of this Senate—information we deserve to know about. And you can guarantee that, when we come to Senate estimates, this government will be playing the same game. Ministers will be saying the information is commercial in confidence, or there'll be some claim of public interest immunity. I think that is not good enough.

You've got groups in Australia like the Centre for Public Integrity suggesting that this government has become more secretive and less transparent than governments before it. They've seen 25 per cent of freedom-of-information requests fully granted under this government. That means 75 per cent of requests made of this government by not just the Senate but members of the Australian public who are wanting to know how their money is being spent by this government are being denied. An alarming rate of secrecy is being applied by this government, because, of course, this government knows best. They don't want people to have the information that they're hiding, because they know best.

This is an alarming trend and a completely broken promise by this government and by this prime minister, who promised us the transparency that Australians were apparently calling out for. But it appears, as is often the case with this government and prime minister, that you can say whatever you want before an election.

You can make all sorts of commitments and set all sorts of thresholds about the ways things will be done, how low power prices will be, how many houses you'll build and how transparent you'll be, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and this pudding does not taste good. It is pointing to a government that hides things, a government that is secretive. They do not want to reveal to this place or the Australian people what is truly going on.

The reason, I believe, is that things aren't going so well. Seventeen houses, a $10 billion fund, and Australians are in no way better off as a result of this terrible program being maladministered by this government. Shame on them. Shame on them for their secrecy. They should do better. Australians deserve much better.

I too rise to speak on the failure of the government to respond to this order for the production of documents. I once again commend my very good friend Senator Andrew Bragg in relation to his pursuit of these important matters on behalf of the Australian people. I also would like to associate myself with the remarks of my other very good friend Senator Jonno Duniam as well.

Let's go back to first principles. The federal government set up the Housing Australia Future Fund with $10 billion of off-budget funds. There were a number of purposes that the Housing Australia Future Fund was seeking to achieve in terms of providing more housing, in particular to vulnerable Australians. This is an extraordinarily important part of the government's response to the housing supply crisis. As the house of scrutiny, the Australian Senate has an obligation—a constitutional obligation, but also a moral obligation on behalf of the people who sent us here—to interrogate whether or not the Housing Australia Future Fund is working in the way that was intended. The documentation which Senator Bragg has sought to obtain relates to what $277 million of Australian taxpayer funds was spent on in the period between 1 April and 30 June 2025. That's what we want to know. Where did the money go? Don't the Australian people have a right to know where the money went? It's their money after all. In fact, it's borrowed money, so they're paying interest on this $277 million as well. That's what Senator Bragg is seeking to find out.

When this fund was set up, at least $500 million had to be spent every financial year. In the first three quarters of the financial year, there was $223 million spent, which raised the obvious question as to where the additional $277 million was spent. You had to spend $500 million, but you only spent $223 million, so what happened to the other $277 million? An obvious question. A very, very obvious question to ask. Senator Bragg was seeking the documentation to assist in answering that question. That order for the production of documents was passed by the Senate. It was passed by a majority of the senators in this place and therefore endorsed by a majority of the Australian people. Their representatives in this place wanted to see those documents. That's our job. Now we hear the Australian government is not going to provide that documentation. It refuses to provide that documentation. Why? I haven't heard any cogent reason as to why. In the absence of providing those documents, apart from disregarding the reasonable requirement of the Senate, what they are doing is enabling a vacuum to occur. We are all left to speculate as to what happened to the $277 million, because they won't provide us with any of the documentation to give us an answer. That is the situation we are in.

This would be bad enough on its own, but when you place it in the context of the government's continuing failure to respond appropriately to orders for the production of documents and FOI requests, it gets even worse. I want to quote from the Centre for Public Integrity.

These are the words of Dr Catherine Williams—not the words of a politician but the words of a senior member of the Centre for Public Integrity, who is out there advocating every single day on behalf of the Australian people for greater public integrity in our institutions. This is what Dr Catherine Williams says:

The Senate is being blocked from fulfilling its constitutional role of holding the government to account. This trend is dangerous for democracy.

Why won't you answer the order for the production of documents requested by the Australian Senate? If this place, this Senate, is to discharge its obligation as a house of review, a house of scrutiny, we have a right to documents of this nature.

I'm extremely concerned by this government's failure to comply with the Senate's order for the production of these documents. As Senator Bragg has pointed out, according to the Centre for Public Integrity, the last parliament only complied with these orders 33 per cent of the time. I'll say that again—just 33 per cent of the time. The 1993-96 parliament complied 92 per cent of the time. This is an incredible decline. It's really an extraordinary failure. These motions aren't optional; they're orders. Access to government information is crucial to democratic practice, and one of the most powerful tools for accessing this information is this chamber's ability to order the production of documents.

Research of the Centre for Public Integrity shows this government is making approximately one bogus unilateral public interest immunity claim per week. Compare this to the one every three weeks under the Morrison government—a government hardly known for its transparency. Out of the 336 motions to produce documents that this chamber agreed to in the 47th Parliament, 142 were not complied with on public interest immunity grounds. Ministers are making incontestable claims of public interest immunity, and there is little recourse to hold them to account. The system of Senate orders for the production of documents is broken. These claims serve to prevent the Senate from performing its core function as a house of review and scrutiny.

I note that, regarding this particular order, No. 28, the minister is yet to comply. In the minister's previous interim response, reaffirmed today, she said she expected 'to be able to respond to the order as soon as practicable'. Well, it's now been a month since the Senate voted on this motion. When does the minister intend to provide the documents? We've had no illumination about that this morning. No clear date has been provided. She is required to table any documents that detail the aggregate expenditure made from the Housing Australia Future Fund from 1 April to 30 June this year. It's a relatively short period of time, and I'm not sure why it's taken a month.

Scrutiny of government expenditure is a key responsibility of this chamber. It's necessary that the Senate scrutinise the spending of Commonwealth funds in the interests of transparency and accountability. That's our responsibility to the Australian people. This chamber is a house of review. It's a chamber of scrutiny, where we've been sent to do exactly that—look at all of these expenditure proposals and hold the government to account. How can we perform that role without sufficient information on key government priorities? There's barely any detailed public information about the Housing Australia Future Fund and its expenditure.

In response, Senator Bragg and I have both put motions to this chamber to demand more detail from the government. I want to know where the $3 billion that the Greens secured in negotiations to pass the Housing Australia Future Fund has gone. How has it been spent? The Greens secured some huge wins in those negotiations. As a direct result of Greens pressure in the previous parliament, we got the government to close the no-minimum-spend HAFF loophole. We forced Labor to guarantee a $500 million annual spend, starting in 2024-25. Previously, the government could spend anything from $0 annually to the $500 million cap.

We also got the government to spend a further $1 billion in immediate and direct spending on public and community housing. We know that we have a drastic shortage of public and community housing in this country. While over 170,000 Australian households languish on public housing waitlists, this government has this week prioritised building houses for US troops and weapons contractors. The government's priorities are all wrong.

While the Greens have some problems with the Housing Australia Future Fund, especially as it does nothing for the third of Australians who are renting, we want to know where this money is going and how it's being spent. I strongly encourage the minister to provide this chamber with these documents and to do so immediately, and to allow this house of scrutiny to do the job that Australians voted to put us here to do.

Australia needs housing; we all agree on that. But young people have been priced out of the market. I feel for all the young Australians coming out of high school or university, looking to start a life and a family and seeing that the average Australian dwelling price has surpassed $1 million. One Nation sees the problem as basic supply and demand. This dictates the price of houses. The government refuses to address demand, instead driving up demand through record immigration numbers and forcing Australians to compete for even the most basic housing. Just last week, we saw a story in Perth of 92 people showing up to view a single rental home. That is a disgrace.

Because Labor refuse to address the demand and give Australians much-needed relief from spiralling home costs, they tell us they will instead address supply. They tell us they will have 1.2 million homes built in five years through schemes like the Housing Australia Future Fund. Let's roll forward a year; what contribution has been made by the HAFF? Thanks to Senate estimates, we found out that a mere 17 houses have been built by the fund and that the fund has acquired another 340 homes. Labor need to go back to economics 101 because they don't seem to understand that buying homes out of the market does not increase supply; it just puts more pressure on Australians who are already doing it tough. The simple truth is that the federal government should not be involved in building houses. It drives up prices and distorts the market, hoovering up tradespeople into government contracts and out of the private market as politicians push for political deadlines.

Of the millions of migrants the Labor government has let into the country, how many are concreters, electricians, plumbers, carpenters, tilers, roofers, plasterers or landscapers? Where are the skilled tradespeople? Immigrants are mostly coming from countries with lower building standards, so they will all have to be retrained anyway.

Australia has built an average of 187,000 homes per year over the last five years; that's about a million homes in five years. How can the government possibly double that? How does the government propose to fill this void? Where are the out-of-work tradespeople? There aren't any. Have you tried to get a plumber or a sparky lately? We need a doubling of tradespeople to build double the number of houses.

Given the complete failure of the HAFF to deliver housing, Australians have the right to know where their money is going. If no housing has been built and no tangible benefit has been provided to the Australian people, then what are we paying for? I thought the Labor Party was going to be part of transparency. One Nation calls on Labor to live up to their word, tell Australians where their money is going and deliver the documents.

Question agreed to.

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

I move the second reading amendment standing in my name on sheet 3411:

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

(a) notes that:

(i) reforms to work from home arrangements are long overdue,

(ii) all employees should have the right to work from home for up to two days a week where practical; and

(b) calls on the Government to legislate a right to work from home which provides that:

(i) all employees have the right to request work from home arrangements for up to two days a week,

(ii) employers are required to positively consider such requests and may only refuse a request if it would make the performance of the inherent requirements of the role seriously impractical or impossible, and

(iii) employers are required to take into account any reasonable adjustments that could be made before refusing the request".

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

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

I move:

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

(a) the Labor Government has broken its promise to review and standardise the definition of small and medium business across legislation, creating ongoing confusion for industry and adding to compliance burdens; and

(b) small businesses continue to face significant financial pressures, and that a lower company tax rate of 15 per cent for small businesses would provide meaningful relief, strengthen viability, and encourage job creation".

I don't think we've seen it.

Senator Lambie, I don't believe that amendment has been circulated. Can you explain the terms of that amendment?

I certainly will. Senator Pocock and I were promised, nearly a year and a half ago now, that we would have a statement from the government saying exactly what a small business is—whether that's 20 people, 25 people. That was an agreement that was done between us and the government. They have failed to enact that agreement. That's the first thing. The second thing is that small business is doing it extremely difficult. I will ask you again to drop the tax rate from 25 per cent to 15 per cent. That is what that's about—which you've done nothing about.

Senator Lambie, you are moving the amendment in your name on sheet 3421. Is that correct?

That is correct.

Senator Watt?

A point of order, I'm sure it was inadvertent, but this amendment has literally just been put before our eyes now. Can we just get a little bit of advice procedurally about whether it can be considered? I genuinely don't know the answer to that.

Yes, of course. Let me consult the clerks. Senator Watt, the advice is that, as Senator Lambie was given leave to move this amendment, we are able to consider it. The amendment is now before you on sheet 3421.

The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Lambie on sheet 3421 be agreed to.

The coalition supports penalty rates. We have been very clear about that. We support penalty and overtime rates as fair compensation for working unsociable and unpredictable hours. We also support employee choice. We support employee flexibility. We support employers and employees being able to negotiate amongst themselves what works best for them. The Fair Work Commission already has appropriate powers to safeguard penalty rates through the better off overall test. These are all given. These are all the facts. These are things we know. We have concerns in relation to this bill as to how it creates impacts on small business, the retrospective application of this bill, the ambiguities of its implementation, the impact on employee choice, the risk it poses to working from home, the effects of EBAs and IFAs, the mischaracterisation of loopholes, the impact on productivity and the risk of capturing in this bill legitimate above-award arrangements as an unintended consequence.

Australian small businesses are struggling. There is no question about that. It doesn't matter whether it's a business in retail or hospitality, or a business in construction, though those two are the ones that have the highest rate of insolvencies. That is a legacy of this government. That is a legacy of the Albanese Labor government. This government has presented over 35 significant changes in terms of legislation that impacts small businesses. That is roughly one per month since this government has come to power. That is an extraordinary impost on Australian small businesses and the way they operate.

This government held a productivity roundtable last week in order to find out how to improve productivity, because we understand that that, amongst many other things, is a major problem in this country. On the back of that, this week we have this bill in relation to penalty rates, which makes it harder for Australian small businesses to operate, because it creates yet another layer of regulatory burden, red tape and financial impost connected to that. The question needs to be asked: why? What is the actual purpose of this legislation when penalty rates are actually not under threat? The Fair Work Commission already has the ability and the remit to make sure that there are no impacts on workers in relation to preserving or protecting their penalty rates.

But what this bill actually does do is constrain the commission. It undermines its independence, and it risks unintended consequences in award variations.

Something that we need to have a clear understanding of in relation to this bill from the government is where the bill could operate retrospectively, creating uncertainty and exposing employers to union driven variations of existing awards. What does 'union driven' mean? It means that the union must be involved in those negotiations between employees and the employer rather than them sitting down together and having a discussion about what works best for them, having a face-to-face discussion about what the employee would like and how that works for the employer and how they're able to navigate that. It's a simple, basic sit-down discussion.

This is an even greater problem for Australian small businesses, who then have to engage in complex and costly negotiations that will likely involve an enterprise bargaining agreement and the intervention of a union, whether or not the employee actually wants that.

Evidence that was presented to the inquiry shows that small-business owners spend some 15 hours a week on compliance. Fifteen hours a week is 40 per cent of the regular working week spent on compliance. We need to pause for a minute and have a think about whether that is something that is necessary or if we have perhaps gone too far. I would suggest that we have gone too far. And, if we're looking for clues and some tips on what is causing the productivity issues in our country, that would probably sit in my top one, two or three. People are being prevented from working in their businesses, growing their businesses and creating stable and strong businesses so that they can actually employ more people by the impost of regulatory burdens, many thousands of pages of which have been imposed by this Albanese Labor government. That's something we absolutely need to address.

So my first question to the minister is around the consultation and the process. Minister, I would like to understand why this bill was introduced without meaningful consultation with small business organisations, which have expressly raised concerns about its impact?

Thanks, Senator Kovacic, it's great to have you representing the opposition in this portfolio. As a broad principle, the government is committed to genuine and ongoing engagement with stakeholders. In developing the bill, we've engaged closely with peak employer bodies and unions. I was just taking some advice on this. When it comes to small business in particular, the usual small business representative groups that you would expect, people like COSBOA and ACCI, were present, I understand, at the National Workplace Relations Consultative Council, NWRCC, where this bill was discussed.

We did comply with the government's consultation obligations for workplace relations legislation. We consulted on an exposure draft of the bill with state and territory government officials, employer groups and union members of the Committee on Industrial Legislation, another acronym—COIL. This is a subcommittee of the NWRCC. This consultation was held on a confidential basis, but it has led to a stronger bill, and we thank participants for their valuable engagement.

Would you be able to tell us how many individual small businesses were consulted—noting the privacy elements, just the number?

As the senator would understand, the usual practice, when it comes to legislation, is to consult representative bodies, who then consult their members. So I would imagine that groups like COSBOA and ACCI, among others, would have consulted their membership which, in those cases, would have included small business.

Noting that, would you be able to tell me why the repeated concerns of industry bodies like COSBOA, ACCI and the Ai Group were ignored in relation to the drafting process, where they gave specific recommendations to take out ambiguity and those were not considered?

The fact that you consult on a bill doesn't necessarily mean that you take on board all the feedback you receive. I'm aware that some of the views the ACTU had about this legislation were not taken into account as well. Just because we consult with different groups doesn't mean we take on board what they say. An amendment was made to this bill in the House based on feedback we'd received from employer groups, including the Ai Group, regarding the retrospectivity point. There's an example where we have listened and taken action on the basis of that feedback.

I move the amendment in my name as circulated on sheet 3408:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 6 to 20), omit section 135A, substitute:

135A Special provisions relating to penalty rates and overtime rates

(1) In exercising its powers under this Part to make, vary or revoke modern awards, the FWC must be satisfied that:

(a) the rate of a penalty rate or an overtime rate that employees are entitled to receive under the modern award is not reduced; and

(b) modern awards do not include terms that substitute employees' entitlements to receive penalty rates or overtime rates where those terms would have the effect of reducing the additional remuneration referred to in paragraph 134(1)(da) that an affected employee would otherwise receive under the modern award.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply when the FWC exercises powers under this Part pursuant to:

(a) section 144 (flexibility terms); or

(b) section 160 (which deals with variation to remove ambiguities or correct errors); or

(c) paragraph 157(3)(a) (own initiative).

(3) Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply when the FWC exercises powers under this Part in relation to terms of a modern award that substitute employees' entitlements to receive penalty rates or overtime rates where those terms existed immediately prior to commencement of subsection (1).

(4) Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply when the FWC exercises powers under this Part in relation to terms of a modern award that substitute employees' entitlements to receive penalty rates or overtime rates where those terms are expressed to apply only to a small business employer.

(5) Subsection (1) does not limit the FWC's ability to make a determination to vary a modern award where the determination is made:

(a) to ensure that awards are operating effectively by addressing any anomaly or technical irregularity in the award arising from either the making of the award or past variations to it; or

(b) as an outcome of proceedings commenced by the FWC of its own motion if the FWC is satisfied it is necessary to achieve the modern awards objective and compliance with section 138, or

(c) following the FWC being satisfied that the variation is fair to employees and that it would:

(i) improve productivity; or

(ii) promote employment opportunities or the participation of employees in paid work; or

(iii) assist employees to balance their work and family commitments.

This amendment is a suite of amendments to change the scope and parameters of the principle by providing carve-outs, exemptions and competing factors for the commission in making its decision. I'm not sure the Senate would agree with that characterisation, but I think that is what we see it as attempting to do.

The government will oppose this amendment. The amendment seeks to dilute the bill in numerous ways by providing carve-outs, exemptions and competing factors for the commission in making its decision. Not only does this amendment seek to erode the fundamental purpose of this bill, which is to protect penalty rates; it also looks to add an array of additional complexity into the principle and put additional parameters on the commissioner's discretion. I note that the complexity and the independence of the commission are two things the coalition has criticised this bill for.

We've consulted genuinely and transparently on this bill with unions and employer representatives. The bill has been through a Senate committee process, where stakeholders were provided an opportunity to publicly provide feedback. The outcome of that process is clear—that the bill should be passed. As a statement of principle, the government believes that every award-reliant worker deserves protection of their penalty and overtime rates. For those who rely on those penalty and overtime rates to make ends meet, the bill gives them certainty that their take-home pay will not go backwards.

Noting your comments about engaging genuinely and transparently, are you able to confirm for me whether any of the stakeholders involved in the process were required to sign a nondisclosure agreement?

I answered in one of my previous answers that what's known as the committee of industrial legislation process, which is a formal mechanism that the government has consulted for some time when it comes to workplace relations legislation, involves consultation with states, territories, employer groups and unions. I think I said previously they were confidential discussions. I'm advised that the process there is that all participants in that process sign a nondisclosure agreement that lasts for 12 months and covers every bit of legislation that comes up in the meantime. We followed the standard practice.

How does the government justify introducing the 36th major change to the Fair Work Act since 2022 when 34 of those changes have disproportionately affected Australian small businesses?

I don't need to look at my talking points for this one! This government, since the time we were elected in May 2022, made very clear that we intended, as a government, to lift Australian workers' wages. We wanted to get wages moving again. We were coming out of a 10-year period of coalition government that deliberately suppressed wages, that was affecting living standards, and we continue to make no apologies for introducing a series of amendments, including these ones, which are about getting wages moving again and allowing Australians to deal with cost-of-living pressures. I'm not sure what the opposition's position is on this bill, but we'd like you to support this one as well.

Minister, I'm impressed by your lack of need for talking points; well done!

I acknowledge your comments in relation to lifting wages. I want to get an understanding of the scope and the thinking around, again, the impact to Australian small businesses. You have an awareness that we are in a housing crisis in this country. The highest rate of insolvencies is in construction businesses. Again, I speak to the 35 major changes—and this would be the 36th—for Australian small businesses. What was the consideration made as to the impact of this change to Australian small businesses, if any?

I might start with a broader answer around how we've approached the range of workplace relation changes we've made in relation to small business. We have always acknowledged, in each piece of legislation that we've passed since being elected in 2022, that in some cases small businesses need further time to adjust to changes than what we expect of big businesses. For example, just this week we're celebrating the one-year anniversary of the right to disconnect. That has only just come in, as of this week, for small businesses. It came in for big businesses 12 months ago. There are other changes that we've made, which I've forgotten for the moment, which applied to big business in the first instance, and 12 months was given to small businesses before the requirements came in for them. That would be an example of how we have attempted to consider the different needs of small businesses when making some of these changes.

On this bill, there's a fundamental point to be made, which is that this bill is not altering existing conditions. It's not imposing new obligations. I've heard Senator Kovacic and other coalition senators talk about new obligations and onerous burdens. What it's doing is preserving existing conditions rather than allowing them to be cut. This bill does not alter existing employer obligations, including those of small business. It does not introduce new costs or impose additional requirements on small business. Modern awards or industry or occupation based instruments provide a safety net of minimum terms and conditions for Australia's lowest-paid employees, and we think that every Australian employee deserves the same minimum protections in modern awards regardless of whether they're employed in a big business or a small business. It's not about requiring small businesses to do something new; it would be about businesses, large or small, reducing and cutting the existing conditions that apply under modern awards. All they need to do is keep doing what they're doing, rather than doing something new.

Thank you, Minister. I guess there is some dispute as to whether that is actually the case. Primarily, the issue is that Australian small businesses could see current agreements reviewed based on the retrospectivity of this legislation. So this bill actually applies identically to a small cafe with three, four or five staff as it does to a large multinational corporation with thousands of employees, despite having significantly different capacities to manage regulatory and HR compliance. On the basis of those concerns, would the government actually consider carving out or providing additional time to Australian small businesses as, as you have just articulated, you have done historically?

I might answer that question by dealing with this point around retrospectivity, which I know has been a concern of various groups, around this bill. As with all changes to the modern awards framework, once the bill is passed, which we expect it will be, parties will be able to apply to vary modern awards in line with the amended framework, so it's prospective in its operation. Even without this legislation, applications could be brought to test existing exemption rates against the modern award's objective. This reform strengthens protections that already exist. However, nothing in this bill requires the commission or parties to take immediate action in relation to existing exemption rates, except to comply with their current award obligations.

Thank you, Minister. I'm a little bit confused by what you just said. In the same sentence you said nothing will change, but you did say, if I understood correctly, that there is ability to test existing exemption rates, which means that is a retrospectivity because existing exemption rates already exist and Australian small businesses effectively have those, or may have those. If they can be tested, then that would mean that Australian small businesses would actually have to do something on the basis of those agreements being tested, even though they themselves and their employees are making no change.

In terms of what I just said, it's really about stating the principle that has always existed, which is that parties can make applications to the commission to vary awards. We're saying that that ability for a party to make an application to the commission to vary an award applies now in relation to this point just as it has always applied.

Minister, I'm going to read you a quote from the ACTU's submission from the hearing a couple of weeks ago:

The amendments will also apply to awards made before the legislation's commencement. This will enable unions to make applications to vary existing award terms, e.g. requesting the FWC—

the Fair Work Commission—

to use the new principle to remove exemption rate clauses or other loaded rates provisions such as annualised salaries where they have the effect of reducing the additional remuneration employees should otherwise receive.

Minister, can you please explain to me how this is not retrospective? I can't see how you can deny that this is retrospective.

All I can say is that parties have always, do always and will always—depending on what future governments decide—have an ability to apply to the commission to vary terms of an award. My interpretation is that the ACTU is stating the obvious—that parties can apply to seek to vary award terms, just as they could yesterday and they could the day before. In terms of that ability, nothing changes because of this bill.

Just so I'm clear, the ACTU is right in what they stated? The amendments will also apply to awards made before the legislation's commencement, which, in my understanding, makes it retrospective?

At the risk of repeating myself, the bill is not retrospective in its operation. Any decision that the commission makes based on an application to vary the awards would operate from the date of that decision rather than looking backwards. It's not retrospective in the sense of changing people's entitlements from a year ago or two years ago. It's about changing the existing terms in that award, and that change would operate prospectively rather than retrospectively. People can and do seek to make changes to award conditions every day of the week in the Fair Work Commission.

Thank you, Minister. I don't like to make you repeat yourself, but I just want to get this right. I don't want to get this wrong, because this is something that is really important to Australian small businesses and to how they can effectively operate and continue to employ people in our country. The ACTU said:

The amendments will also apply to awards made before the legislation's commencement.

Is the ACTU right, or is the ACTU wrong?

It's for the ACTU to decide how they express themselves, and I'm not going to say whether they're right or wrong, just as, if you present a quote from COSBOA, it's up to them what they say. What I'm saying is that every single day employer groups and unions make applications to the commission to vary the terms of an award that may have been decided years ago. That is normal practice, and that will apply here as well.

I apologise; I probably wasn't clear. In asking you whether the ACTU was right or wrong in terms of what they stated, I'm asking you, in the context of being the minister responsible and in terms of the way that you believe that this bill will apply, whether it will be retrospective in the way that they have clearly articulated in their submission.

So, effectively, an award changed last week can now be changed next week.

Again, even if this legislation were not to be introduced, unions and employers groups could bring applications to the commission to vary the terms of an award. They can do that now. Those changes operate prospectively. Wage rates and other conditions are changed prospectively rather than retrospectively, and that's the same here.

To confirm, it's incorrect to state that this bill is not retrospective?

This bill is not retrospective.

Thank you very much. I think we're all just as clear as each other as to whether the bill is retrospective or not! COSBOA gave evidence that small businesses already spend an average of 15 hours per week on compliance. This is another layer of regulatory compliance for them. I take it that you note that nothing is changing, but clearly things do change, because we have a legislation being put before the parliament to protect something that, in our view, didn't require protection based on what you have articulated in relation to the Fair Work Commission's current powers. Can you explain to me why it was necessary to incorporate small businesses into this bill and why they have not been carved out?

I made the point earlier that the government's view is that regardless of where someone works, whether they work for a major corporation or a small business, they're entitled to have their penalty rates protected. We're talking about people—typically quite low-income earners, typically women, typically part time or casual workers, typically young people—who work unsociable hours. My family and I, every now and then, like to be able to get a cup of coffee or something on a public holiday, and I feel entirely comfortable with paying a little bit more in order to have that cafe attendant get a bit more in their pocket because they're giving up the opportunity to have that public holiday.

I think that we've got a fundamental difference of opinion about whether there's a new obligation being imposed here or not. What this is about—this point about compliance for small businesses—is that every time award pay rates change, small businesses adjust and pay people the new wage rates. What we're saying here is no different in the sense that this is about preventing the Fair Work Commission from cutting penalty rates. Just as small businesses pay new wage rates when they're handed down by the commission under the award and they follow the award, it's about preventing the commission from doing something, rather than imposing some new obligation on small businesses that they don't already have. It just affects the pay rates that people working in a small business or a big business earn.

I think we all believe that people working unsociable hours, weekends or public holidays deserve the penalty rates that they receive. We don't have any concerns in relation to that. Our concerns lie with the necessity of this bill, why it has been put forward in the manner that it has and the impacts that we believe it will have on Australian small businesses. Could I ask was there ever any consideration given to exempting small businesses. I note your comment that you believe there will be no change, but clearly the potential for change is there. That is an ambiguity and that is a potential unintended consequence of this bill.

Certainly, in the period that I was the workplace relations minister and announced this commitment during the election campaign, there was no consideration given to exempting small businesses. Again, that's because our government's view is that, regardless of whether you work for a large company or a small business, you're entitled to penalty rates.

I have heard the senator say on a number of occasions that the coalition supports penalty rates. It seems a little bit odd, then, to be asking questions about exempting small businesses. That would suggest to me that the coalition doesn't support penalty rates for small businesses. That would be the only reason to seek a carve-out for small businesses. To my knowledge, exempting small businesses from this has never been considered, for the reason I've explained.

To be very, very clear: we're not seeking a carve-out of penalty rates for small businesses. Nobody has suggested that at any point in time and nor is that, in any way, shape or form, even possible. We don't seek it nor do we want it. This is where I'm confused. On the one hand, you're telling me there's no material change. On the other hand, you're saying you haven't sought an exemption for small businesses because you think that everybody should pay penalty rates, whether they're a small business or a large business. Which is it? Is it that there is no change, or is there going to be some kind of significant change that you see coming forward as a result of this legislation that you want to ensure that all businesses comply with? That's what we're trying to understand. Either there is a change or there isn't a change. If there is no change, what is the purpose of the legislation?

I'm not saying—and I don't think I ever have said—that there's no change involved from this legislation. As you say, the point of introducing this legislation is to make a change. The point is that there's no change for small businesses, in the sense that they will continue paying their workers what the award requires them to pay, or, if they do have an EBA, pay them the EBA rates. What changes is what the commission can do and the wage rates that can be paid. What changes, as a result of this legislation, is that the commission cannot remove penalty rates in the way that it is currently able to. When the commission hands down its decisions about pay rates under an award, that's what employers pay, whether they be small or big businesses.

I've been searching around for a bit of material on this. One of the prompts for this legislation was that, right now, in the Fair Work Commission, we've got peak bodies representing large and small retail businesses and peak bodies representing banks and the clerical industry who are seeking to cut the penalty rates in the awards that govern their workers, through offering rolled up salaries that go nowhere near what people would earn if they were getting penalty rates. What changes is that employer groups would not be able to cut penalty rates, or seek to cut penalty rates, in the way that they are currently able to do. Nothing changes for a small business in the sense that today and tomorrow they have to pay the legal rates of pay to their workers. It's just that, in the meantime, penalty rates can't be cut. As long as small businesses follow the law and pay the award, they've got nothing to fear.

If a current Australian small business, which you deem has cut penalty rates, has an agreement with one of their employees, then those are the agreements that you would seek to be changed by this legislation that would then create an impost for that small business. Is that what you're saying?

This goes to this point about retrospectivity. I think the concern that you're expressing is that, if an award has previously been altered to reduce penalty rates, there might be some ability through this legislation to rectify that, to change that. That is not possible under this legislation. It's about what the current terms are in an award, what they say about penalty rates and not allowing those penalty rates in the current award to be cut.

I note your comments in relation to the Fair Work Commission. Why remove the discretion of the Fair Work Commission when it already has the statutory responsibility to protect penalty and overtime rates?

The Fair Work Act already lays down rules, if you like, for the Fair Work Commission to take into account when making decisions. This is simply another requirement for the Fair Work Commission to consider when making decisions, just as the entire Fair Work Act includes other matters that the Fair Work Commission needs to take into account. As I say, it's very common for governments on both sides of the chamber to make changes to what the Fair Work Commission can and can't consider. As I've said, one of the reasons that we've acted here is that there are current cases before the Fair Work Commission where we see employer groups trying to cut penalty rates in a way that we don't think is fair.

I mentioned the retail award matter that's before the Fair Work Commission at the moment. In that case, we have parties seeking to vary awards, and, in any case that hasn't yet been decided by the Fair Work Commission, they'll need to take into account the laws as they exist, which will presumably include this law once it has passed. And we are concerned about what some of the employer groups are trying to do in the retail award matter. In the submission that the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association produced to the commission in this award variation case, they provided evidence of members of their union—shop assistants—who would be more than $1,000 worse off each year and model rosters that would be more than $5,000 worse off each year under the proposed exemption rate being put forward by the employer. Now, I think all senators in this chamber would recognise that shop assistants don't tend to be highly paid individuals, and for them to risk losing more than $5,000 every year because of what the employer groups are seeking to do to penalty rates—we don't think that's acceptable.

Minister, given what you've just read out—that you're relying heavily on union evidence to make your assertion—will you acknowledge then that the question of cutting penalty rates remains contested and that, until the Fair Work Commission is allowed to undertake an objective and independent process, it can't be said with certainty that those penalty rates are actually at risk of being cut? The Fair Work Commission hasn't made that assessment; that's an assessment of the union movement.

Yes, of course it will be an assessment of the Fair Work Commission in that case and in every other case, but what we're doing through this law is laying down principles that the Fair Work Commission need to take account of. Should we pass this law, those principles will include that you can't cut penalty rates from awards.

I would probably say that the Fair Work Commission is not being allowed to undertake that objective and independent assessment, because we are overlaying the legislation and actually taking away the Fair Work Commission's authority to make that assessment of their own accord. Can you clarify that for me one more time, and then I'll proceed to a different question.

As I've said, it is normal practice for governments of the day to introduce laws that set, if you like, parameters for the Fair Work Commission to work within, and that's what we're doing here. The commission will continue to interpret and apply the Fair Work Act, including the new principle introduced in this bill, and they will continue to make decisions, just as they have always done.

Could I ask why the drafting hasn't been tightened to guarantee that exemption rate clauses and annualised salary provisions that have already been approved by the commission can't be reopened?

Even after this law is changed, exemption rates will be permitted in awards; it's just that they need to take into account this principle around not leaving people worse off, essentially, by cutting their penalty rates. But exemption rates will be permitted.

That wasn't exactly my question; my question was about tightening the drafting to ensure that exemption rate clauses and annualised salary rates that are already approved—agreements that are already in place and have already been approved by the Fair Work Commission—can't be reopened by this legislation. It's about if there's already an agreement in place.

I think we're back to the same point about retrospectivity in that, right now, any party can go to the commission seeking to vary a term of an award, whether it be about exemption rates or anything else. Nothing changes in that respect, and I guess that's why we've left the drafting the way it is.

That'll take me to an example of a retail worker, one that you gave yourself a while ago. It made me think of my own daughter who, while she was at uni, worked at a major retailer and often worked into the evenings, on weekends and early mornings, and there are many other people that have done the same. It's often also the remit of single working mothers, who work hours that might fit in with their care arrangements for their children. If a person has set up an agreement with their employer that works best for them, that encapsulates the average working hours and gives them a set, regular income that they have confidence in, knowing that that will be for both ongoing hours and ongoing income without any variation or fluctuation, that is very important when estimating income for Centrelink when it comes to family tax benefits and parenting payments and also in relation to child support payments. This worker has come to this agreement with their employer because it works for them.

It also works for their employer. Let's say it's a small retail store. Under this current legislation, if in some circumstances it could potentially be based on some hypothetical scenario—not on the actual scenario of that worker but on some hypothetical, made-up scenario somewhere—that that worker's penalty rates have been cut, will this bill require that worker and that employer to exit that agreement and take up a different agreement directed by this legislation, against their own effective flexibility requirements and what actually suits them and their needs best?

The short answer is that it wouldn't change the situation for someone on that kind of agreement. One of the points we've been making in advocating for this change is that we are fine with employers, employees and unions negotiating terms that apply to a particular business. In that negotiation, it may be that the parties agree to make some changes to penalty rates in return for pay rises or that there are changes to conditions. That's the nature of an agreement. But an award is different. What this legislation is about is the award. The award sets the minimum safety net. What we're saying is that, when there hasn't been an agreement reached in a workplace, in that situation, it shouldn't be possible to cut penalty rates, in the absence of that kind of negotiation or agreement.

I think you mentioned your daughter's case working for one of the major retailers. They all have enterprise bargaining agreements that they've reached with their employees and typically with a union. That's the point we're making—if people want to discuss changes to penalty rates, changes to conditions and changes to wage rates in an enterprise-level way, then that should be done through an agreement rather than by taking away penalty rates from the minimum standards, which are set in an award.

Thank you, Minister. Can I ask this then: you made a comment—and I was listening intently to your explanation—about an agreement between an employer, an employee and the union.

Do you have a concern with the fact that employees and employers may wish to come into these arrangements and into these agreements without the intervention of a union?

It's entirely a matter for an individual employer, its workers and the relevant union to come to an agreement around the pay and conditions that are provided in that workplace. Of course, they've got to operate within the parameters of the law. I'm not going to express judgement about whether a particular agreement is a good one or not. It's obviously the role of the Fair Work Commission to oversee that process.

I'm remembering now that that's one of the other distinctions between making this change to effect awards and to effect agreements. Agreement-making is supervised by the Fair Work Commission to ensure that the parties don't end up worse off, essentially. If someone is paid on an award, there's no supervising process as that employee starts work and gets paid under those conditions; that is all done when the award terms are set. That's why we're saying that, when it comes to setting the terms of the award, penalty rates shouldn't be cut.

I'm not sure that that clarifies the question that I asked. Is part of this legislation or the purpose of this legislation a move to ensure that employees and employers are unable to make their own agreements including flexible working arrangements in relation to what best suits them without the intervention of a union?

Nothing in this bill prevents employers, workers and unions coming to whatever arrangement they want to reach. This bill will also not apply to what are known as 'individual flexibility agreements'. What this bill will do is prevent the minimum standards set by an award from cutting penalty rates.

Thinking again about the retrospectivity of this, has the department provided legal advice as to whether the bill's current wording exposes employers to retrospective claims, and, if not, was it sought in the first place?

The bill is based on departmental advice. I'm sure, in the process of that, they've taken advice from lawyers, but it's based on the advice from the department that it's not retrospective in its operation.

Will that advice be released, or will you commit to releasing that advice?

I think what I normally do at this point is take that on notice.

What protections will small businesses have against unions bringing applications to vary existing award terms under this bill?

If I've understood your question correctly, Senator, you're asking what protections there will be for small businesses to stop unions seeking to vary awards to make use of this. As I've said many times, it happens on a daily basis that unions and employer groups seek to vary awards. I would expect that unions will make all sorts of applications, just as employer groups will. So I can't offer that kind of protection, because that's what happens in the commission every single day.

Is it your view that the ability to vary the existing terms of awards will increase after the passage of this bill?

I'm not sure that anyone will have modelled the likely number of applications. But, just as there are today, there will be unions and employer groups in the commission seeking to vary the terms and the conditions of an award, either to raise pay rates, reduce pay rates, add conditions, take away conditions. I'm sure some people will make use of this provision once it's passed.

I'm sure that some people will. I wonder why you didn't model that. Why wouldn't you model to see whether this would create a greater incidence of unions looking to vary existing award terms under the bill?

I would expect that we would see this provision used more as a defensive mechanism by unions. If we were to see employer groups make an application to the commission to try to cut penalty rates from an award, this would stop that from happening rather than unions seeking to vary awards to do something regarding penalty rates. It's more, to my mind at least, of a defensive step. As I said, there are literally cases in the commission right now where we're seeing employer groups trying to cut penalty rates from awards. This would prevent that from happening.

So if it's primarily a defensive mechanism then why wasn't there a retrospectivity element written into the bill? I note that Professor Andrew Stewart had specific questions about the drafting of the bill that were left unanswered by the department. So I'd like to get an understanding as to how these decisions were made in relation to both what the impact of the bill would be in not drafting it in a manner that would preclude retrospectivity and when it's said that the Fair Work Commission can deal with it anyway, which then means that the Fair Work Commission has even more work to do. Why wouldn't you model both of those things when there's a significant impact, both on the commission and on existing award terms?

We as a government think that people shouldn't have their penalty rates cut. That's why we're making this change and why we're content to see it go forward. You've asked a number of questions about why we are permitting existing terms and awards to be varied. You characterise that as retrospective, because these awards were determined in the past and we're allowing them to be changed. If we stopped awards that might have been decided five or 10 years ago from ever being changed, then people's pay rates and conditions wouldn't change. You don't have awards set in stone forever. They change when parties bring applications to the commission to change those terms. What we're saying here is that, if parties sought to cut penalty rates from those awards, they wouldn't be able to do so.

Respectfully, I'm not talking about not changing pay rates or penalty rates. It's about the existing agreements between employers and employees as to the broader terms of their employment that they have already come to an agreement on, which could be impacted by this legislation. The legislation is effectively saying: 'Bad luck. This applies regardless of an existing agreement that you may have.' I'm trying to understand why consideration wasn't given to that when there are obvious impacts to small business. It's obvious that a small business is going to find that harder to manage than a Coles, a Kmart, a major bank or any other organisation.

As I think I've said previously, any agreement that has been reached at an enterprise level—an enterprise bargaining agreement or an individual flexibility agreement—won't be impacted by this bill, because those agreements have been reached between employer and employees, sometimes with the involvement of a union. This is about the award and the minimum standards. I think some of the concern seems to come from a fear that if—there have been cases, we all know them.

Several years ago, the commission reduced penalty rates.

I think they made a decision in the retail sector a few years ago to reduce penalty rates. This bill would not automatically change those penalty rates back to where they were. It would require a future application, presumably from a union, to increase penalty rates above the level they are currently set at, whether they've been reduced before or left as they are. So this bill won't overturn, if you like, previous decisions of the commission on its own. It would take a future application from a union to seek to introduce penalty rates. I reckon there's probably unions in the country trying to do that right now, just as, unfortunately, there are some employer groups trying to cut penalty rates right now.

Could you please explain how the bill will treat annualised salary arrangements that are already approved by the commission? Is that in line with your most recent answer?

I knew I had a piece of paper somewhere. Your question essentially was: how will the new principle impact annualised wage arrangements? The Fair Work Act permits annualised wage arrangement terms in modern awards at section 139(1)(f). These terms must include safeguards to ensure employees are not disadvantaged. The new principle will apply when the commission is exercising its powers to make, vary or revoke a modern award. It will be up to the commission to determine how the principle is interpreted and applied through its usual consultative process with parties. The government is aware of 22 annualised wage arrangement terms in modern awards.

Going back to your answer in relation to previous attempts to reduce penalty rates, Minister, can you confirm whether that relates to the 2016 matter where there was a union negotiated agreement by the SDA which cut penalty rates, and that the Fair Work Commission actually overturned that? If that was the case, if the Fair Work Commission were capable of overturning this union led decision in 2016, is that a reflection of the powers of section 134 of the act already doing what they were intended to do in relation to penalty rates?

I don't remember the exact circumstances of the case you've referred to or the one that I was referring to before. My recollection is that around about that time there was a decision made by the commission to vary the terms of an award to reduce penalty rates as opposed to an agreement. What I'm saying is that that kind of decision would not be possible after this bill is passed. It wouldn't be possible to cut the penalty rates and the award. I'm also saying that this bill won't automatically overturn that kind of past decision. If someone wants to increase penalty rates from their current level, then they have to apply to the commission and vary the award. They had to do that yesterday. They have to do that today. They will have to do that after this bill is passed.

I spoke before about some drafting concerns that Professor Andrew Stewart put to the department. Will the commission be required to test new arrangements against fringe or extreme scenarios, as raised by Professor Stewart? By 'fringe' or 'extreme', I mean someone that only works on public holidays or on Sundays rather than an individual's likely pattern of work.

I can't predict exactly how the Fair Work Commission will make future decisions based on this bill, but the usual process that the commission undertakes in an application is to consider all of the evidence that's submitted and reach a fair and reasonable position. I would expect that that's what they'd do in this case as well.

In that case, would you have a view or would you be able to give us some insight into why the department's responses were so general and differential to the commission instead of providing clarity to stakeholders? Why can't the department just tell us what is going to happen here or what the general set of rules are? Why doesn't it just say: 'No. Absolutely not. We're not going to base this on a hypothetical, random scenario of some worker that might just work Sundays or a worker that might just work on public holidays'? Why not provide that clarity?

We respect the fact that the Fair Work Commission is independent in the decisions it makes on particular cases. We respect the fact that they have discretion when they make their decisions, and we don't want to overly constrain the Fair Work Commission in terms of what they have to consider and what they can't consider. We're setting a principle for the commission to be governed or guided by, then it's a matter for the commission to interpret the particular facts of a case.

I'm a bit more confused now. Minister, you tell us that this bill is about providing certainty, but you've now just said, in answer to the last couple of questions, that you can't guarantee how the Fair Work Commission will interpret the new provisions of this bill that's meant to provide certainty. Which is it?

The bill provides certainty in the sense that it makes clear that penalty rates can't be cut in awards after this is passed. The parliament doesn't ever seek to tell the commission what it must decide on every single case. That's the point of the commission: to weigh up the evidence and apply its discretion.

I remember having a long debate with Senator Cash along similar lines with one of the workplace relations bills that we passed last term, where my answer to many of her questions was, 'It's a matter for the commission.' I'm not sure if she thought that was laughable or horrific; it was her usual mock horror that we're seeing again this week. But that's how it works. The commission has discretion to make decisions. What we're doing here is setting the principle that the commission needs to consider.

Understand that that's the function of the commission and that their purpose or job is to weigh up evidence and apply discretion. But how are they going to be able to do that now based on this legislation, because this has now become prescriptive? It actually can't say, 'Weighing up the balance of things, this is fair and reasonable.' They're actually being told, 'We actually have to do this.'

I think this part of the discussion stems from you putting forward the situation where I think what you called 'fringe cases' might be provided to the commission. What I'm saying is that the commission, when making its decision, will consider all of the evidence and will come up with a fair and reasonable decision. But, yes, we are seeking to tell the commission in this bill that it can't cut penalty rates from a modern award—just as I'm sure I could find you a couple of hundred other sections in the Fair Work Act which give the commission direction about what it can and can't do, but then they operate within those boundaries to consider the facts of a particular case to make a decision.

Do you consider the wages for employees of small businesses to be fringe issues?

I absolutely do not consider the wages earned by employees of small businesses to be fringe issues. I think they're really important issues, and that is why am proud to be part of a Labor government that is increasingly wages of workers in small businesses and big businesses after 10 years of wage suppression by the coalition.

I'm very proud to be a part of the Liberal Party that wants to ensure that small businesses remain in existence so that they can continue to employ Australian workers and that those workers can have the flexibility of choice of working for local Australian small businesses rather than being pushed to institutional and large corporations.

Minister, can you please tell me why we're proceeding with this legislation right now, when there are fundamental questions about its implementation still unresolved?

I speak to the impacts on small business, I speak to retrospectivity, and I speak to ambiguity in the language and unintended consequences. Why don't we just take some time to ensure that we don't have those problems, given that nothing is actually going to change today or tomorrow, as you state?

The reason we're doing this, Senator Kovacic, is that we don't want to see people lose their penalty rates. That is literally under threat right now in two separate cases before the Fair Work Commission. Even if it weren't for the fact that those cases are before the Fair Work Commission now, this is about putting in place a broad principle that applies forever, whether it be to those couple of cases or more generally into the future. We don't want to see penalty rates cut, and that's why we're seeking to pass this bill.

What I want to get an understanding of is how the government justifies removing the ability for employees to agree to higher base salaries in lieu of penalty rates, when these arrangements provide income stability? I'll use another example. Many major lenders in this country, when they assess borrowing capacity for a home loan, will assess penalty rates and overtime rates as a lower percentage because of the variation, or the instability, of those hours. Why shouldn't an employee be able to negotiate, with their employer, a higher flat rate that, on measure, they are delivered a higher base salary on, to provide them with that income stability? Why can't they choose to do that?

As I said earlier, we're entirely comfortable with workers and their employers reaching agreements about their pay and conditions, and that is what the enterprise bargaining system operates for. But we don't think it's appropriate that the minimum conditions that are set in an award should allow for penalty rates to be cut.

Minister, could you please tell me what consideration, if any, was given to evidence from women who faced significant difficulties with Centrelink and child support due to variable penalty rate income. To clarify that, what consideration was given to the fact that some women may choose to have a flat rate income that suits them better for those purposes in relation to reporting of income to government agencies?

I think my answer is the same in that the ability for those women to reach those kinds of agreements will remain in place after this bill is passed. They will still have the ability to negotiate and be part of an enterprise bargaining agreement, just as they do now.

More generally, the bill would have a positive impact for women, who make up the majority of award-reliant employees; nearly 60 per cent of award based employees are women. This would protect their penalty rates. Women are also overrepresented in part-time work, as workers with care responsibilities and in industries where enterprise bargaining agreements are less common. So, by ensuring the penalty and overtime rates in modern awards are not reduced in the future, this bill helps protect take-home pay for these women—but, as I say, they would continue to have the ability to reach agreements, just as they do now.

Thank you, Minister. My concern is in relation to how it'll be assessed. It won't necessarily be assessed on their own individual circumstances. What I'm trying to understand is why an employee like the one that I've just described should be denied the arrangement that they prefer, that suits them, that suits their family and that also suits their employer, simply because a hypothetical worker somewhere else might be worse off in a hypothetical scenario.

I'm interested in understanding why the needs of a real worker are being overlooked for the needs of a hypothetical potential worker.

I am reminded that, in addition to enterprise bargaining agreements being available for women in that situation, I said earlier that this bill won't have any impact on individual flexibility agreements. There still are opportunities for women in that situation to reach agreements with their employers. What won't be possible is for an employer to say to a woman in the instances you are talking about, 'You're going to be paid the award, and that means you won't get penalty rates, because the award doesn't allow for penalty rates any longer.' That's what will be stopped.

I think the question that I'm thinking about here is in relation to EBAs and IFAs, which is a different matter and relates more to larger organisations, but I will come back to that later. My concern in relation to this is that this government states that it supports flexibility. There are many people now, as we saw during the election period, talking about the importance of workplace flexibility, in particular working from home, and of negotiating those terms with their employers. My concern is how this bill, which becomes incredibly proscriptive in relation to certain elements, aligns with the government's stated support of workplace flexibility, particularly as it comes to an employee and employer being able to come to a mutual agreement.

This bill still allows an enormous amount of flexibility when it comes to workplace arrangements. What it stops is people having their penalty rates cut without adequate compensation for that. Parties can still seek exemption rates in an award, which would take into account the loss of penalty rates, but they need to be properly compensated for that. It's about not cutting penalty rates and leaving people worse off.

Does that exemption rate calculation apply to that individual employee or to hypothetical potential employees or hypothetical scenarios?

As I understand it, those exemption rates would need to operate in a way that didn't leave any employee worse off.

Effectively, even though that individual employee had negotiated that agreement with their employer and is better off happy with that arrangement, under the terms of this bill, they would not be able to continue in that arrangement if some other worker somewhere would have been worse off under that same arrangement.

I think the most likely scenario where what you have put forward would occur could be dealt with through an individual flexibility agreement, where an individual employee reaches an agreement with their employer and they can negotiate the terms and conditions that suit them, within the boundaries of the legislation, obviously.

Minister, do you acknowledge that IFAs are acknowledged for their fragility and are not perhaps a best-practice measure for agreements between employers and employees?

Personally, I am a fan of enterprise level bargaining and collective agreements, but there are other arrangements possible under the act.

So, to be clear, the only option for that employee—and that that scenario is suitable for them and best for them—is to enter into an EBA or an IFA? They cannot remain in that agreement even though they are better off under it?

Minister, it being 12.15, we'll have to take this up at another time.

I look forward to it!

Progress reported.

We will now move to senators' statements.

A couple of weeks ago I stood with my colleagues from the Tasmanian and Commonwealth governments to announce a $135 million support package for Nyrstar smelters in Hobart and Port Pirie. Let me be clear, this was not charity or a handout to a failing business; this was an investment in our people, in our sovereign capability and in the regions that built this nation.

Make no mistake, the scale of what was at risk was enormous. In Port Pirie, the lead smelter is the backbone of the town. More than 850 South Australians are directly employed there, and hundreds more rely on it through contracting and supply work. In my hometown of Hobart, the zinc refinery employs over 550 Tasmanians. If you add in suppliers, contractors and small businesses, you reach more than 6½ thousand jobs tied to these operations nationwide. If either smelter closed, it would not just have been a hit to the economy; it would have been a catastrophe for those towns—families broken, businesses shuttered, communities hollowed out. That is why we acted, because walking away was never an option.

In this partnership, the federal government will contribute $57.5 million, the South Australian government will contribute $55 million and the Tasmanian government will contribute $22.5 million. Each level of government is stepping up, each recognising the national importance of these facilities. What will it deliver? First, it will bring forward critical maintenance; infrastructure upgrades to furnaces, wharves and safety systems; modernisation to reduce emissions and improve efficiency; and, most importantly, feasibility studies and pilot projects in critical minerals. This is the key. It's not about clinging to the past; it's about creating a future.

At Port Pirie, we'll fund a pilot plant for antimony, a mineral used in defence, electronics and semiconductors. Right now, China dominates its supply. With this package, we change that. We'll also explore bismuth, another mineral with growing demand. In Hobart, we'll investigate refining germanium and indium. Without those, you don't get smartphones, you don't get satellites and you don't get fibre-optic cables. They are essential to the modern world. Think about that; a refinery in Hobart could soon be part of the global supply chains for semiconductors and advanced manufacturing. That's the scale of the opportunity before us.

This is a future made in Australia in practice. The strategy is built on three pillars: sovereign capability, decarbonisation and clean energy leadership, and regional jobs and renewal. In relation to sovereign capability, this package keeps processing onshore—so we stop sending raw ores offshore and buying back the value-added products. We build resilience against shocks. In relation to decarbonisation, Hobart's zinc refinery already underpins renewable energy industries. Zinc is critical to solar, wind and batteries. By adding germanium and indium, we go further; we link Tasmania directly to the clean energy economy around the world. In relation to regional jobs, this is not about centralising everything in Sydney or Melbourne; it's about ensuring that the regions are part of the new industrial story. And I say this: when critics call this a bailout, they miss the point.

This is a transitionary support tied to transformation. It's conditional, it's strategic, and it is exactly what the future made in Australia is all about.

I want to speak to intergenerational equity because this is not just about today's jobs; it's about tomorrow's opportunities. Protecting today and building tomorrow—that's the balance. By keeping these smelters open, we protect thousands of workers right now, but, by investing in critical minerals, we create industries for the next generation. Regional resilience—Tasmania has one of the oldest populations in Australia. Too many young people leave because they can't find high skilled work. With this package, Hobart can offer careers in advanced refining and in global tech supply chains. That keeps young Tasmanians at home, and it draws others back. Tasmania is rich in renewable energy, but fairness means that Tasmanians must benefit directly, not just investors and offshore corporations. By anchoring processing locally, future generations inherit both clean power and the jobs that flow from it. So, yes, this is an intergenerational package—one that protects today and invests in tomorrow.

Let me add another point around productivity. This package is not just about saving jobs; it's about lifting productivity in Port Pirie, in Hobart and across the nation. In Tasmania, the numbers tell the story. Our gross state product per capita is around $70,000—just three-quarters of the national average. Our labour force participation rate sits at 61 per cent—the lowest in Australia and well below the national rate of 67 per cent. If we matched the mainland average, we would see more than 11,000 jobs and billions of dollars added to the state economy. We work fewer hours too—just 32 hours a week on average. That's nearly five hours less than in New South Wales or Queensland. Our underemployment rate is the highest in the nation at 7.7 per cent. On top of that, we have one of the oldest populations in the country, meaning fewer younger people in the workforce and more pressures on our services. Without productivity growth, that gap will only widen.

These are the structural weaknesses that this package begins to address. By upgrading the furnaces at the Hobart zinc refinery, we lift efficiency—more output from the same input. That's productivity in action. Through diversification by moving into germanium and indium, we increase the value added per worker. Each shift becomes more valuable to the national economy. On skills: these upgrades will require metallurgists, engineers, technicians. Training and retaining those skills build a more adaptable and more productive workforce. On supply chain uplift: hundreds of Tasmanian contractors will modernise alongside the refinery. They too will become more efficient and more competitive. Make no mistake, this is not about keeping the smelter alive; it's about making it stronger, smarter and more productive. When Tasmanian industry becomes more productive, Tasmanian workers share the gains through higher wages and better jobs.

Let's deal directly with some of the critics that say, 'This is corporate welfare—pouring money down a smelter stack.' Wrong—this is a conditional investment tied to diversification, tied to pilot projects, tied to sovereign capability. Others say: 'Why support heavy industry at all? Why not just let it fail?' If we let these smelters go, we let our regions go, we let our workers go, and we let our sovereignty go. That is the price Australia cannot afford.

Swift action around this matters. Let me give a concrete example. Without this package, Port Pirie would have been forced to shut down furnaces within weeks. Hundreds of workers would have been sent home, families would have been left without income, and communities would have plunged into crisis. Instead, because governments could act swiftly and because agencies carry the burden, maintenance was funded, furnaces kept running and families kept working. That is the difference between theory and practice.

The Newstart package is not perfect. It will not solve every problem facing regional industry. It will not undo decades of neglect overnight. But it matters. It's a start, and it is a signal. It tells workers in Port Pirie and Hobart, 'You matter.' It tells our children, 'We are investing in your future.' It tells the world, 'Australia will not give up its industrial capacity without a fight.' That is the heart of Future Made in Australia.

I would like to acknowledge the life of former Senator for Queensland Stan Collard, OAM, who passed away recently. Stanley James Collard was born in Maleny in 1936 in what was known then as the north coast. The eldest of three sons of William and Edina Collard, Stan was raised on a family dairy farm, where he learned early the values of hard work, community and humility. He went to primary school at Maleny, followed by two years at Nambour State High School—the school that I went to along with Fiona Simpson, the member for Maroochydore. This was the sum total of his formal education, after which he helped his father on the family farm before moving to Brisbane and joining Queensland railways as a trainee engineman.

That that lack of extensive education should not mean you draw conclusions as to his ability. Like many children of farmers, Stan put his family and the family farm before his own self interest. Stan would go on to drive some of the largest coal trains in the world, hauling the wealth of Queensland to the ports. Stan was also heavily involved in his community. He served as a lay preacher in the Methodist church, and, while based in Cloncurry, became active in the Country Party. By 1959, he was a member of the local branch, and, prior to the 1966 federal election, he was campaign director for Bob Katter Sr. Stan continued in this role for the following three elections while continuing to work as a locomotive driver.

Stan's anger at the Whitlam Labor government's poor economic management and its increasing interference in states' rights prompted him to seek preselection for the Senate in 1975. Fifty years ago, he won a place on the joint coalition ticket and entered the Senate in one of the most turbulent periods of Australian politics. In Stan's first speech he spoke about the challenges of isolation and the need for better communications and services for rural Australians. It was a theme that he returned to throughout his service in the Senate. Stan's record in this place was exemplary. He was a diligent and conscientious senator. He spoke with a quiet but determined voice on behalf of those living behind the Great Dividing Range and beyond the reach great cities, highlighting the contribution of those Queenslanders to our national wealth and their right to fair representation. Stan advocated for practical solutions, improved infrastructure, fairer electrical arrangements for rural areas and policies that struck a balance between conservation and development. He served as National Party Whip and Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate before becoming leader from 1985 to 1987. In the shadow ministry, he carried responsibilities for veterans' affairs, arts, heritage and the environment.

Through all of this, Stan brought the perspective of someone who knew life outside of politics and who had never forgotten where he came from. When his parliamentary career prematurely ended in 1987, Stan continued his lifetime mission of service. He contributed to Lifeline, Life Ed and many other community organisations across Queensland. In 2014, his efforts were fittingly recognised with a Medal of the Order of Australia—something that he said to me he was particularly proud to receive. But, in a way, Stan was the political godfather of the Liberal National Party.

While the Liberal Party and the National Party were busy squabbling and having their fights that seemed to go on for years, Stan, along with a couple of other people, set up an institution known as the Conservative Breakfast Club, of which I'm currently a patron. The idea and the ideals of the Conservative Breakfast Club were to bring together the Liberals, Nationals and conservatives to make sure we remembered that we were united in our cause to oppose the left and united in the belief of the dream that was Queensland. Each breakfast, we pay homage to Stan and to the other founders of the Conservative Breakfast Club. The Conservative Breakfast Club, in its own way, was a forerunner to the Liberal National Party.

Stan's life is a reminder that this parliament is enriched when those who've lived and worked in our regions bring their voices to the national stage. I honour Stan's service and that of his late wife, Gloria, to Queensland and to Australia, and, as a serving Liberal National Party senator for Queensland, my thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends.

We need to talk about the Olympics. It is a tale of two Olympics. We had the first three years since the Olympics were awarded to Queensland, where the state Labor government did very little—well, apart from Premier Palaszczuk jetsetting around the world chasing red carpet. We had three wasted years. After the election in October last year, we have a new government in Queensland that has revitalised the Olympics and the Paralympics and made sure that we have a road map to their delivery in 2032.

I want to acknowledge the fantastic work of Premier David Crisafulli, Deputy Premier Jarrod Bleijie, and the Minister for the Olympic and Paralympic Games, Tim Mander, for making sure that there is a road map to the 2032 Olympics. I want to acknowledge the work of Lord Mayor Adrian Schrinner and the Brisbane City Council team and how they've worked in partnership with the state government to make sure we deliver the best Olympics and Paralympics the world has seen.

Work is already underway on a $7 billion capital works program that will enable the games to reach beyond Brisbane and into the regions, and to allow all Queenslanders, not just those who live in Brisbane, to benefit from the legacy of the games for years to come. The joy of the games and its economic benefits and its legacy will be shared across Queensland because the games will be spread across Queensland. I'll come to rowing in Rockhampton and tennis in Brisbane shortly. We will see existing venues be used for training and events across the state before and after the games, and natural assets such as parklands and beaches will be used as temporary venues. Indeed, the entire Olympics Games and Paralympic Games will be one giant advertisement for Queensland.

The Queensland government is investing $250 million in grassroots sporting clubs and will leverage Queensland's 20-year tourism plan to ensure these games are not just for one city but for all of Queensland and for all Queenslanders. With this positivity, it is shameful that the Prime Minister would seek to suggest that parts of the Olympic Games should be taken out of Queensland. It is disappointing that we have a Labor prime minister who wants the rowing to be taken away from the Fitzroy River in Rockhampton and given to Sydney. It is shameful that we have a Labor prime minister who wants the tennis to be taken away from Brisbane and sent down to Melbourne. If it's good enough for schoolchildren of the Rockhampton region to row on the Fitzroy River, it is good enough for Olympic athletes. I encourage the Prime Minister to get on with the job of supporting the Olympics being hosted solely in Queensland.

We have a prime minister who, after having won the election, is ruling this country like an uncrowned emperor, whether it's taking away resources from opposition parties or holding a productivity roundtable where nothing is discussed in meaningful terms apart from tax rises.

We have a Labor Party who are refusing to rule out tax rises, tax increases and new taxes, and the one that everybody should be worried about is the refusal of the Labor Party to rule out a tax on your spare bedroom. This might sound a little bit crazy, but it's true—the Labor Party are considering and looking into a tax on your spare bedrooms. It is utter madness, and I will make sure, as part of a massive truth-telling campaign, that every Australian who has a spare bedroom knows that the Labor Party want to tax it.

It's 2025, and the system is broken in Australia. People know it; people aren't fools. They know a bandaid measure when they see it. They can tell when politicians are kicking the can down the road and saying: 'It's in the too-hard basket. Maybe the problems will sort themselves out.' They can see when politicians are saying all the right things but, at the end of the day, care more about corporate profits than people, and they are jack of it.

The cost of living is out of control. The gap between income and house prices has never been wider. Wages are crawling while hoarding property is rewarded with massive tax handouts. And the biggest problem of all? Big corporations are making record profits, writing the rules to suit their bottom lines and, all the while, skimping on their tax bills.

People voted for us to take action on the problems that they're facing. They voted for a progressive parliament. We could be leading the world in climate action. We could end the housing crisis that is seeing housing prices soar while millions are locked out. We could protect country with strong environmental laws and sign a long-overdue treaty with First Nations people. We were all put here in this parliament to fix the problems that our country is facing, and the Greens are ready to support the kind of courage that it takes to actually end the housing crisis and put us on track for a safe climate future. The Greens are ready to go. We've got the numbers; we're in the balance of power. Now it's a question of Labor's ambition.

Right now the government gives better tax incentives to billionaires like Clive Palmer and Gina Rinehart than it does to people who actually work for a living. Whether you're a nurse or a sparky, you contribute more to this country in your taxes than a billionaire who's gotten rich off selling somebody else's work. The Greens want public money to help you, not them. There is absolutely no way to justify a nurse paying more tax than oil and gas companies like Santos. If we actually taxed those big corporations and billionaires so that they paid their fair share, we could raise the revenue to bring down the cost of living, to reduce inequality and to make life better for millions of people. We could implement a rent freeze. We could do a big build of public and affordable homes. Bringing dental into Medicare, wiping student debt and making TAFE and uni free again, like it used to be—that is all possible. It's the government that is choosing not to do it. While the cost of living spirals, corporate profits skyrocket, and the major parties refuse to act.

Those corporate profits are then conveniently fed back into the election war chests of both major parties. Last financial year, Labor received about $800,000 from resources companies, including in cash, in subscriptions and in tickets to party events. We don't know what they received in the 2024-25 financial year, including the contributions just before the recent election, and we won't know that until next February. When coal and gas corporations pour big money into politics, they are effectively given the pen to write our climate and environmental laws. That's not democracy; that's capture. Real climate action means putting people and the planet ahead of private profits.

We know that the environmental and climate crisis is the most critical issue of our generation. We can change course, but we have to change the system. Climate change is making our country less safe, destroying the environment and supercharging natural disasters that are already costing communities dearly. Australia has done too little for far too long. We have squandered that critical decade for climate action, and now science based targets that keep warming below two degrees will require faster and more focused effort.

It will require reaching net zero in the next 10 years, not by 2050 or, as the coalition is proposing, not reaching it at all. Every little bit that we do now will make the climate crisis less bad; it all matters. Our native forests could recover. We could stop species extinctions. We could lessen the severity of those turbocharged natural disasters, but it will take strong political leadership, and, so far, Labor has only offered disappointment in the face of impending climate disaster. The climate wars were supposed to be over, but here we are in Labor's second term, and they just can't stop approving coal or gas projects.

I was fortunate to visit Heron Island in the southern Great Barrier Reef recently, where last year a major coral bleaching event killed 40 per cent of the coral cover around that island. Whilst it was hopeful to see some areas of recovery and the resilience of some of those coral species, we know that the more stress a coral reef is placed under, the harder it is for those species to recover. We need to stop the oceans and our planet warming, and that means no new coal and gas in a climate crisis. The Greens have been put into the balance of power to get stuff done. Labor knows that Australians want climate action. The climate and environment cannot wait.

Women are sick of waiting too—waiting for equality, waiting for safety, waiting for financial security. Our current tax system entrenches financial disadvantage that follows women for a lifetime. We should be removing the financial barriers that disincentivise new mums from going back to work when they're ready to do so. The effective marginal tax rate, as it's known, means less take-home pay for women through increased tax and student debt repayments combined with a loss of family tax benefits, childcare support and other measures. Mums and parents who do want to go back to work should be encouraged to do that, not be paying so much tax on days 3, 4 or 5 that they're essentially working for free.

Women deserve economic security, and they deserve to safe from violence. So far in 2025, at least 32 women have been murdered in acts of gendered violence. Just a few days ago in my home state of Queensland, Carra Luke was killed in her home on Sunday 24 August. Her ex-husband, against whom she had taken out a domestic violence order, has been charged with her murder. We cannot allow this to keep happening. Stopping violence against women will require deep prevention work. It will take systemic action to tackle the root causes and transform those harmful social norms.

But it will also require adequate funding of the organisations that do that hard work on the frontlines responding to this epidemic. The Albanese government's funding continues to fall short of the $1 billion per year that the women's safety sector needs to ensure that everyone who reaches out for help can get it, and those organisations have been telling you that for nigh on 10 years. I'm proud that the Greens took a comprehensive funded policy package to the election to address the national crisis of family, domestic and sexual violence, but we need Labor to come to the table with the funding required to tackle this epidemic of violence against women.

When inequality is ignored and when workers are exploited, migrants are scapegoated and the environment is treated as disposable, fascism thrives. Fascism doesn't announce itself in a single moment. It builds over time, and it's up to us, in each moment, to say to every micro- and macroaggression: 'Enough. We will not allow what is happening in the US to happen here in Australia.' It is up to us to ensure that marginalised communities do not pay the price—that they're not persecuted or demonised or blamed for the problems of the day. The housing crisis, the cost-of-living crisis and the climate crisis are not caused by them; they're caused by a system designed to prioritise corporate profits over everyday people.

I take heart in the number of people prepared to raise their voices in the face of injustice, walking alongside tens of thousands of people in Meanjin Brisbane just this Sunday to call for an end to the genocide in Gaza. It was such a powerful affirmation of the importance of community and collective organising and the strength of the hearts of Australians. I haven't seen such an enormous turnout since the Black Lives Matter rally in 2020 and, before that, the Iraq War protests in 2003, both of which I was proud to march in as well.

We are not powerless. This is medicine for the moment. This medicine really is community.

Together we can build a future that works for all of us, where we leave no-one behind and ensure a home for all, free education, cheaper groceries and dental and mental health care into Medicare, and ensure we not only protect but revere our natural places—our oceans, forests, rivers and everything in between. That's what gives me heart, and I hope it does for you too. A new future is possible, and we'll build it together.

The last 50 years have seen Western Australia emerge as the engine room of the Australian economy, particularly through the development of the iron ore, oil and gas industries in our north. Western Australia has provided the revenue, the secure jobs and the royalties that have enabled so many Australians to build their families, to build their futures and to build lives of great dignity and worth because of the value inherent in those industries. But we are at a crossroads.

There are very few major projects currently in the pipeline. So, whilst people—particularly those on the east coast and those in government in this place—still see the extraordinary flows that come directly and indirectly from the mining and gas industries in the north of Western Australia, their approach to the future of these industries leaves them in jeopardy, and that leaves the Australian economy in jeopardy. It was a very short few years ago that Western Australia was ranked as the No. 1 destination in the world for mining investment attractiveness. Under this Labor government, in the latest Fraser Institute survey, this has fallen off a cliff, going from fourth to 17th place in just one year, and it is now the 17th most attractive mining investment destination, down from the best in the world.

What's changed? One of the things that's changed is this federal Labor government's alliance with the Greens, which continues to make it less and less attractive for the opportunities for the next generation and for the future to proceed. How can I prove this? It's not just Western Australia that's fallen off a cliff. Queensland has gone from 13th to 39th place. South Australia has gone from 19th to 35th place. The Northern Territory has gone from 22nd to 38th place. New South Wales has gone from 34th to 62nd place. Victoria has gone from 48th to 63rd place. And Tasmania has gone from the 33rd most attractive investment destination to the 71st. What have all those states got in common? This federal Labor government in alliance with the Greens party.

The sector is worried. I think everyone in the sector would acknowledge that they have done extraordinarily well. They've done well for this nation over the last decade and over the last 20, 30, 40 and 50 years. But the entrepreneurial spirit of Western Australia always looks to the future, and what is over the horizon under the set of policies put in place by this government? I spoke to a particular gas company who was exploring carbon capture and storage and was willing to invest billions of dollars to reduce its emissions by 40 per cent basically overnight. It's presumably something that this government wants to happen.

The best-case scenario for their environmental approvals? Nine years, with 125 different approvals required. Just think about that for a few moments. This is supposedly something that this government believes in, yet it's going to make that company jump through hoops for nine years.

I asked if that included any time for litigation from the Environmental Defenders Office, still funded by this government and by the left-wing activist groups that seek to use lawfare to stop development. I asked if the company had put any time into this nine-year plan for those illegal blockages. They hadn't put in any, so nine years is the optimistic version. And this is for something that this Labor government supposedly wants. The idea that this Labor government is in any way a friend of the mining industry or the gas industry is just absolute nonsense.

To the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies—AMEC, based in Western Australia—their chief executive, Warren Pearce, said:

WA tumbling from 4th to 17th reflects the frustrations and challenges our sector is facing with land access and environmental approvals.

We know that the government is about to come back to this place—by the end of this year, Senator Watt has said—with its rejigged nature-positive laws. Apparently the phrase now is 'net positive', whatever that means; this is a government that's absolutely addicted to spin. But what it really means for the mining industry is a government that won't be straight with them. It'll tell them to their faces that it cares, it understands their issues and it wants to try and support both improving the environment and allowing these approval times to be reduced. But the evidence is on the table. Environmental approval times are not being reduced. They are going out and out, even for things, as I've given you the example of—carbon capture and storage—that this government would theoretically want to support. Nine years—and that's with no time for radical environmentalists challenging it in the courts, which has happened to pretty much every major project in this country for the last 20 years.

This Labor government cannot be trusted when it comes to the future of the laws they will seek to put in place. They cannot be trusted with governance over the Western Australian mining industry or the Western Australian gas industry because they speak out of both sides of their faces. They say one thing when they're in my home state of Western Australia and then they do another thing when they're in this place. The fact that there is, after the first term of this Labor government, no certainty in the future and no pipeline to the rejuvenation of the industry or the ongoing investment of the industry in my home state of Western Australia shows that this Labor government cannot be trusted with the future of the Western Australian economy, our mining industry or our gas industry.

We need a government that understands that the success of families, individuals, small business and companies relies on having a sensible framework in which business individuals can operate—and that includes allowing mining and the gas industry in my home state of Western Australia to continue to lead the world. We should be back as the No. 1 investment destination in the world—not 17th, where we have dropped to under this Labor government.

The Albanese Labor government is proudly building our country and providing security for the future of all Australians. From 1 July this year, another round of energy bill relief was rolled out for every household and small business around the country. Paid parental leave has been expanded by another two weeks, and superannuation has been added to it for the very first time ever. Three million workers on the minimum wage and award wages have received another real pay increase. On 1 July next year and the year after that, all 14 million Australian taxpayers will receive our government's tax cuts. As the Labor government, we want Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn, unlike those opposite.

As a government, we're focused on delivering economic opportunity for women, abolishing non-compete clauses and pursuing competition reform to boost productivity. We are building the nation, after spending the first term cleaning up so many of the messes that were left behind by those opposite. We have real ambition for this nation. We have ambition that will drive this government every day to deliver the fundamental things that we believe will build our nation and will make a positive difference to people's lives. We view each day as an opportunity to fulfil the commitments that we made to the people of Australia at the last election, as well as to expand our vision to take our nation forward. As the Prime Minister said, delivering on our promises to build more homes means cutting through the red tape that is holding back housing construction, as well as clearing away barriers that stand between skilled workers and nationally significant projects.

We can be a manufacturing powerhouse. We were, in decades gone past. We need to build that manufacturing capability again, and this starts with reforming the stagnant approvals process so that households and industry alike can take advantage of the opportunities presented to us with cleaner, cheaper energy, to bring down their bills and to power the next generation of manufacturing jobs. As a government, we must make sure Australian workers and Australian businesses have the opportunity and the skills to get the best out of technology, including AI. But we must maximise the productivity benefits while protecting people from potential risks. I'm confident, as a nation, we can rise to these challenges that present to us and that we, together, will prosper. Because of the hard work and patience of Australians, we have come through the worst global inflation since the 1980s and the biggest international energy crisis since the 1970s.

When we came to government in May 2022, real wages were going backwards, inflation had a six in front of it, and we were experiencing interest rates that had increased, which are now all coming down. Today, real wages are growing at their strongest rate in five years. Inflation has a two in front of it, and interest rates have been cut three times in the last six months. At the same time, over 1.15 million new jobs have been created. Our patience as a nation and our hard work are paying off. We are going to prevail.

Importantly, the gender pay gap is down to a record low, and women's workforce participation is at a record high. We know that those opposite—we know, because I've been in this chamber for a while—did nothing at all to alleviate, nor did they have a plan even to reduce, inflation. They did nothing when it came to driving unemployment up and cutting services. What they didn't do was ever support people when they were under pressure. We know they ran skills down in this nation. So we've had to rebuild. That's why we've invested in TAFE.

The Albanese Labor government has been more responsible in our endeavours to attack inflation.

We've brought inflation down, we have provided direct assistance to families to deal with cost-of-living challenges, we've improved our workforce, we're improving the skills and we're bringing manufacturing back because we believe in the Australian people. They put their faith in us, and we will work every single day to make their lives better.

I rise to again call on the government to release the National climate risk assessment. In the coming weeks, the government will decide Australia's emissions reduction target for 2035. It's a decision that will shape our environment, our economy and the safety of our communities for decades to come. This isn't just a number; this is about the value that we place on the people and places that we love. It will affect our standing on the world stage, and it will affect our ability to stand at meeting like the COP, which Australia is desperately trying to secure, and push for and demand greater action from countries like the USA, China, India and other large emitters to safeguard our collective futures on this incredible place that we call home.

There is so much at stake when it comes to climate change, so I call for the release of the National climate risk assessment because we need to see exactly what is at stake. Not releasing it before you set a target for 2035 is like planning a road trip without checking the map. You have no idea about the potential hazards, roadblocks, fires and floods ahead of you. This report isn't just a spreadsheet or a bureaucratic box tick; it tells us which communities will face unbearable heat, which coastlines we might lose, what parts of our economy will buckle under the pressure of a warming world. This is not alarmist; this is what we face after decades of delay. Yet we still have a window for bold leadership and bold action from this government.

Insiders have described the assessment's findings as dire and diabolical, but just weeks out from setting the 2035 target, this government is keeping our communities in the dark. How can Australians judge whether the government's 2035 target is strong enough to protect us, strong enough to protect the people and places we love, if we're not even allowed to see the facts. We have to start telling the truth when it comes to climate change in this country. This isn't just about climate policy; this is also about democratic accountability, because people cannot participate in decisions if they are denied the information those decisions are based on. If the public isn't trusted with the truth, they cannot be expected to trust a government that withholds it.

We have heard in this debate in the Senate about the release of this report and the government's refusal to comply with orders of the Senate. We have heard coalition and Greens senators point out that this isn't the first time the government has chosen secrecy over scrutiny. In fact, once the numbers were crunched on the last term of government, the Albanese Labor government became the second most secretive government on record. Compliance with OPDs dropped to just 32.8 per cent. Only 32.8 per cent of OPDs were complied with. That's a real contempt of this chamber. If you compare that to the Keating government, which we hear so much about from those on the government side, the Keating government complied 92.5 per cent of the time. That seems far more respectful of the Senate. Just one in four FOI requests are now granted in full, which is the lowest on record, and the average wait time for an FOI review is now 15.5 months.

I heard Senator Bragg use this line as well: to be more secretive than the Morrison government, in which the Prime Minister himself had five secret ministries, is quite an achievement.

But it's not too late to turn that around. That is my request, my ask, my urging of the government: turn it around, come clean with the Australian people and act in a way that says to them, 'We actually work for you, and we're going to give you the transparency you deserve.'

I want to speak about the agenda that this government brings to the 47th Parliament. It's a minimalist agenda in the face of really important and serious national crises. This government has returned to a new parliament with a lacklustre agenda on so many things. Where is Labor's ambition? Where is their drive to tackle the heart of the climate and housing crises that this country faces? This is the most progressive parliament in my lifetime, with a 94-seat majority for Labor in the House and a Greens contingent here to support progressive change to deal with our big problems.

I will give you an example of unambitious reform. This week they're tinkering with a first home guarantee scheme that allows first home buyers to buy a house with a five per cent deposit. This policy will feed demand. The announcement this week to expand the program will allow access for everyone, regardless of their income. It is so far from a progressive innovation. It's both unfair as a system and going to push house prices in the wrong direction, which will drive down rates of homeownership in a housing crisis. Eligibility is now uncapped in relation to income. People with incomes of several hundred thousand dollars now have access to government support to help them leap into the housing market. We won't stand in the way of people getting support for housing, but the scheme as the government has enlarged it this week will turbocharge demand and unfairness.

Inequality in the housing market is wild at the moment, and it feeds general inequality, especially intergenerational inequality. This tinkering with a Morrison-era scheme of 2019 fails to deal with the nature of the housing crisis. Not only that; the tinkering will actually hurt first home buyers in the long run. The policy is making no change to the huge tax breaks that keep wealthy property investors in competition with first home buyers, driving up house prices and driving down homeownership rates. It does absolutely nothing for the six million Australians who are renting, or trying to rent, all around our country. This policy will also enormously increase the level of debt to many first home buyers. If people are borrowing with a five per cent deposit, it means that they get saddled with a massive 95 per cent debt in a housing market where average prices in most of our cities are now around $1 million. They will be even more vulnerable to interest rate changes, massive mortgage repayments and crippling debt. We need a different demand-side policy and we need to dampen demand from those wealthy property investors by winding back the unfair capital gains tax discount and negative gearing policies.

But what do we get instead this week? Labor have shown they can take urgent action on housing, and this week we saw them do it, but did they do it for Australian nurses or teachers? No. They did it for US foreign troops and US contractors. The first housing bill Labor have introduced to the 47th Parliament is the Defence Housing Australia Amendment Bill 2025. You literally can't make this stuff up. The contradictions are incredible. We've got a government that tells us that they can't expand public housing at a rapid rate and they can't fix housing tax reform, but what they can do is build public housing for US defence personnel and contractors.

They are ambitious to provide public housing for US troops and those contractors, but where is their ambition for the 170,000 Australians on the waiting lists for public housing? Where is their ambition for a teachers housing authority or a nurses housing authority? This is where we should be expanding our housing, for Australian workers providing those essential services. Instead, Labor's first housing bill builds houses for foreign US troops as part of AUKUS. Not only are they denying Australians housing that they need desperately; they're giving it to US personnel instead.

Where is the election mandate for this policy? I've gone back and looked for it. Where is the promise during the election that this would be what they'd concentrate on?

We have a proposal in front of us that has got no budget. It's got no costing. It's a bottomless bucket of assistance for housing for US troops. What is wrong with the government that it has so much ambition in that quarter and none for those Australians who are desperate? It's a bottomless cup for US personnel but too little for those facing a housing crisis here.

This government is also failing on transparency. We need to see much more serious recognition of this chamber's role in scrutiny and an end to all of the avoidance we see. We're calling Labor out on scrutiny. We need to see more of it into the future.

The man accused of shooting two police officers in Victoria yesterday identifies as a sovereign citizen and has called police 'terrorist thugs'. Before I go on, I would like to send my love and thoughts to the families of those officers. I can tell you now that all Australians are behind you.

We have a problem with these so-called sovereign citizens. I'll call it, because I have the courage. They believe that the Australian government, all of us in here, are illegitimate. They believe that the rules and the social norms that the rest of us have to follow do not apply to them.

According to the Australian Federal Police, there is a history of Australians identifying with these ideas and setting up micronations. They're nuts. They lived in small communities and were regarded by law enforcement as being largely harmless. Then COVID-19 hit, and the government's response of lockdowns and mandatory vaccinations, combined with mis- and disinformation on social media, absolutely turbocharged the paranoia to where it's now right of the charts.

According to the AFP, these groups are organised, they have informal leadership structures and they find common ground with the antivaxxers, far-fight groups and conspiracy nutjobs—because there's no other way to put it—that seek to blame governments and institutions for their lot in life.

I got a lot of this heat over COVID just because I came out and said that vaccine mandates were about keeping people safe and alive, especially our elderly, because I'm about putting Australia's first. The hate and abuse that came through my office was absolutely disgraceful. No doubt they will start up again after this speech. But we will need to call these people out. You have to show some courage. And, where appropriate, we need to actually get them help. They need help.

A Victorian called our office during COVID and told one of my staffers that Bill Gates had done a deal with Daniel Andrews, then in Victorian government, to put microscopic trackers in the vaccine so the government could track people through 5G towers. That's how off the charts this stuff is. It's off the charts. Finally, this caller told my staff that she did not recognise the government because she was a sovereign citizen.

You can laugh, and we did at the time, but, seriously, it's out of control. But the extremes of these bullies and the amplifying of these views on social media led to the murders of two police officers and a Queensland man in 2022 and the awful events that are still unfolding in Victoria today.

It's about time that we started putting real pressure on the social media companies to control the mis- and disinformation that these algorithms pump out. You aren't doing anything. That's the problem. Listen to this: in 2012, Facebook said its mission was, 'to expand and strengthen relationships between people'. Thirteen years later nothing but the opposite has happened. All Facebook and other social media companies do, including YouTube, is fan division and hatred within our communities. Extreme examples of this include the 6 January attack on the Capitol building in Washington in 2021, when Americans who believed Trump's lies that the 2020 election was rigged stormed the Capitol building—their own—and seriously wounded American Capitol police.

Since we got social media, we have more countries around the world run by dictators—work that one out—where people don't get free and fair elections and the civil rights that we enjoy. Social media companies know more about us than our governments do. They design their algorithms with one purpose in mind: to increase us clicking to increase their profits. It is just about money. They don't give a stuff about who we are. If these algorithms can be so targeted, why can't they target mis- and disinformation instead of the algorithm that sends Australians down these rabbit holes, serving them up more and more conspiracy theories that make them more afraid and more paranoid?

We still don't have laws in this country that deal with truth in political advertising. You can't lie about a product in Australia, but you can sure as hell lie in political campaigns. How is it leading by example, in saying that that is acceptable behaviour in Australia today? That is not acceptable behaviour.

We need to get onto this. It is really time to put pressure on the social media companies and start talking regulation. What is your fear of social media companies? You've lost control of social media when it comes to our kids. And, if you think AI's going to be any different in the future—because you're already miles behind—you are bloody delusional yourselves. That is the truth of the matter.

You must get onto this. You must show some courage.

Do you know that it got so bad during COVID that I had people in Tasmania telling me that that serum going into their arms was forming a microchip? Well, I'll have you know I've had my body X-rayed over time because of my back complaint and there are no microchips running around in my body. That is the misinformation and disinformation going on in social media That is the reality of it, and we need to wake up in here because people are getting harmed because of it.

Since being re-elected, the Albanese Labor government have wasted no time on delivering on the promises that we made to Australians. Our focus, since being re-elected and in the last term, has always been on how we can help everyday Australians and give families the support that they need. For Labor, government is about making real changes that improve people's lives.

In just the first months of this new term, we've already delivered some big, tangible wins for families. Our very first piece of legislation passed was a 20 per cent cut to student debt. That means relief for more than three million Australians, particularly young Australians. It means a young nurse in Cairns starting her career will see thousands wiped from the balance of her student debt. It means a single mum in Townsville juggling work and part-time study will finally feel like she's moving forward, whether it's saving for a place of her own or getting the kids the new football boots that they need. That's what good government does—it backs people in.

We're also making medicines cheaper, and I know that this has a real impact on families, particularly in regional Queensland. Since coming to office, Labor have already slashed the cost of hundreds of common medicines, and, in this new term, we're going even further than that. We're taking the price of medicines back to the same price that it was in 2004. That's right—we are taking it back to when Nollsie was topping the charts, capping PBS scripts at $25. Making scripts cheaper will save Australians $200 million at the pharmacy counter every single year. That's money back into household budgets at a time when every single dollar counts. Combined with our 60-day scripts, that's people saving more money and more time.

We're standing up for working people as well. This sitting fortnight we are protecting penalty rates permanently. We know that people who give up their time with their families to work nights and weekends and public holidays deserve their penalty rates, and they deserve to know that their right to a penalty rate is protected in law. That's the difference between our government and those opposite. Labor will always back working families.

This week we've delivered one of the most important housing reforms in a generation so that almost every family has a place to call home. We've brought forward our five per cent deposit scheme for first home buyers. From 1 October, every first home buyer will be able to enter the housing market with just a five per cent deposit—no income caps, no limits on places, no lenders mortgage insurance. From 1 October, every single first home buyer will be able to enter the housing market with just this five per cent deposit required. This is life changing. Let's be honest—saving a 20 per cent deposit in today's housing market is out of reach for so many Australians. The median home price today is $844,000; a 20 per cent deposit is almost $170,000. For young people, for renters and for families, that can feel basically impossible, but, under Labor's scheme, a first home buyer in Brisbane will be able to buy a $1 million home with just a $50,000 deposit. They'll save up to 10 years off the time it would have taken them to get into the market, will avoid around $42,000 in mortgage insurance and will finally start paying down their own loan instead of somebody else's mortgage.

In a place like Rocky, what that means to a young couple just starting their family is that they can purchase a $600,000 home with only a $30,000 deposit.

They'll save about six years of savings and $25,000 in mortgage insurance and could pay $126,000 into their own mortgage instead of a landlord's pocket. That's not abstract policy. This is real people—thousands of them—moving into their first homes years earlier than they thought was possible. This is just the start. Because Labor was elected to deliver for everyday Australians, that's exactly what we have done since the election and is exactly what we'll continue to do.

Labor's policies—net zero, out-of-control immigration and out-of-control spending—and their justifications by cherrypicking facts to suit their agenda are destroying Australia. They ignore the economic realities of their poor decisions that kick them in the face every day—the collapse of green hydrogen projects in Gladstone, Whyalla and Port Pirie; investors pulling out of the Pilbara green energy hub; the scrapping of the solar booster at Kogan Creek; the scrapping just last week of the offshore wind farm at Newcastle; and BlueFloat's withdrawal from the one planned off of Gippsland. This is just a sample, but these failures have been echoed around the developed world as countries and corporations realise that renewables and net zero are unviable and are destroying their economies. The only ones who fail to realise this are toxic Labor and the hateful Greens. I say to Sussan Ley, the opposition leader: if you don't know what impacts net zero policies are having an Australian businesses, farmers and homes by now, you are part of the problem. You're not the answer to making Australia the prosperous, self-sufficient nation we can all be proud of.

Here are the facts about net zero. Our emissions went up last year, not down. Net zero would cost taxpayers at least $1.5 trillion. Net zero has left our energy grids more vulnerable to weather and system shocks. Net zero has left one of the most energy-rich nations in the world facing energy shortages, and, since the introduction of the first large-scale renewable energy targets in 2001, the cost of electricity has risen by a minimum of 206 per cent. Outside of Europe, Australia has the highest average electricity prices in the world, at US$0.246 per kilowatt hour. It's more than double Canada's average price of $0.118.

The number of households in Australia facing energy poverty is always going up, never down. The impact on small businesses is just as bad and is compounded by reduced revenues as Australian consumers are forced to tighten their belts. More than 30,000 small businesses have gone under since Labor was elected in 2022. The impact on farmers is even worse. Not only are high energy costs crippling them; their land has been invaded by bureaucrats who think the transmission lines and wind turbines are more important than feeding people. The impact on manufacturing is catastrophic, compounded by a tripling of natural gas prices since large-scale exports started with the national domestic gas reserve policy. More than 1,400 manufacturing businesses in Australia have gone under since mid-2023. One of Labor's favourite businesses—a battery manufacturer, of all things—joined this list earlier this month. Manufacturing's share of our GDP has fallen from 8.9 per cent to just 5.1 per cent in the past 20 years, and, with it, Australian jobs are gone.

A rational government working in the national interest would abandon net zero. Labor is not rational, however, and does not care about the national interest. One Nation cares, and the energy policy we will implement works only in the national interest. We will shore up energy security and lower power bills by building two new black coal ultra-supercritical power plants at Collinsville in North Queensland and Port Augusta in South Australia. The cost of electricity generated by these USC plants is between $50 and $70 per megawatt hour—only half the average wholesale price in Australia in 2024. We will further shore up energy security by repealing the ban on nuclear energy and building one 1,400-megawatt advanced pressurised-water nuclear reactor on Australia's East Coast to start with. If Pakistan and South Korea can build nuclear power plants, why can't we?

Together, these three new plants will cost less than $10 billion.

We will easily be able to afford them by abolishing the department of climate change to save taxpayers $30 billion a year.

One Nation will amend the NEM rules, making gas and coal cheaper than large-scale wind and solar. We'll implement a 15 per cent domestic gas reserve. Our policies will reduce energy prices by at least 20 per cent across the board. At the household level, we will continue to support rooftop solar, but we'll ban chargers on posts and households from exporting energy to the grid. We'll ban renewables and transmission lines on Australian agricultural land, and we'll guarantee farmers property rights. Our energy policy puts our country and its people first. We will not allow Australia to be burned on the altar of climate change and net zero being driven by UN zealots wanting to control everything and forcing us into— (Time expired)

After a lightning visit to Canberra yesterday, WA's premier Roger Cook has returned to our home state. He was on a mission to get more aged-care beds to take some strain off the health-system crisis. The Premier certainly slipped quietly, without any announcements at all, apart from the promise of a visit to Perth by the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors, Sam Rae. A promise, yes, but that's not much of a result. I point this out because Western Australians, nearly three million people, deserve a functioning health system. The delay in addressing this issue only fuels their disappointment.

For weeks there have been daily headlines about shortages, about ambulances ramped outside hospitals and about surgeries cancelled at the very last minute. Behind every one of these headlines is a human story—a worker who has already arranged leave for an operation, a child waiting for treatment, an older person left in pain far longer than they should be. This is the human cost of delay and indecision. I'm not here to play the blame game, and, frankly, pointing fingers is not going to deliver a single hospital bed. What we need is cooperation between state and federal governments. WA is a state that generates immense wealth for our country. We know the resources are there. What's missing is the political will to translate that wealth into world-class health care for the people.

One obvious part of that solution lies in GST. Ensuring WA gets its fair share of GST revenue could go a long way to addressing this crisis if—and that's a big 'if'—the money is invested wisely and directly in health. I'm talking about freeing up hospital beds by boosting aged-care places. I'm talking about cutting wait times so people aren't left suffering. I'm talking about ensuring regional and remote communities from the Kimberley to the Goldfields aren't forgotten in the process.

Funding alone is not enough. Too often we see big announcements with little change on the ground. Accountability matters, and that's why I believe that there is merit in establishing an independent taskforce to oversee how this health funding is allocated and delivered. It wouldn't need to be large or costly, but it would serve as an independent umpire, making sure promises translate into real results. As the only independent senator for Western Australia, I will continue to press both state and federal Labor governments to step up. I've offered to work with Premier Cook, and I renew that offer today. I say to our prime minister: 'Western Australians are watching closely. They want to see urgency, transparency and results.'

The crisis in hospitals cannot be separated from the crisis in aged care. WA has the lowest number of home-care packages in the nation—just 43 per 1,000 older people. That's far below Victoria and South Australia at 72 and New South Wales at 59. Even the Northern Territory and Tasmania are fairing better. This isn't just about numbers though. It means older Western Australians are missing out on support, longer wait times for home-care and aged-care beds, and hospitals forced to fill the gap. About 250 WA hospital beds are occupied every single day by people who could otherwise be at home or in care if the support existed. The St John Ambulance data makes it very clear. In one year, more than 18,000 older people were transported from residential care into hospitals, and over 41,000 from private homes.

More than four in five callouts ended up with an older person in hospital because home supports just weren't there. We know from international research that investing in home care reduces unnecessary hospitalisation. The lesson is very clear. The solutions aren't a mystery. Expand home-care packages, invest in the workforce, build more residential places, deliver services to the regions and, above all, act with urgency because right now older Western Australians are being left in limbo. They deserve the guarantee that wherever they live they can age with dignity— (Time expired)

It being 1.30 we shall now move to Senators statements.

Inherited cancers, like those caused by the BRCA gene and Lynch syndrome mutations, carry significant lifetime risk of cancer for individuals and families. These mutations pass silently through generations, often without symptoms, until cancer develops.

Early genetic testing can change outcomes, as inherited cancers are often predictable and avoidable through preventive care. Across Australia, access to genetic testing is limited by eligibility rules, costs and geographical barriers, especially in regional and rural areas, like my home state of Tasmania.

Historically, there have been situations where insurers have weaponised genetic information, including predictive test results from healthy individuals, when assessing applications for life, disability and income protection insurance. People could be denied cover or charged higher premiums not because they are unwell but because they might develop cancer in the future. This is unethical and dangerous. As a result, some Australians delay testing out of fear, risking the deferral of diagnoses and potential lifesaving treatment. In 2024 the government committed to legislating a ban on using adverse genetic test results in life insurance underwriting. To date this has not been prioritised by the Albanese government, but is urgently required to ensure all Australians can make informed health choices without fear of discrimination.

Today is Inherited Cancers Awareness Day which is coordinated by Inherited Cancers Australia to support the 16,500 Australians diagnosed annually with inherited cancers. The campaign promotes education, peer support and tools, like the family health history mapping form, to help families understand their risk and to take action. Inherited cancers screening offers an important opportunity to prevent illness before it starts, but only if our systems, laws and services support early action. I congratulate Inherited Cancers Australia for their work and advocacy in this area. (Time expired)

Middle-aged women and many men are part of the sandwich generation, raising children while caring for ageing parents—all while working. The result is fatigue, stress and parental exhaustion. In the US the Surgeon General has declared it an urgent public health issue, urging us to treat parenting as vital societal work not as a private burden. That call echoes our own government's agenda. We are expanding paid parental leave; protecting your rights at work, like sick leave; making child care more affordable; and rolling out 61 Medicare mental health clinics, that are walk-in and free, right across the country. These pillars recognise that no parent should carry the load alone.

Midlife pressures are not just social; they are also biological. For women, perimenopause brings higher risks of depression and anxiety. It affects more than half the population. Yet, for too long, it has been overlooked in mainstream medical care. That's why Labor's decision to add Estrogel Pro, Estrogel and Prometrium to the PBS is groundbreaking. For the first time in over 20 years—I can't believe it took 20 years—modern HRT will be more affordable for millions of Australian women. Over 100,000 women who once paid for private scripts will now pay just $32 per script, going down to $25 in January next year. For too long women going through menopause have had their symptoms dismissed. Menopause is natural, but the symptoms are not trivial. They are treatable, and women should not be left to suffer in silence. To women across Australia, including those from multicultural communities where women's health is rarely discussed: talk to your doctor. Affordable, effective therapies are now available. Go and speak to your doctor. (Time expired)

Next week the Combat Antisemitism Movement, CAM, which has links to the Israeli military and the far right, is hosting a summit on the Gold Coast. Politicians, public servants, mayors and councillors—sadly, from across Australia—will attend this summit.

The Greens and I have long called out racism in all its forms, including right-wing extremism and Neo-Nazism. However, this summit is not what it appears. Its main objective is to push a pro-Israel agenda and the implementation of the IHRA definition of antisemitism, a tool used to punish those who criticise Israel and stand with Palestine. If it were genuine, Jewish Australians of all political persuasions and views on Israel would be attending. CAM is not an anti-racist organisation. It is not an anti-hate organisation. In fact, it's the opposite.

Last month, CAM honoured a Florida congressman who called for the streets of Gaza to 'overflow with blood' and recently told Gazans to 'just starve'. Hundreds of community members have written letters to their councillors to not attend the summit. Leaders from the Australian Services Union, Democracy in Colour, the Jewish Council of Australia, Jewish Voices of Inner Sydney and Greens councillors have called for a boycott of the conference because it is a pro-Israel political junket by an organisation that is funded by republican mega donors and is linked to the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, which runs a grotesque hunger games-type operation where hundreds of starving Palestinians have been killed. It is beyond belief that the Human Rights Commissioner is set to speak at the summit organised by genocide apologists. We must tackle racism in all its forms, and at its very core, but shielding Israel when it is committing genocide against Palestinians just weaponises racism.

Eight years ago, when I first came to this place, debanking was not an issue that was even on my radar. Since then, sadly, it has come to me more and more. The first instances involved areas of intensive agriculture, and then I had significant communication with elements of the live sheep trade. Even though it was still, and is still, a completely legal and legitimate industry, they were finding it difficult to secure short-term financial facilities.

In the last few days, I've had another case not involving agriculture brought to me. I have two recent examples involving a Big Four bank. In both cases, the investors involved were wholesale investors who were recognised under ASIC's definition as sophisticated and capable of making their own financial decisions. Together, these investors sought to place $1 million into a legitimate fund, a fund that complied with all Australian laws. Instead, the particular bank intervened, blocked the transaction, and the investment was never completed. The consequences of that kind of action are significant. Investors lose out on returns. The businesses involved suffer financial and reputational harm, and confidence in our banking system is undermined.

This was not about preventing any sort of fraud. Again, these were sophisticated investors, under ASIC's definition, using their own money to seek to invest in a particular product, blocked by the bank. This is not the kind of banking system Australia should have. It is an issue that this parliament needs to look into further.

I rise to talk about penalty rates. I want to talk about the people who work when the rest of us don't. I'm talking about hospital cleaners, supermarket staff, aged-care workers and those who serve us meals late into the night or the early hours of the morning. Their penalty and overtime rates aren't just a bonus; they're what pays the rent, keeps food on the table and gives peace of mind. Yet, time and time again, we've seen attempts to strip those rates away. We saw it in 2017 when Sunday and public holiday pays were cut. In Victoria's regional centres, like the Mallee and Nicholls, penalty rates aren't just a bonus; they're survival. Workers in our region alone lost up to $127 million a year, and local communities and businesses suffered the Liberal Party's inconsiderate decision. We see it again now, with big business proposals that look generous on paper but would scrap penalty rates in practice.

We on this side want to lock in protections for 2.6 million workers so that penalty rates cannot be bargained away by legal tricks or corporate loopholes and ensure the Fair Work Commission cannot approve any variation that leaves a single worker worse off.

For my mum, who cleans hospital wards in regional Victoria, those extra dollars from weekends or night shifts aren't extra; they're what help her to get by. It's the same story for millions of other working Australians.

This government has chosen its side. We are backing Australian workers. I say to those opposite: if you care about the regions, if you care about cost-of-living relief and if you believe in a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, you should back the Albanese Labor government's protection of penalty rates. Let's protect penalty and overtime rates, because that's what workers deserve. (Time expired)

The Australian flag is more than just a piece of fabric; it's a powerful symbol of who we are as a nation. It stands for the values that bind us together—freedom, democracy, the rule of law and the right to live safely and peacefully in what is without question the greatest country on earth.

Our flag tells the story of our past, our struggles and our victories. It's flown proudly at sporting events, citizenship ceremonies and schools across the country. More importantly, it has been carried into battle by our servicemen and women—brave Australians who stood on the front lines in defence of our nation and everything the flag represents. Many of those Australians never returned home. They paid the ultimate price to protect our way of life, our freedoms, our democracy and our national identity.

So when protesters choose to burn the Australian flag, it's not just a political statement; it's a disgrace. It's an insult to every digger who wore the uniform, fought under that flag and laid down their life for this country. It is deeply disrespectful not just to the memory of those we've lost but to every Australian who loves this country and what it stands for.

In the United States, President Donald Trump has taken a stand. He issued an executive order introducing tough penalties for anyone who burns the American flag—a clear message that patriotism is not up for negotiation and that the nation's symbol must be respected. I ask: why is the Albanese Labor government silent when our national flag is burned and desecrated here at home? Why do they do nothing while our flag is publicly disrespected? Why do they turn a blind eye?

Enough is enough. It's time we stood up for our national flag, for what it represents and for the people who fought and died under it. It's time we defended our national identity with the same pride and courage shown by those who came before us.

Last week the Australian Football League banned Adelaide Crows player Izak Rankine for four weeks for using a slur, citing its dedication to respect and inclusion. Yet the 2025 grand final headline act is Snoop Dogg, an artist with a history of using similar language in his songs and on a recent podcast. I ask the question: what's the difference? Excusing a high-profile musical act while penalising players, I would say, sends a pretty mixed message.

But the AFL loves its ESG targets and its advertising revenue. This is also a league which punishes players for on-field breaches but profits from online gambling partnerships. Doesn't this reliance on betting revenue clash with the AFL's moral posturing? If the AFL truly values inclusion and integrity, shouldn't it apply its standards consistently across players, entertainers and partnerships? But we know how this is going to play out: Snoop Dogg's going to be there on grand final day—they've paid too much money not to have him—Rankine won't be there, and nothing will come of it because the league is the only show in town.

Don't get me wrong; I don't have any problem with the headline act performing. But what's with the inconsistency? I'm going to give a little bit of advice: one way for the AFL to avoid such mixed messaging is to stay out of politics and just play their game of football.

Housing is a nation-defining challenge for Australia because every Australian deserves a place to call home, and every Australian should aspire to homeownership. Housing, housing, housing—it's front of mind for millions of people across the country and for this government. We hear it from young people who fear they will never own their own home, no matter how hard they work or how diligently they save. We hear it from their parents, too, who fear they will not be able to give their children the same opportunity they grew up with. And we hear it from renters struggling to pay the bills as their rent keeps going up. Labor knows just how serious and urgent this is. That's why we are doing everything in our power to build more homes and help more Australians buy their own home.

It is really disappointing that the coalition still don't get just how urgent and serious this is, because every time Labor wants to build more homes, they want to block them. Right now they are trying to block 80,000 extra homes to be built for renters. Just this week the coalition moved a motion to scrap those 80,000 homes for Australians who need them so much. Every time we want to make things easier for first home owners in this place, they try to block it. Right now they are campaigning against Labor's five per cent deposit for first home owners, a policy that levels the playing field for first home owners while we build, build, build. Housing demands action. People deserve good quality houses to call home. That's why the Albanese Labor government is focused on it. The coalition, and particularly Senator Bragg, should get on board.

We need this government to step up and release more home care packages. Seriously, what will it take for this government to give older Australians the care they need? This morning I received an email from a constituent. They wrote:

I feel so let down by my government. My Aged Care gave me the names of providers to call. Every one of them told me they have no funding to send a carer. All I ask is two hours a week of home care support. Every day of delay leaves people like me without the basic help we need to live safely and with dignity in our homes.

That's the reality. People are being left alone, struggling and sometimes literally dying in squalor while they wait for help that never comes. What is the government doing? Why is it so difficult for them to just release more packages and deliver the care they promised? This is not a partisan issue. Everyone in the community agrees that older people deserve to be cared for, yet Labor still cannot get its act together.

I want to live in a country that values and cares for older people. That's why the Greens are fighting so hard for the government to listen, act and finally deliver for older people and for their children and families who are trying to find them care and are worn down by trying to fill the gaps. Let's join together and actually do something meaningful here for once for the people who built this country and who deserve to live in their later years in dignity.

We go about our day today with heavy hearts. Yesterday two Victoria Police officers lost their lives. They were doing what they swore to do, keep the rest of us safe. To their families, colleagues and loved ones, there are no words that can erase this grief, but may you find comfort in knowing that an entire nation stands with you.

Every day our officers aren't merely clocking on for a shift; they are answering a call—a call to protect, a call to serve, a call that sometimes unfortunately demands everything. They walked willingly into danger so others don't have to. What happened yesterday is a gut-wrenching reminder that the freedom we all get to enjoy has a price, and someone must be willing to pay it. Yesterday two Australians did. Yet how often do we see our police painted as the problem by people who, when trouble comes knocking, are the first ones to dial triple 0? The hypocrisy must and should end. The truth is rather simple. Without our police, society collapses. There is no safety. There is no order. There is no Australia as we know it to exist today.

This is not just Victoria Police's loss; it is actually Australia's loss. We should never forget it. May these officers rest in peace. May their families find strength and may we as a nation never take for granted those who stand daily between us and chaos. God bless you and God bless our nation.

On Friday 22 August I attended the Southern Tasmanian Netball Association Junior Presentation Night, an event that brings together players, coaches and families to mark the end of the season. It was an opportunity to recognise the achievements of young people who dedicate themselves to their sport by balancing school, work and other commitments.

I presented the Junior Leadership Program certificates. This program has been running since 1998, and more than 200 players have now graduated. Over that time, young female participants have gained experience in coaching, umpiring, health and nutrition, mental health and women in leadership, just to name a few of the issues covered. It's a program that develops skills that extend well beyond the court.

Netball is one of the few sports in Australia where women lead at every level—as players, coaches, umpires, administrators and role models. That matters because, when young people see women leading with strength and confidence, it shows them that leadership is about ability, courage and character. The young women in the leadership program are already demonstrating these skills. The lessons they're learning—teamwork, persistence and resilience—will serve them well in whatever paths they take, whether they're in the sport, in the workplace or in public life.

I'd also like to give a big shout-out to Ava Loring, another young leader in the STNA, who did a fabulous job in organising the Junior Presentation Night—congratulations. Thank you to the Southern Tasmanian Netball Association, the families who support their children and, most importantly, the players themselves for their hard work and commitment throughout the season. (Time expired)

I welcome the government's listing of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation. That has been a long time coming. But this government needs to do more. The government needs to list Hizb ut-Tahrir as a terrorist organisation as well. State police previously nominated this group; Commonwealth governments of both stripes have said no.

Since the attacks of 7 October 2023, we've seen a rise in antisemitism. We've seen flags of terrorist groups waved around in public and in our universities. We've seen these flags behind politicians when they're marching on our national icons. It is no secret that members of Hizb ut-Tahrir are at these events, waving flags and stoking anti-Israel sentiment. That quickly becomes antisemitic sentiment. This stoking of the flames of antisemitism has resulted in literal flames in synagogues. To quote the government's own requirements, that is 'a threat to Australia's interests'.

Hizb ut-Tahrir members have been on university campuses, leading marches and waving flags—and, believe you me, they are not the students. When Hizb ut-Tahrir members wave the flags of terrorist groups, they are promoting groups which are responsible for horrendous acts of terrorism and they are encouraging those acts. When a spokesperson supports attacks against Israel, that is not freedom of expression; that is advocating terrorism. When a leader says, 'We will keep rejecting the existence of the Jewish entity,' that is not political advocacy; that is calling for the destruction of a race.

Like minded countries have already listed Hizb ut-Tahrir as a terrorist organisation. Our Five Eyes and AUKUS partner the UK has listed Hizb ut-Tahrir because the group encourages terrorism. The UK didn't list only the group in Britain; it also listed the global organisation, including Hizb ut-Tahrir in Australia. It is time Australia followed their lead. 'We stand firmly against antisemitism and hatred against the Jewish community in the United Kingdom,' was said. Today I say that we stand firmly against antisemitism and hatred against the Jewish community here in our very own pocket, in Australia. (Time expired)

Later today Quakers Australia will be launching their report Australia's opaque arms trade & obligations under international law. This follows a powerful joint statement by 60 civil society organisations, all calling for one simple thing: accountability in how this country conducts its military trade. According to their statement, Australia's military exports may have doubled in the last three years. Why 'may'? Because there is such an impenetrable cloud of secrecy around our defence exports that even policy experts describe the system as, at best, opaque and, at worst, negligently poor.

We do not know the specifics of what has been exported, but we know that exports have been made to countries like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, the Philippines, Sudan, South Sudan, Israel and Indonesia.

Australia has an obligation to ensure that weapons and other military materiel produced here do not end up contributing to human rights abuses. We've heard from the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence time and time again that Australia does not export weapons to Israel. I would say to the government: look at the R400. This is a weapon system produced by EOS, a company headquartered a few minutes away from Parliament House. This weapon has been sold to Israel, and we cannot deny what is already on the record. I'm hoping to soon reintroduce, along with Senator Thorpe, the genocide red-lines bills package, which will work to address the nebulousness of our defence exports and block exports that are not in line with Australia's humanitarian international obligations or that risk contributing to human rights violations, including genocide. There's the moral issue, and it's not going away, and I thank Quakers Australia their leadership.

I recently had the pleasure of attending a celebration hosted by Indians in Sydney for the 78th anniversary of Indian Independence Day. I want to commend Indians in Sydney under the leadership of Nadeem Ahmed, his entire team and Gurnam Singh for putting together such a vibrant and meaningful showcase of the contribution that the Indian community has made not only to my home state of New South Wales and my home city of Sydney but all across Australia.

The Indian community has grown in number from the small thousands in the 1960s and the 1970s, when my own father arrived, to literally hundreds of thousands today. It's a community which, in a short space of time, has already made a massive contribution to Australian business life, economic life, cultural life and social capital and to the communities of our suburbs and cities. It was great to join with the Indian community not only in celebrating their own culture and traditions, which they do so much to preserve and share with us as other Australians, but also to see how much they have embraced all the opportunities Australian life has offered to them. There are many, many success stories of Indian-Australians succeeding in academia, in business, in culture, in the arts—and increasingly even in politics, I daresay! I'm sure that in the decades to come we will see many, many more contributions of the Indian community in Australia.

I do want to send this particular message to the Indian community, though, which is to say how welcome you are in Australia, how much we value the contribution you and your families have made to Australia and how much we appreciate your willingness to pitch in during times of hardship, whether it's during bushfires or floods. You have a willingness to share with other community members. That is what makes our country stronger, and the Indian-Australian community has played a great part in that.

I want to take a moment to speak about the heartbreaking tragedy that occurred yesterday in Porepunkah in my home state of Victoria. I, like many of us are this place, am devastated and saddened by the loss of two fine Victorian police officers and the injury of a third member. My thoughts are with all the police officers' families right now, their police colleagues not just in Victoria but right across the nation and the broader community, who are feeling the weight of this tragedy. As the police search continues in Victoria's north-east, the safety of the local community and the officers on the ground remains the highest priority.

Every day Victorian police—in fact all police officers and first responders—serve our community with courage and dedication. They put their lives on the line not for recognition but out of deep commitment to protecting people like us and many others in our community and to serving their community. They show up each day ready to face the unknown, often under very tough circumstances, to keep all of us safe. The thought of a loved one leaving work in the morning and never returning home because of a senseless shooting is just unimaginable. It's a stark and painful reminder of the risks our frontline police officers face every single day that they put on that blue uniform. I know everyone in this place joins me in extending our thoughts to everyone that is grieving. Our hearts go out to you, to your family and to all your colleagues. In this difficult time, let us honour the bravery of those who have been lost, stand with those that are injured and support those who continue to serve with strength and courage.

I rise today to talk about the amazing work of local cat rescues in Tasmania, particularly in southern Tasmania. The people who run our local cat rescues work absolutely tirelessly, and often at great personal and emotional expense, to assist and save vulnerable kittens and cats from some tremendously awful circumstances.

Thank you, Senator Dolega. The time for talking about cats has expired.

by leave—I advise the Senate that Senator Gallagher will be absent from question time today, for personal reasons. In her absence, ministers will represent portfolios as outlined in the letter I have circulated to the opposition and party leaders.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. We know, through a list of documents released under freedom of information, that the government was preparing to list the IRGC as a terrorist organisation in January 2023. Why has it taken 2½ years for the Albanese government to finally announce that it will list the IRGC as a terrorist organisation?

As I think Senator Chandler would know, the Prime Minister announced yesterday—with the director-general of ASIO, me and the home affairs minister—that, as a result of painstaking work by our security agencies and law enforcement agencies, we have identified that at least two of the antisemitic attacks in Australia in recent times, the Adass Israel synagogue and Lewis' Continental Kitchen, were orchestrated by the IRGC. Our judgement as a consequence of that was that we had to take the unprecedented action of expelling the ambassador and that, in response to this, which did cross the line, we would list the IRGC as a terrorist organisation—which, as you know, requires legislative amendment.

I would make the point, Senator Chandler, that, first, even before we took this action yesterday, our government has taken stronger action against Iran than any previous Australian government. I would make the point that the government of which Senator Cash and others were a part did nothing in relation to further sanctions. We have placed some 200 sanctions on both Iranian and IRGC entities and individuals. I would also make the point that we were part of the push to remove Iran from the UN body in relation to the elimination of discrimination against women. They took that position whilst the coalition were in government, so I look forward to bipartisan support for this legislation. (Time expired)

Senator Chandler, first supplementary?

The former home affairs minister Clare O'Neil publicly attributed a foreign interference attempt to the Islamic Republic of Iran regime in February 2023. That same month, the coalition offered bipartisan support to legislate, if necessary, to allow the government to list the IRGC as a terrorist organisation. Why didn't the Albanese government take us up on that offer at that time when the threat of the IRI regime was already well understood?

The IRGC has been a disruptive and malign actor for a very long time in many countries, including when Senator Cash and others were in government. I would make the point that no actions were taken under the previous government for such a listing, despite, as I heard this morning, Mr Hastie recommending so. So I would just make, again, the same point. We took, prior to this action, stronger action against Iran than any previous Australian government. But what we have seen is something really unprecedented, which is a foreign actor orchestrating violence in Australia on Australian soil, against Australians. That is why we took the action we've taken.

Senator Chandler, second supplementary?

Since the death of Mahsa Amini in police custody in September 2022, the Iranian diaspora has been calling for the IRGC terrorist listing to reflect the real and tangible threat that it poses not just in Iran but here in Australia as well. Minister, why did it take violence on Australian soil for the government to act on those calls from our local Iranian community?

I refer to my earlier answer, which is that we have actually taken stronger action than any government that the coalition was part of over the last nine years. The IRGC was already sanctioned as a whole in 2010, I think, by a former Labor government. You have heard me in this place, including in response to your questions, be very clear about our view on foreign interference. What we have seen is really unprecedented. We have seen a foreign entity seeking to orchestrate violence in our country on our soil against Australian citizens and Australian premises. This calls for the unprecedented action we have taken, which is the first expulsion, in the postwar era, of an ambassador.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, Senator Ayres. Building more homes is a priority for the Albanese Labor government. Can the minister outline the improvement in housing supply in the latest ABS figures, which show that, in June 11, total dwellings approved rose by 11.9 per cent and, in the March quarter, total dwellings commenced rose by 11.7 per cent? What measures has the government taken to increase housing supply?

I thank Senator Dolega for that question. He's right. It's good to see somebody paying attention to the evidence base here. In June, total dwellings approved rose to 11.9 per cent over the month and 27.4 per cent over the year. Total dwellings commenced rose 11.7 per cent over the March quarter and 17.3 per cent over the year. The value of construction work rose three per cent over the June quarter and 4.8 per cent over the year. A total of 500,000 homes have been built since this government came to office. Construction costs have stabilised. We've got 28,000 social and affordable homes, supported by this government, under construction or planned. Under the previous government, over the course of a decade, 373 is all that was achieved.

We have a $43 billion housing agenda. The alternative approach, apart from the relentless negativity, was in evidence when they were in office. A total of 373 social and affordable homes were built over the entire period, surfing on the complacency of what had been delivered by previous governments, surfing on the effort of others—no effort, no engagement, no coordination, not even a housing minister over that period, but a laser focus on bludging off the Australian people.

The trick with negative politics—through you, President, to Senator Bragg—is that it only works if you're good at it.

Senator Dolega, first supplementary?

Making it easier—

Is that it?

Order! Senator McKenzie! Senator Dolega, please start again.

Making it easier for Australia to buy their first home is also a priority for the Albanese Labor government. This week, the government announced that the five per cent scheme would expand to cover all first home buyers from 1 October—three months ahead of schedule. What impact will this have on Australians trying to buy their first homes?

Just put yourself in the shoes of those young Australians who are facing year after year after year of trying to save for a deposit. This government has delivered for them—consistent with their election commitment—an even better proposition.

Bringing forward five per cent home deposits for many young Australians brings for them, in a practical and real way, some hope of being able to purchase a home and to save a deposit. For some of them that means a decade less of savings paying somebody else's mortgage. What do we have from Senator Bragg? Whingeing and negativity. He's trying to find any reason why young Australians should be denied this opportunity. He said yesterday that the children of billionaires will be getting access to this. I will give you a tip: if you're a billionaire's son or daughter and you're worried about a five or 20 per cent deposit from the old man— (Time expired)

Senator Dolega, second supplementary?

Policies that increase the housing supply and make it easier for Australians to buy their first home are in the national interest. They help make access to the housing market fairer and ensure it works for all Australians. What challenges does the Albanese Labor government face in implementing our agenda?

Of course it's in the national interest for Australians to have an opportunity to buy a home, for first home buyers to have the opportunity to buy a home and for all of the elements of our policy to be engaged. I've listened to the sneering from those opposite about the five per cent home deposit. I have seen the sneering about renters, too. There is some consistency, isn't there, with what a former leader of the Liberal Party said about renters in Australia? John Hewson said, 'You can always tell the renters' houses because they are less tidy out the front.' That attitude is clearly consistent with Senator Bragg's sneering at renters, sneering at first home buyers and sneering at the efforts of this government to mobilise the Australian construction sector and the states and territories to build more homes for Australians at an affordable level. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. At a protest rally against Israel in Sydney earlier this month that was attended by a number of state MPs, one of the attendees was proudly holding a large portrait of the dictator Ayatollah Ali Khamenei holding a rifle. Given your recent action to expel the Iranian ambassador and list the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation due to their deliberate attacks on the Australian community, including the horrific firebombing of the Adass synagogue in Melbourne, can the government advise Australians on whether they are aware of any involvement of the IRGC or its operatives in attending, encouraging or fuelling these protests in Australia?

Thank you for that question, Senator Cadell. Yes, I did see those images, and I found them deeply disturbing. I again remind all Australians, including those who care very deeply about what is happening in Gaza, of the role that Iran has played and continues to play in the region. One can advocate for a ceasefire and for humanitarian law to be observed without aligning one's rhetoric with a regime which, frankly, has been repressive, murderous and a destabilising force in the region.

An opposition senator interjecting—

Sorry—have I got a question?

It was a comment.

I respect the way in which Senator Cadell asked that question. This is a serious set of events in Australia. It deserves a serious response. I was pleased when I saw Ms Ley talk about the need for bipartisanship on this. I would invite her colleagues to perhaps reflect on whether or not their approach in trying to find some political differentiation on an issue like this is an appropriate one for a party of government.

Senator, it is the case that we know that the IRGC around the world has engaged in foreign influence and foreign interference in different democracies. We have seen that. I will leave it to the Director-General of ASIO to outline any further what is appropriate to put in the public arena. That is one of the reasons why it's so important for all of us to stand against foreign interference. That's why, on a bipartisan basis, we passed, when we were in opposition, foreign interference laws. It's why we have international security agencies which are there to keep Australians safe. (Time expired)

Senator Cadell, first supplementary?

Given we now have had a foreign power promoting violent attacks on our community in Australia, will the AFP, ASIO or other security agencies be given extra resources to ensure this doesn't happen again, or have they asked for them?

(—) (): You might be aware from previous answers that we have put more resources into the fight against antisemitism. We also have a joint police taskforce, Special Operation Avalite, which the commissioner has given evidence about at estimates and in other fora. We have put additional funding into security for Jewish schools and institutions. But what we want is an Australia where that is not necessary. What we want is an Australia where Jewish Australians feel and are safe, where all Australians feel and are safe, and that means that all of us have to stand against prejudice in all its forms. All of us should stand against antisemitism. All of us should advocate for the inclusion and the respect that defines the Australian democracy. (Time expired)

Senator Cadell, second supplementary?

ASIO linked the Sydney and Melbourne attacks to the government in Tehran directly. What new protections beyond yesterday's announcement will be in place for Jewish schools, synagogues and businesses?

I think the director-general indicated there were continued investigations into other matters. Obviously, I can't pre-empt those in this forum. What I can say to you is that there are a number of things we have done in relation to antisemitism. We've established, as I said, Special Operation Avalite to combat antisemitism. We have imposed counter-terrorism sanctions on Terrorgram. We have banned the Nazi salute and hate symbols. We have passed legislation to criminalise—

Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator McKenzie?

I have point of order on direct relevance. Whilst I appreciate the comprehensive nature of Senator Wong's answer about actions the government has taken, Senator Cadell's question was very direct and was about what new actions the government is putting forward beyond yesterday's announcement to protect Jewish schools, synagogues and businesses.

Thank you, Senator McKenzie. The minister is being directly relevant to the question. Minister Wong.

My very next point was that we've committed $57.5 million for improved safety and security at Jewish sites across the country, including schools and synagogues. Obviously, my assumption is that that's over the forward estimates period in addition to existing programs, so that will continue to flow. The government has also committed $1.2 million for security upgrades to current buildings and $30 million to restore the Adass Israel Synagogue and community centre. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator Watt. Last week, you told the productivity roundtable that the Albanese government is committed to reforming Australia's environment laws. Will the government, with its huge majority in the lower house, seize this once-in-a-generation opportunity to work with the Greens to protect Australia's native forests and deliver genuine, modern environmental law reform that finally recognises climate change?

Thanks, Senator Hanson-Young. The government is very committed to passing reforms to our environmental laws, and we would welcome support from either side of this chamber to do this. We well remember that when the government tried to amend our environmental laws prior to the election, we saw the 'no-alition' get back together, as they usually do, to block those reforms from going through. Senator Hanson-Young, that may well be a question worth putting to your own party room to ask, 'Are you prepared to work with Labor to pass these reforms?' Equally, is the coalition prepared to work with Labor to pass these reforms?

There's one thing I do agree with Senator Hanson-Young on in this matter, which is that our environmental laws as they currently stand are fundamentally broken. Graeme Samuel was appointed by the then environment minister Ms Ley, the now opposition leader, nearly five years ago, and he handed down a report which made recommendations founded on the finding that our environmental laws are not working for business and they're certainly not working for our environment.

In that five-year period, we've seen businesses held up with their investments through the current processes, and, more than anything, we've seen our environment suffer from the lack of protection in our current laws.

I've said publicly that we are open to working with either or both the coalition and the Greens when it comes to passing these reforms. We want to pass reforms that include strong environmental protections, quicker and more efficient approvals and assessments, and more transparency when it comes to environmental regulation.

Senator Hanson-Young, I note that, while I've been answering your question, your colleagues have been interjecting. Again, I think it points to the fact that there's a lot of work to do within the Greens party room to determine whether you're actually prepared to work with the government to pass these reforms or whether you follow your past actions of opposing our environmental laws in the last parliament, opposing the CPRS back in the Rudd-Gillard government. You've got a very good track record of stopping Labor making environmental reform— (Time expired)

Senator Hanson-Young, first supplementary?

In his press conference after the productivity roundtable, the Treasurer said that the government would be consulting on 'some kind of coordinated general function to speed up approvals for big projects'. Who is being consulted, and is this consultation being run by you as Minister for the Environment and Water or another minister?

I was very pleased to work on this suggestion, which came out of the economic roundtable, with the Treasurer, along with a number of other ministers. The Treasurer—in the process of establishing the Treasury's Front Door, which he has previously committed to and which is all about trying to better coordinate within government the way that government responds to different investment proposals—has said that we also intend to consult on the possibility of a Commonwealth coordinator-general, whose role would be not to issue approvals for projects but to better coordinate the various different approvals required within government. Typically, for example, if you had a major foreign investor who wanted to make an investment in Australia, they might require approval from the Foreign Investment Review Board, or they might require approval through the department that I now oversee. It's about better coordination of those approvals. (Time expired)

Senator Hanson-Young, second supplementary?

I note that the minister didn't answer the question as to whether he was running the consultation. I'm happy to take that on notice. Your own home state of Queensland has a role such as this. They spruik on their website that the majority of projects that they have sped up have been in the mineral and energy sector. Are you consulting on a model that is similar, and is this just a way to allow coal and gas companies to bypass environmental law?

Minister Wong?

Obviously, I'm sure Senator Watt can respond as he likes. I raise a point of order on whether the question was in order. My understanding of the senator's question is that it references a state government website.

If you had bothered to listen to the rest of the question—

I did listen!

I said, 'What isn't'—

Thank you, Senator Hanson-Young! Senator Hanson-Young did reference a state government website but asked if that model was going to be used. It was simply a reference. The question is in order.

Thanks Senator Hanson-Young. You are correct that Queensland is one of the states in Australia that has the role of coordinator-general. You've asked whether the role that we would be considering would be the same as that. The point of consultation is to develop a model. So we're not going into this having made the decision about that. We'll be talking to a range of parties, including the environment groups. I suspect I've probably had a lot more meetings with environment groups that you have lately, Senator Hanson-Young, in the process of drafting these reforms.

What I've heard from those environment groups is that they actually support the idea of faster and more efficient approvals and assessments, provided they are done in line with new national environmental safeguards. I would urge the Greens party, as these negotiations and the development of this legislation move forward, to pause the grandstanding for a little bit. You say that you like to listen to the environment movement. We're listening to the environment movement, just as we're listening to industry groups, and they all agree that they want faster approvals and stronger safeguards. You should do some listening to them. (Time expired)

My question, without yelling, is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Watt. This week marks one year since the Albanese Labor government's closing the loopholes measures commenced. Yay—a significant milestone for the workers of our nation! These historic workplace changes were the most important workplace relations reforms we have seen in a decade. Minister, how is the government making work more secure, boosting wages, closing the gender pay gap and encouraging more cooperative workplaces?

Thank you, Senator Sterle, I could hear the excitement in your voice as you were asking that question. Yesterday, as you said, was the 12 month anniversary of key reforms made by the Albanese Labor government through our closing loopholes legislation. That legislation came into effect 12 months ago, and it was all about removing the loopholes that undermine a level playing field for employers as well as about pay, job security and safety for workers.

These reforms were a key plank in the government's first term agenda aimed at securing jobs, boosting pay, closing the gender pay, and encouraging more cooperative workplaces. That's of course after 10 years of coalition government deliberately suppressing wages and driving more conflict in our workplace relations. This legislation was designed to close loopholes that existed under the coalition and were being used by some employers to undercut wages and conditions for working people.

Our changes also levelled the playing field for businesses who were doing the right thing, who no longer have to compete in a race to the bottom on wages. Low wages might look to some businesses as a cost saving, but they undermine productivity, competitiveness and the economic prosperity for companies and the country.

One of our key reforms that brings up its one-year anniversary is the right to disconnect. I remember the howls against that, led by the person sitting in the leader's chair at the moment, when she was the shadow workplace relations minister. She was saying that the world would fall apart. Remember the Dark Ages we were going to go into? Remember the Dark Ages—typical Senator Cash, dialling it up to 11, just like you're doing this week.

Dial everything up to 11. We know what your colleagues think about you dialling everything up to 11. It's why no-one takes you seriously in this building, and you did it on workplace relations as well, by saying you were going to back to the Dark Ages.

Order! Order! Senator Cash! Order!

Senator McGrath and Senator Nampijinpa Price, in that order, will withdraw those comments.

I withdraw.

I withdraw.

Senator Henderson?

Thank you, Madam President. On the point of order, I would also ask that you ask Senator Watt to withdraw the most regrettable, unparliamentary comment that he made in relation to the exceptional and hardworking Senator Cash.

Senator Henderson, I did not hear that, but I will ask Senator Watt to—

Thank you, I don't need you to repeat anything. I'm simply indicating to you that there was so much noise and disrespect and disorder in this chamber I didn't hear that, but I know that the minister will always withdraw if he's made a—

I withdraw.

Thank you. Senator Scarr?

A point of order, President. One of the reasons it descended so quickly is that Senator Watt was directly and quite aggressively making remarks directly to the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. He should really direct them through the President.

Senator Scarr, please resume your seat. I've acknowledged the point of order made by Senator Henderson. The minister has withdrawn. That is the end of the matter.

Yeah, you shouldn't argue with idiots.

Senator McGrath, seriously! Order! Senator Cash and Senator Wong and Senator Ayres, come to order! Senator Cash, this started with an ongoing barrage of interjections by you. As I've said before, I do allow leaders in this place some leeway, but, in the end, I called you to order, and you continued the disorder. I said on Monday that name-calling in this place is out of order. Today, in the space of about two minutes, there's been a barrage of name-calling. It is unacceptable; we are all adults. I expect respectful behaviour. Minister Watt.

I thank you, President, with much glee. Over the past 12 months, since the closing-the-loopholes measures came into effect, the Australian labour market has performed strongly. Unemployment has remained low and real wages continue to grow while inflation has come right down. How have specific parts of the economy flourished over the past year, and how does this compare to some of the predictions that were made when the legislation was introduced? I look forward to your answer.

Thank you, Senator Sterle. I agree with you; I think it's very important to remind Australians of what the coalition thought of these laws when they were introduced. As I was saying, when we introduced laws that were about providing the right to disconnect, minimum standards for gig workers and a range of other benefits for workers, Senator Cash said that this legislation would take us back to the Dark Ages. She said that the supermarket shelves would be bare—

Have you spoken to small businesses?

and that it would close down parts of the economy. I don't think anyone thinks that any of that is actually right. Twelve months on, despite the negative predictions of Senator Cash, the closing-the-loopholes reforms are delivering great outcomes for Australians. Real wages have now grown for seven consecutive quarters under the Albanese Labor government. Employment has risen by nearly 880,000 to a record high of 14.6 million workers in July 2025. The rate of industrial disputation remains low, down from 128,000 days lost under the coalition to just under 14,000 in the March quarter of this year. Our reforms have worked.

Senator Sterle, second supplementary?

That's great; thanks, Minister. The Albanese Labor government's workplace relations changes have delivered higher wages and better conditions for workers, as well as growth for small businesses. What else is the government doing to improve the rights of workers to grow their wages and strengthen the economy?

Thank you, Senator Sterle. Minister Watt, I do remind you to answer the question to the chair.

Thanks, President. Senator Sterle, despite the Chicken Little predictions about the economy closing down from Senator Cash and her colleagues—I heard Senator Cash interjecting about small businesses. I'm very pleased to tell Senator Cash that, in the most recent figures, there were nearly 2.6 million small businesses in Australia, 2.7 per cent more than the same time in 2023. So wages are up, unemployment is low, jobs are up, small businesses are up—every single thing that Senator Cash and her colleagues predicted would go wrong as a result of our laws has been disproven, and in fact Australians are getting higher wages and more jobs as a result of our reforms.

We know the Liberals will always stand in the way of positive changes to Australia's industrial relations laws. What we've also heard recently is from the new shadow minister, the member for Goldstein. He has labelled working from home a form of apartheid. That is the current view of the coalition on workplace relations. (Time expired)

My question—

We have moved on, Senator McKenzie. Senator Tyrrell was on her feet, asking her question, and you continued to interject. If you can't sit quietly, leave the chamber. Senator Tyrrell, please start again.

My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, Senator Farrell. Giving birth to twins in Australia is incorrectly and unfairly classified as a single birth. This misclassification is causing Tasmanian and mainland families to struggle financially. When I wrote to Minister Rishworth in the previous parliament, last year, I was informed that the government would not treat those that have twins as having had multiple births, because they think it's more important to fund those with higher order multiples—that is, triplets or more. God help any family! I reached out to the Australian Multiple Birth Association, who told me that those families that have twins face a cost burden of five times a single birth, so why does the government continue to exclude families with twins from recognition under the multiple birth allowance and other financial supports?

I thank Senator Tyrrell for her question. I am not the Minister for Social Services, as you would be aware, but I am representing the minister today. I appreciate your question.

Opposition senators interjecting—

The senator has asked a really genuine question. She is representing her constituencies in Tasmania.

It's about 30 seconds, Don.

I think the minimum you could do, Senator Scarr, is to give her the courtesy—

Senator Tyrrell, on a point of order?

No disrespect, but I think that we should get back to the question, if that's okay.

I'll remind the minister of your question.

Thank you for that intervention, Senator Tyrrell. Just so you're clear, I was simply defending your right to ask this question on behalf of your constituents. You've asked a very—

A point of order on relevance. I think we'd all agree that the minister, as much as we do like him, has not gone anywhere near answering the question that was put by the senator.

The minister is being relevant. He has acknowledged the question. He has further acknowledged that he is not the directly responsible minister.

I can see that the opposition is completely opposed to me answering this question in a proper way. I will take this issue up with the minister. We've got a very fine minister in this space who's very determined to do the best for the community generally, but in particular Tasmania, and I will come back with a proper response to your question.

Senator Tyrrell, first supplementary?

In September 2023, in answering a dorothy dixer during questions without notice, you said that the Housing and Homelessness Ministerial Council had met 'multiple times this year'. That council met two times in 2023. Does two count as multiple, or did you mislead the Senate?

I never, ever, ever mislead the Senate. I make a determined effort on every occasion to make sure that I answer each question directly. If on the odd occasion I do get it wrong—sometimes I do; I have to admit that—I come in and make an admission. I would say, based on the question you've just asked me, that the answer I gave on that occasion was the correct one. Two is more than one, and it's a multiple. If that's the question you're asking me, my answer is that I've answered it correctly.

Senator Tyrrell, second supplementary?

Instead of basing eligibility on the tortured logic of a definition of 'multiple' that nobody outside of the ministerial wing would recognise, wouldn't it be simpler to listen to the AMBA and base multiple birth support payments on the number of children that are born, and potentially have tiers of support based on how high the number is?

I hear what you're saying in that regard. I shall, again, take it up with the minister directly responsible for this issue and I will come back with a genuine response to your question.

I'm sorry that my questions aren't going to be as funny as Senator Farrell's answers, but we'll certainly make a go of it! My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Four weeks ago I asked you, 'How many houses have been completed by the Housing Australia Future Fund?' You said at the time that you would find the information out and you would report back to the Senate. Can you please now advise how many houses have been completed?

I'm very grateful—

Multiple!

Many houses have been completed. That's a very good answer, Senator Scarr, and I thank you very much for that. Senator Bragg, I will go through a few of the figures. As you know, we are getting on with the job of delivering 55,000 social and affordable homes. I'm advised that over 28,000 are in planning and construction—18,000 of those through the HAFF and National Housing Accord Facility and 10,000 through other programs. I would make the point, Senator, that you seem very interested in tracking the progress of a fund that you opposed and you were going to scrap.

Senator Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Bragg?

Sorry to trouble you, but it is a point of order on relevance. The question was quite clear about it being on the number of houses that have been completed. In case you didn't hear, it's about the number of houses completed.

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

I outlined in my first response the answer that I was giving Senator Bragg. But, Senator, you can't get away from your position to oppose the HAFF—to oppose any houses being built—by saying, 'It's not relevant to my question.' I think it's pretty relevant to the Australian people—don't you? I reckon the Australian people, those who are concerned about housing affordability, might think that the housing spokesperson position, which is to oppose any houses being built under the HAFF is relevant to a question on housing. This is your problem, Senator Bragg. Your party opposes governments engaging in the housing sector in order to increase supply. We believe that supply is a part of how we—

Senator Bragg?

It's a point of order on relevance. We just wanted to know the number of houses completed, please.

The minister has started her response and given you a host of numbers, Senator Bragg. Minister?

Thank you, President. I would invite the opposition leader in the Senate perhaps to behave appropriately towards you. Senator, what I would say to you is, as I said, we have 18,000 homes through the HAFF and the National Housing Accord Facility. Over 28,000 social and affordable housing in planning. If you'd like to ask me which houses you're opposing, I'm very happy to go through a list of those. (Time expired)

Senator Bragg, first supplementary?

The question is: how many houses have been completed, Minister Wong? That's the question.

Again, what I would say is 28,000 social and affordable homes are in planning and construction. The number of houses that we have is way more than would ever have been built under you.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Oh, we have three at once!

I'm waiting for silence. Senator Cash?

It's a point of order in relation to direct relevance. I know the minister has probably acknowledged the question, so maybe that falls into direct relevance, but it was pretty clear—a pretty direct question. 'How many have been completed?' If the minister doesn't know after four weeks, she should just say so.

Minister Wong, I will bring you back to the question.

I will give the opposition a number, and it's 80,000—the number of homes you're opposing with your disallowance.

Senator Bragg, second supplementary?

We'll take it from that that you don't know the answer. There was an answer given—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Just a moment, Senator Bragg. Order!

Senator Henderson, which part of 'order' doesn't apply to you?

The housing minister, Ms O'Neil, has, in the recent past, said to the ABC that the HAFF had in fact completed more than 2,000 homes. Is that number correct, and, of those 2,000 homes, how many were built by the HAFF and how many were acquired?

I don't have in front of me the—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order!

Senator Paterson! Again, which part of 'order' doesn't apply to you?

What I was going to say, Senator Bragg, about the interview to which you were referring, was that I'm sure Ms O'Neil was correct. She's a very competent minister and very energetic. What I would say to you, Senator, is that you persist in asking questions about a fund you oppose. So can everyone just understand the number of homes to be built if Senator Bragg were in Clare O'Neil's job—zero. That is the number of homes that would be built were you in the housing portfolio, Senator Bragg. It is disappointing that we see the coalition not having listened to the Australian people and continuing to take a position which is against houses being built. Why is it that your first housing policy of this term is to block 80,000 homes for Australians? (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Ayres. In August 2023, the government allocated $3 billion to energy transition projects in WA under the Rewiring the Nation program. It was reported earlier this month by the ABC that this money has sat idle for two years, with none of that money allocated to any projects as of yet. Why has the government allowed two years to pass without allocating a single dollar of the $3 billion committed to WA's clean energy transition, despite your stated support for net zero?

You're right to say, Senator Payman, that this government, unlike previous governments, does have a commitment to policy certainty and to working with our partners at the state and territory level and with the development community—in generation in particular—to deliver more generation capacity, including in Western Australia. That means a commitment to renewable generation capacity, wind developments—I don't want to trigger some of those opposite—and solar developments, which I visit regularly. You see them in regional Australia. What you see when you see these projects is giant solar projects providing jobs—

Senator McKenzie, I could hear you over and above the minister. As I said to you earlier today, if you can't sit quietly and not interject and not be disrespectful, please leave the chamber.

On a point of order, it's been a whole 59 seconds, and the minister hasn't mentioned Western Australia. This is really just a genuine question of wanting to know what's happening, so can you please redirect the minister.

Thank you, Senator Payman. The minister is being directly relevant to your question. You started off by indicating the amount of money that the federal government had committed, and the minister is being directly relevant.

As I was outlining, that policy certainty and that ambition is important. It means development of electricity projects to modernise our electricity system and renewables backed by gas and backed by storage, including in Western Australia. That is vital for new industry. It is vital for blue-collar jobs, including in Western Australia, where there's shared ambition of the Albanese government and the Cook government to make sure that we're driving production in iron production onshore and in critical minerals production onshore. It means that people should, when they're opposing the wind projects, count the cost of getting in the way of these projects in blue-collar jobs, because that's what they are doing.

Now, this funding you've alluded to is, as I understand it—and I'll check the details—allocated and worked through by the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, and they will be evaluating projects and delivering them consistent with their mandate. (Time expired)

Senator Payman, first supplementary?

Announcing money is not the same as delivering it. The Yindjibarndi Energy Corporation, which has proposed the Chichester Range Corridor project, does not expect to receive Rewiring the Nation funding until late 2027. What is the government doing to alleviate the red tape that is causing such unacceptable delays?

The government's broader approach is delivering a modern electricity system. Since May 2022 we've added over 18 gigawatts of renewables, wind and solar, to the grid. That means more jobs and more electricity, and we're going to need more electricity for our industrial ambitions, our Future Made in Australia ambitions and the data centres of the future in Western Australia and everywhere else. That is why we are focused on development and progress, not going backwards. That's why, under the last government, you had four gigawatts going out of the system and only one gigawatt going in, leaving a legacy of despair for industrial projects around the country. We took a look at these issues last week, and the focus on how it is—that we work across government to deliver faster approval times, more progress and bigger projects for— (Time expired)

Senator Payman, second supplementary?

I love how the minister used the last six seconds to allude to the question and try to answer it! According to the ABC, $3.54 billion has already been allocated to projects in New South Wales and Victoria. Why is WA being left behind, losing out on opportunities for creation of jobs and certainty and training, while the eastern states power ahead?

The way you characterise that, Senator Payman, is completely at odds with the record of investment and, I have to say, with the attitude of the Western Australian government to these questions. They have ambition for Western Australia. They are focused on industrial development and on the development of the electricity system that will be required to facilitate that development. That means more jobs in the outer suburbs and more jobs in regional Western Australia. We will not lose sight of any part of Australia, particularly the industrial regions of Australia that need this development. What we won't be doing is being out there, like the team over there, opposing wind projects, solar projects and transmission projects that are required to deliver for blue-collar jobs. They hate blue-collar jobs over there. We're determined to back them.

My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Senator Walsh. Parents know that the early childhood education and care workforce is the backbone of the sector. Today's parliamentary event celebrating Early Learning Matters Week reminds us all just how vital that workforce is not only for children's development and their wellbeing but also for families being able to work and being able to contribute to the economy more broadly. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to back our early childhood education and care workforce and ensure that their essential work is properly recognised?

Thank you, Senator Grogan, for your support for early childhood education and educators. Early childhood educators work hard every day to give children a great start in life, but their work has been overlooked and undervalued for too long. When we first came to government, educators couldn't afford to stay in the jobs they loved because their pay didn't reflect the value of their contribution—and love just doesn't pay the rent.

We had workers leaving in droves. That's why the Albanese government is investing $3.6 billion to deliver a historic 15 per cent pay rise for the early childhood workforce. This means that educators can afford to stay in the jobs they love. From December last year, a typical full-time educator received a pay rise of at least $103 per week, and, in just over three months time, that will increase to at least $155 per week.

On this side of the chamber, we see our early childhood educators. We value them. We respect their contribution. We don't just talk about it; we act on it. This 15 per cent pay rise is paying dividends. Educators are staying in their roles for longer, with vacancy rates down by almost a quarter. When educators stay, the whole system is stronger. These are good jobs, meaningful jobs, important jobs—jobs where trained educators shape children's futures and support families. For too long, that work was taken for granted. Under the Albanese government, educators are recognised and rewarded.

Senator Grogan, first supplementary?

It's great to hear how well that's going. Another key part of the Albanese Labor government's reforms has been the worker retention payment, which, I believe, has helped keep experienced educators in the sector while attracting new staff. Could the minister outline how this measure is also benefiting children by ensuring they are educated and cared for by a stable, secure and respected workforce?

Yes, I can. We know that the early years matter. Ninety per cent of brain development occurs in the first five years of a child's life, and quality early education helps prepare children to thrive—to thrive in school and to thrive in life. It's even more important for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. And the foundation of quality in early learning is a stable and respected workforce. We want educators to build lasting bonds with each child, to understand their unique traits and characteristics and tailor their education and care accordingly, so this historic 15 per cent pay rise for the early childhood workforce is good for families. On top of that, services that signed up for the worker retention payment must cap fees. This is saving families money, while valuing educators. That is how you deliver quality early learning.

Senator Grogan, second supplementary?

We know that the gender pay gap has closed to record low levels. How does valuing our early childhood educators contribute to gender equality, and how is supporting educators good for our productivity, the economy and our country more broadly?

The Albanese government is building universal early education, pillar by pillar, and this means delivering early learning for every child, no matter their postcode or what their parents do. Quality and affordable early childhood education supports parents, particularly women, to return to work when they are ready.

In contrast, we know how those opposite feel about early education. When we delivered our historic 15 per cent pay rise, they dismissed it as 'a sugar hit'. On this side of the chamber, we know that supporting educators is good for the country. It's good for gender equality, and that is good for the country, too. That is why this 15 per cent pay rise is paying dividends for early childhood educators, for children and their families and for Australia.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Minister, yesterday, when asked about the Prime Minister's decision to adopt taxing Australian families who have a spare bedroom in their house, you could not even say no or even mention the tax in your response. Can the minister finally give Australians the clarity they deserve and rule out this tax?

I thank Senator McGrath for the question, although I don't believe his primary question is an accurate reflection of what—

Thank you for assistance, Senator Cash. I don't believe it's an accurate reflection of what I' said. I'm always happy to discuss with him whether or not my memory is correct, and I refer you to my previous answer. I would say to you, Senator McGrath, I know that those opposite are uncomfortable with the fact that the party that went to the election with higher taxes was you, and I know Senator McGrath and others in the coalition are on the record as wanting smaller government, and it is must be very hard for them to deal with the fact that the party that went to the last election with higher taxes for every taxpayer was the coalition.

What the Prime Minister has said is that we will be implementing the tax policy we took to the last election, towards making the tax system more efficient and fairer. We're going to be implementing our policy to give every Australian taxpayer a tax cut. We cut taxes for every Australian on 1 July 2024 and we will do it again on 1 July 2026 and again on 1 July 2027. It has been very clear that there is one party which has been focused on making our tax system fairer, and that is the Australian Labor Party.

Senator McGrath, a first supplementary?

I note the minister failed to rule out the spare bedroom tax. Minister, can you guarantee that every family forced to move under the Prime Minister's spare bedroom tax will be offered a suitable, safe and nearby alternative?

This is the problem, isn't it, Presidenti, when you have no tax policy of your own—your only refuge in politics is to create a bunch of scare campaigns. We know Senator McGrath is returning to that habit which is in the absence of policy. In the absence of an alternative for the Australian people, why don't we just create a bunch of scare campaigns and try to whip up fear around them? We're not going to be deterred by that. We will continue to implement our tax policies, and they include a tax cut for every Australian.

Senator McGrath, a second supplementary?

So, still no ruling out of the spare bedroom tax. Does Labor still stand by its claims to support housing as human right, or has the spare bedroom tax revealed it's more concerned about taxing hardworking Australians than protecting vulnerable families? Isn't this just mean?

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Order across the chamber!

Senator Watt, which part of 'order' did you not understand?

Senator McGrath, I remind you that you are part of a party that opposes more houses. I remind you that you are a part of a party that sought to tax Australians more. Everyone will listen to that question and understand precisely what Senator McGrath is seeking to do. On that note, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

I would like to update an answer to Senator Tyrrell on multiple birth allowances. This is a complex policy area. The Minister for Social Services has committed to write to Senator Tyrrell with a response.

Senator Cash, are you seeking the call?

I wanted to seek some clarification regarding a ruling from the President, but the President has vacated the chair, so in her absence I will just raise the clarification that I am seeking. It was in relation to a ruling on a point of order of relevance during an answer from Senator Farrell to a question from Senator Tyrrell. It appeared that the President ruled that the minister was being relevant because he had acknowledged the question. I want to go back to a ruling made by President Hogg on Tuesday 18 August 2009, when he stated:

As presidents have ruled over many years, the chair has no power to direct a minister how to answer a question. If, however, I consider that ministers are not being directly relevant to the question, I draw their attention to the question, and sometimes ask them to return to the question, while reminding them of the time they have available to answer it. I will continue to do so in appropriate cases.

In this case, the President did not draw the minister back to the question and instead ruled that he was being relevant by simply acknowledging the question. I put it to you that that approach is inconsistent with previous rulings and statements from the chair on direct relevance. It would also appear to be a very wide interpretation of the test of direct relevance, and I would ask that the President or you reflect on that ruling and come back to the chamber.

Senator Cash, I think you would be well aware that I'm not in a position to respond to respond to you now. I'm aware that the President will, obviously, be aware of the issues you've raised. It will be up to President Lines whether she returns to the chamber on the issue.

I move:

That the Senate take note of all answers given to all coalition questions today during question time.

The decision to expel the ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Iran is both welcome and necessary but gives rise to some very serious questions. The actions of Iran demonstrate that this is one of the most egregious acts of foreign interference against our nation since the darkest days of the Cold War. In fact, this is the first time an ambassador has been expelled from our country since the Japanese ambassador was expelled in 1941 following the attack on Pearl Harbour. All Australians are shocked to learn of the serious and chilling foreign interference which has been perpetrated by Iran on Australian soil.

The coalition supports the expulsion of the Iranian ambassador and the listing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation. As the director-general of ASIO explained, the Iranian government has been confirmed as having directed at least two attacks against Australia's Jewish community, including the firebombing of the Adass Israel Synagogue. Australians rightly expect zero tolerance for foreign backed terror and antisemitic violence on our soil. These revelations lay bare just how severe Australia's antisemitism crisis has become.

The coalition called for the expulsion of the Iranian ambassador last year when he praised Hezbollah's terrorist leader. The coalition has been urging the government to list the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation for more than two years, and we will back any legislative changes introduced by the government without delay. The Australian Jewish community deserves safety not excuses. This must be the start of a broader crackdown on Iranian regime proxies, foreign interference and intimidation in Australia.

In question time today, the Foreign Minister said that Iran has been known to be a disruptive and malign actor for many years. This gives rise to a very obvious question: why, then, has it taken so long for the government to act? The Iranian regime has a well documented history of sponsoring terrorism domestically and internationally. The government's delay raises concerns about the government's priorities, it raises concerns about the government's commitment to national security, and it raises concerns about the government's ability to protect all Australians. This point was put very eloquently to me just today by a correspondent from Western Australia, Professor Matthew Ogilvie. He said this:

The expulsion of Iran's Ambassador is a necessary step, but it comes too late to absolve the Albanese government of its delayed response.

Australians deserve a government that prioritises their safety over political ideologies. The failure to act decisively on clear warnings about a known state sponsor of terrorism raises questions about the government's competence in national security matters. Iran, governed by a regime driven by ideological fanaticism, shows every sign of continuing its global campaign of global influence and violence. Australia cannot afford further delays or missteps. The Albanese government must face scrutiny for its inaction, and voters should hold it accountable at the next election.

These events should raise alertness, awareness and preparedness regarding the continued interference and activities of other authoritarian regimes.

Remember this. Yesterday the director-general of ASIO said that 'authoritarian regimes are more willing to engage in reckless, high-harm activities' than ever before. While the Iranian regime has captured the attention of this country in the last few years—indeed, it has captured the attention of the country in the last 24 hours—we must make sure that it is the end and not the beginning of more examples of other authoritarian regimes choosing to act with recklessness and engage in high-harm activities on Australian soil.

I find it ironic when those opposite come and try to lecture this government about our track record when it comes to dealing with the issue of the Iranian government. Our government, from day one since we were elected, has done nothing other than take action. Those opposite, for the last nine years when they were in government—what did they do? Absolutely nothing. This government has done more to defend the rights of and stand by the very strong, very diverse and very proud diaspora that we have here in Australia of the Iranian community—I know there's a very large community in my home state of Victoria—who have unfortunately gone through some very dark times with their officials here in Canberra and others.

What this government has done is take the necessary action, the reasonable action that any government would take. We have taken strong action against not just the Iranian government but the IRGC. We have put more sanctions on individuals and entities, on the Iranians, than any other government has in our history. Minister Wong made that point today in question time, but those opposite seem to go over history as if it never occurred. We have taken 200 sanctions on Iran and the IRGC. We have taken action at the United Nations. We have taken much more decisive action than those opposite have ever taken.

It is worth reminding people in this place that the government has imposed three packages of sanctions on Iran in response to the abhorrent abuses of human rights and the brutal crackdown on protests following the death of Jina Amini some years ago. We made that point time and time again over the last couple of years. I was the deputy chair of the Senate inquiry that looked at the Iranian government's treatment of its own citizens. The Australian government, since the Labor government was elected back in 2022, has taken decisive action against the Iranian government, against Iranian officials, against people who are involved in the IRGC.

Those opposite say those announcements should have happened sooner, but I think they also forget or neglect to understand that in Australia the government also needs to adhere to the laws of the place. Our fine men and women in ASIO and the Australian Federal Police have said to government, 'Look, we now have enough credible, substantive evidence to suggest that Iran is behind at least two attacks against the Jewish community here in Australia,' allowing the government to take the necessary steps to bring legislation into this place to list the IRGC as a terrorist organisation, and to possibly even allow the government to take the steps of further sanctions against the Iranian officials.

It is also great to see that the government has taken decisive action against the Iranian ambassador here in Canberra—someone who, I know many senators across the aisle would know, spruiked fear and tried to divide our community and to unsettle the social cohesion that this country is so proud of.

This multicultural nation has such a wonderful, diverse group of people that can actually live in harmony, regardless of where they have come from. They've migrated here and they call Australia home. The Iranian ambassador and a number of other officials have been rightly asked to leave, and to leave promptly. It is also good to know that many of our diplomats in Tehran have also been evacuated and are now in a safe place.

I want to place on the record that this government has taken more action against the Iranian government than any other government in the history of our Commonwealth. I feel like it's really cheap for those opposite to come in here and accuse this government of doing nothing when from day one since we were elected we have taken the necessary action to protect the diaspora here in this country and to say no to the Iranian government. Shame on them for their behaviour towards Australian citizens.

I also rise to take note of all answers given by the government, but I want to focus specifically on those answers around housing, which is an issue that is dear to my heart. Before I do, I want to correct the record here. Senator Ciccone, I know, feels very deeply about this issue of the sanctions that have been placed on Iran and the decisions the government has made just this week to expel the Iranian ambassador in response to the egregious behaviour of the IRGC in fanning the flames of antisemitism and social division in this country. The coalition supports those measures, and the government knows that. But where the government has failed is in acting on this earlier, because all the warning signs were there.

I know that Senator Ciccone says that his government has done more than any previous government, but can I remind Senator Ciccone that we are seeing this increased activity from the IRGC because of the despicable behaviour that was demonstrated in Iran after the death in custody of Mahsa Amini. That was in September 2022, so it was when this government was in place. We are responding to an issue that occurred while Labor was in power. When that occurred, Senator Chandler's committee looked at the appropriate responses to the uprising that occurred in Iran and the fear that was being felt by the Iranian diaspora here in Australia. They were saying they felt they had seen an increased level of foreign interference, surveillance, stalking and harassment. That's what Senator Chandler's committee was responding to. That's why the opposition, the coalition, said to the government, 'It's time to take strong action against the IRGC.'

That was ignored. In fact, what the government said at the time was: 'We can't. We haven't got the legislative power to do so. We can't list them as a terrorist organisation because they are'—I think this was the official phrase—'an organ of the state of Iran.' So we said: 'We'll help you do something about it. We'll help you legislate.' But they did nothing. They sat on their hands. Now, two years later, they've said, 'Look, we're doing more than anyone else has done before,' but what could you have prevented if you had acted earlier? That is the question that Labor has failed to answer, and that is why we will keep asking the question.

Let me talk about housing, because this is something I take very seriously. We have asked question after question on the Housing Australia Future Fund. For those playing along at home, the Housing Australia Future Fund is $10 billion that has been borrowed in your name to invest in housing to solve the housing crisis in Australia. We have asked how many houses the Housing Australia Future Fund has built, and we are not getting straight answers from the government. We even heard Senator Wong obfuscating today. She's wriggling around. She will not answer the question. How many has it built?

Last year, when we asked Senator Gallagher this question at Senate estimates, she admitted that in fact the Housing Australia Future Fund hadn't built any houses; it had only purchased houses. That's not solving a housing crisis, is it? It's not building a single new house. It was $10 billion to purchase a couple of hundred houses? Still we see that the government will not come clean.

How many houses has the Housing Australia Future Fund built, because it's a hell of a lot of money to borrow in the name of the Australian taxpayer to not build houses.

The government has promised 1.2 million new houses in five years. It needs to build 250,000 houses a year. It is building nothing like that amount; in fact, it's building fewer houses per year than were built every single year under a coalition government—fewer under Labor. Not only that; it has increased the amount of regulation and red tape in the industry portfolio, the infrastructure portfolio and the Treasury portfolio. That means it's harder to build houses now than it was just a few years ago. No wonder there is a housing crisis, but it's a housing crisis of Labor's making, and they are yet to find a solution and they are hiding their failures in response. This is a housing crisis of Labor's making, but it is Australians, particularly young Australians, trying to buy their first home that are paying the price for Labor's failures.

I also rise to take note of answers given in question time. I'll take my lead from Senator Hume, who's just talked a bit about housing. I must say, I'm a little confused about the obsession that those opposite seem to have with, firstly, trying to catch us out on numbers, despite being provided with numbers time and time again in answers to questions in this place and elsewhere, and, also, this idea of a 'spare room' tax. As we've said time and time again—a number of my colleagues on this side of the chamber said it yesterday—it is not an idea that came from government or the round table. I know those opposite are a little bit upset that they weren't invited to the round table, but this wasn't an idea that was mentioned once during those discussions; I make that point to them again.

It's characteristically dishonest of the opposition, who regularly peddle these kinds of lies in an attempt to—

Senator Whiteaker—

My apologies; I withdraw—these sorts of messages without providing any real solutions to the housing crisis. We know that housing is a challenge, particularly for many of my fellow young Australians. That is why we have been really clear that it is top of our agenda. Our $43 billion housing agenda is pretty simple. It's focused on three things: building more homes, making it easier to buy a first home and making it easier to rent.

In the last term of government, more than 180,000 Australians bought their first home with Labor's five per cent deposit program. That's why we have committed to expanding that program and why I'm so thrilled that the Prime Minister announced just this week that we will bring that forward to 1 October. I know just how much of a difference that will make to young Australians who are doing the hard work day in and day out but are still struggling to make their deposit.

Also in the last term, more than a million households received a 45 per cent increase on rental assistance. Since we came to office, we've built 500,000 homes and new housing approvals are up 30 per cent. We've stabilised construction costs, and we've seen 28,000 social and affordable homes in planning and construction—homes for the people who need them most. But there is more work to do, and, unlike those opposite, we're not distracting or peddling a message on social media that sounds nice; we're actually taking action. We have a plan to build even more homes than we've already built.

We will continue on the path to build 55,000 social and affordable homes, as well as building 100,000 homes just for first home buyers. We are working towards what is a really bold but really important aspiration of 1.2 million homes in five years.

We're also making it better to rent because we know that not everyone is ready to buy their first home right now, and they shouldn't be held back by Senator Bragg and his friends. Instead we should make renting fairer, which we have done by working with the states. We will also ensure that there are thousands more rental homes built, and we will continue to work with the states to lift rental standards. We will also continue, as I said, to help first home buyers get into the market with our Help to Buy scheme.

What is really, really clear is that those opposite have no ideas on housing. They have no policy to get more Australians into homes. They have no policy to make renting more affordable, but Labor does.

I rise to take note of answers to all coalition questions, and particularly the question asked by Senator Chandler regarding the listing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, IRGC, as a terrorist organisation. On this side we welcome the action that the government has taken to expel Iran's ambassador and other senior diplomatic officials and to announce that it will take steps to list the IRGC as a terrorist organisation because, frankly, the revelations we heard overnight, announced by the director of security and others, about Iran's gross foreign interference in Australia are unacceptable. Here we have a foreign state actor conducting or supporting and instigating attacks on Australian soil against Australian citizens in a way designed to undermine Australian values.

We welcome the steps that have been taken, but I think we do have to legitimately ask the question of why it has taken so long to act. Let me recount the history here. As Senator Chandler said, it's clear from documents released under freedom of information that well over 2½ years ago work was underway examining the possibility of listing the IRGC as a terrorist organisation. That's from January 2023. On 1 February 2023, coalition senators, in a Senate committee report, recommended listing the IRGC as a terrorist organisation. On 14 February 2023, 2 ½ years ago, the then home affairs minister Clare O'Neil, member for Hotham, in a speech to the ANU, went into quite elaborate detail about the foreign interference, as she termed it, being conducted by Iran on Australian soil. So this is not a new phenomenon. There had been people, on this side of the parliament at least, calling for firmer action for some time, and there had been ministers in this government who acknowledged that Iran was taking active steps to intimidate Australian residents and citizens and also to seek to sow social discord.

I want to particularly draw the attention of the chamber to in a debate that was held here on 8 October last year. This is eight months ago, on 8 October 2024. A motion was put, urging the need for the government to act by listing the IRGC as a terrorist organisation and declaring the current Iranian ambassador to Australia persona non grata. This motion was debated in the Senate on 8 October 2024, a little over eight months ago now. What we heard from those opposite, particularly from Senator Ayres, in response to that motion was extraordinary. Senator Ayres, in the debate at that time, accused Senator Chandler, who put forward this motion simply asking the government to do what it announced yesterday it was going to do, of 'the most grossly irresponsible approach on these questions'. He continued:

The fact that she continues in this vein is contemptible.

He described her actions as utterly irresponsible and utterly reckless. He said it was politicking and crass, base partisan politics. He said that her even asking this question undermined the Australian national interest when lives are in the balance.

So we now have someone who is a senior minister in the government, Senator Ayres, that, a little over eight months ago, accused Senator Chandler for having the courage and the foresight to say the government should do what they announced to do yesterday. They accused her of being 'utterly irresponsible', 'contemptible' and engaged in grossly irresponsible behaviour. Well, what do you know? Eight months later the government has done exactly what Senator Chandler urged it to do. It has proceeded to list the IRGC as a terrorist organisation, or has announced its intent to do so, and it has expelled the Iranian ambassador.

I want to highlight one other point. We heard from Senator Wong earlier that this government has taken stronger action against Iran than any previous government. Earlier this year I and a number of others highlighted the actions of a supposedly sanctioned Iranian entity, PressTV, which was designated under our sanctions regime in September 2023, that was operating in flagrant violation of the sanctions regime in February 2025 and operating with impunity as a media organisation in Australia. I'm yet to see any action or evidence of action undertaken against PressTV.

Question agreed to.

I move:

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

I asked the Minister for the Environment and Water about the Albanese government's commitment to reforming Australia's environment laws and about comments made by the minister and the Treasurer in relation to the establishment of a new role, the coordinator general. This is a role that exists in the Queensland regime, and it's used by fossil fuel companies to bypass basic environmental regulations and other rules and requirements.

It begs the question. If this government are serious about environmental law reform—that is, having environment laws in this country that actually protect nature; reduce and stop the extinction of our wildlife; protect our native forests and bushlands; and reduce and stop further pollution—then the last thing you would be doing is creating a system where fossil fuel companies and big business could just go begging for a bypass. So I think we've really got to get under the hood here and have a good look at what Minister Watt and the Albanese government are actually proposing.

When I asked the questions of the minister today, he launched into a tirade about how he could do a deal with anyone in this place. He's happy to do a deal with the coalition or work with the Greens. If you actually care about environmental protection, you have to care about who you're negotiating with and what the outcomes will be. And it seems that the minister doesn't care about how he gets his laws through the parliament as long as they get through. Well, the Australian environment and our climate cannot afford a minister who just wants to put in a political fix. We actually have to have laws in this country that protect nature, stop the destruction of our forests and stop the dangerous climate pollution.

We know that the coalition don't even have a united position on climate change. They're in a debate right now as to whether to wind back commitment to reducing emissions. A whole bunch on their frontbench and on the backbench don't want any environmental rules and regulations at all, and others just want them to be as weak as possible. So the government has a choice here. You can work with those who want to keep logging, digging and polluting, or you work with the rest of the parliament and the Australian Greens, of whom it is in our DNA to protect nature.

Australia's environment is under more stress than it has ever been. The logging and loss of our native forests means that deforestation is out of control. We have more animals than ever before on the endangered and critically endangered lists. We are a world leader when it comes to mammal extinction, and we have pollution rates related to climate change and global warming going through the roof. Pollution is still increasing at a time when we know that the climate crisis is already having a devastating impact on our communities, on our livelihoods, on our economy and, indeed, on our environment.

This government's got to get honest and serious about the choices they are prepared to make. I don't think it sounds smart or clever to anybody for a minister to stand there and say he'll do a deal, whatever the numbers are, to get it through. You need more than a political fix to stop dangerous global warming and to stop the destruction of nature. You actually need to have the guts to stop the chainsaws, stop the bulldozers and stop the pollution.

Question agreed to.

I withdraw government business notice of motion No. 1.

At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1.

At the request of Senator Shoebridge, I move:

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

The implementation of regulations aimed at protecting children and young people online, with particular reference to the Internet Search Engine Services Online Safety Code and the under 16 social media ban, including:

(a) privacy and data protection implications of age verification;

(b) the expansion of corporate data collection and user profiling capabilities enabled by code compliance requirements;

(c) the technical implementation and efficacy of age verification and content filtering mechanisms;

(d) alternative technical approaches to online safety for all users, including young people;

(e) appropriate oversight mechanisms for online safety codes;

(f) global experience and best practice; and

(g) any other related matters.

by leave—I move:

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

The implementation of regulations aimed at protecting children and young people online, with particular reference to the Internet Search Engine Services Online Safety Code and the under 16 social media ban, including:

(a) privacy and data protection implications of age verification;

(b) the expansion of corporate data collection and user profiling capabilities enabled by code compliance requirements;

(c) the technical implementation and efficacy of age verification and content filtering mechanisms;

(d) alternative technical approaches to online safety for all users, including young people;

(e) appropriate oversight mechanisms for online safety codes;

(f) global experience and best practice;

(g) the rights and responsibilities of parents to decide what is best for their children; and

(h) any other matters.

You didn't hear my voice?

I didn't hear your voice, Senator Hanson.

Senator Hanson, if you want to seek my attention, you do need to stand, not just call out from another place.

I would like to have that motion put forward again, please.

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Roberts be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Can we start again, with your indulgence, President?

The opposition has asked for the matter to be recommitted. I intend to do that.

So we have the benefit of four minutes.

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Roberts to business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 be agreed to.

The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2, standing in the name of Senator Shoebridge, be agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, by no later than 5 pm on Wednesday, 27 August 2025, the final written report of the Age Assurance Technology Trial.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government will be opposing this motion. The government is currently reviewing the findings of the age assurance trial. The Minister for Communications has been clear that she will publish the full age assurance trial report for full transparency.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 110, standing in the name of Senator Payman, be agreed to.

At the request of Senator Antic, I move:

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

(2) That the Digital ID Repeal Bill 2024 be restored to the Notice Paper and consideration of the bill resume at the second reading stage.

Question agreed to.

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 (Divestiture Powers) Bill 2024 be restored to the Notice Paper and consideration of the bill resume at the second reading stage.

Question agreed to.

I will now move to general business notice of motions No. 114 and 115.

I seek to have these have treated separately.

Sure. Senator Roberts, would you move 114 first and then 115.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, by no later than 5 pm on Friday, 29 August 2025, in relation to the deaths of four soldiers in the 2023 Whitsundays Taipan helicopter crash:

(a) the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions' (CDPP) final assessment of the brief of evidence provided by Comcare; and

(b) all written or digital correspondence, briefing notes, file notes, meeting notes, meeting agendas or minutes or other records of interaction held by the CDPP or the Attorney-General in relation to the decision not to commence a prosecution.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

We recognise the tragic loss of the MRH-90 aircrew on 28 July 2023. We remember the lives, dedication and spirit of Captain Danniel Lyon, Lieutenant Maxwell Nugent, Warrant Officer Class 2 Joseph 'Phillip' Laycock and Corporal Alexander Naggs. The documents requested by this order go directly to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions's decision-making about whether a matter is to be prosecuted or not.

This concerns the release of potential legal advice prepared by the CDPP. A decision to prosecute a matter is one that lies with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions which is an independent statutory agency. As has been widely reported, the families have requested a review into this decision, and it would not be appropriate to require the CDPP to release this information. I understand another OPD related to this matter will be supported by the government.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 114, standing in the name of Senator Roberts, be 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, in relation to the investigation of the deaths of four soldiers in the 2023 Whitsundays Taipan helicopter crash:

(a) the Comcare brief of evidence sent to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions; and

(b) the Comcare investigation final report.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Antic, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, by no later than 9.30 am on Monday, 29 September 2025, all communications, including emails, letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, meeting invitations, meeting notes and text/instant messages between the Digital Industry Group Inc. or its employees, agents or officers and the Office of the eSafety Commissioner or its employees, agents or officers for the period 1 July 2024 to 14 July 2025.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 116, standing in the name of Senator Antic and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.

At the request of Senator Antic, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, by no later than 9.30 am on Monday, 29 September 2025, all communications, including emails, letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, meeting invitations, meeting notes and text/instant messages between the Global Alliance for Responsible Media or its employees, agents or officers and the Office of the eSafety Commissioner or its employees, agents or officers for the period 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2023.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 117, standing in the name of Senator Antic and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) on 25 August 2025, the Senate rejected a claim of cabinet confidentiality advanced by the Minister for the Public Service in relation to order for the production of documents no. 10 (the order), and ordered the minister to table the document, and

(ii) the minister has again failed to comply with that order by advancing the same claim of cabinet confidentiality;

(b) notes further guidance in Odgers' Australian Senate Practice that a claim that a document is a cabinet document should not be accepted if it has not been established that disclosure of the document would reveal cabinet deliberations; and

(c) requires the Minister for the Public Service to attend the Senate on Thursday, 28 August 2025 at the conclusion of question time to provide an explanation of no more than 5 minutes as to how the release of document would reveal the deliberations of the cabinet, and that:

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

(ii) any such motion may be debated for no longer than 20 minutes and shall have precedence over all business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Consistent with our position on all motions related to this request, the government will not be supporting this motion. As already noted in the Senate, the report referenced in this motion is being used to inform government decisions at a cabinet level. Actual deliberations at the Executive Council or cabinet are protected from disclosure. In this case, the report is the central document for those cabinet deliberations. It has not been previously released or published, and a decision has not been made on the deliberations. The release prior to the finalisation of cabinet processes would negatively impact those deliberations.

Senator Gallagher has personally spoken to Senator Pocock and conveyed this to be upfront about the government's reasons in opposing this motion. As Senator Gallagher said on a number of occasions, when the government has completed relevant deliberations the report will be released.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 118, standing in the name of Senator David Pocock, be agreed to.

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Tuesday, 2 September 2025, any correspondence or documents relating to modelling done by the Treasury regarding the contingent liability taxpayers are being exposed to and the total budgetary cost of Labor's expansion of the Home Guarantee Scheme.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, by no later than midday on 2 September 2025:

(a) any documents that detail the total amount of expenditure on domestic and international travel by the Housing Australia Board for the period 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2025; and

(b) a breakdown of the total amount of expenditure, specifically:

(i) travel undertaken by the Chair and members of the Board,

(ii) travel undertaken by the Chief Executive Officer, and

(iii) any other executive staff within Housing Australia.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Kovacic, I move:

That—

(a) the Senate notes that:

(i) order for the production of document no. 14, directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government and agreed to by the Senate on 23 July 2025, requiring the minister to table documents relating to the New England Highway has not been complied with,

(ii) the scope of the order is broad and covers all documents regarding the new overpass on the New England Highway at Maitland held by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (the minister), their office and the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sports and the Arts,

(iii) the minister's response to the order tabled only a single explanatory letter asserting a claim of public interest immunity over all documents that fell within the scope of the order, and

(iv) 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) the Senate:

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

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

(c) that there be laid on the table by the representing Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, by no later than Tuesday, 2 September 2025, a list of all documents responsive to order no. 14 to which public interest immunity is claimed, including the following information:

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

(ii) the date of the document, and

(iii) which specific public immunity ground is being claimed.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move general business notices of motion Nos 101, 102, 103, 104 and 105 together:

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 101

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Wednesday, 3 September 2025, any briefings, documents, correspondence or advice prepared for the Economic Reform Roundtable and received by the Treasurer that relate to the proposed changes to the National Construction Code.

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 102

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Wednesday, 3 September 2025, any speaking notes or briefings provided to the Minister for Housing by the Treasury for the Economic Reform Roundtable that relate to changes to the National Construction Code.

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 103

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Wednesday, 3 September 2025, any advice provided to the Treasurer by the Treasury based on the submissions received from industry associations relating to Regulatory Guide 97.

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 104

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Wednesday, 3 September 2025, any correspondence between the Treasurer or his office and the Minister for Housing or her office that relate to Regulatory Guide 97.

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 105

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, by no later than midday on Wednesday, 3 September 2025, any advice provided for the Economic Reform Roundtable, in final or draft form, from the Australian Building Codes Board to the Minister for Housing on the 2025 iteration of the National Construction Code.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, by no later than 5 pm on Friday, 5 September 2025, copies of all letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, meeting invitations, meeting notes, emails and text messages between Minister for Foreign Affairs and/or her office and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in relation to the arrival of the Seferis at Kwinana on 30 July 2025, carrying fuel refined largely from Russian feedstock, the effectiveness of Australia's sanctions regime against the 'laundering' of Russian exports via third countries and proposals to address this loophole.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than 5 pm on Friday, 5 September 2025:

(a) all data held by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in relation to the 2023-24 Survey of Income and Housing; and

(b) copies of all letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, meeting invitations, meeting notes, emails and text messages between the Treasurer and/or his office and the Australian Bureau of Statistics in relation to the decision to not release statistics from the 2023-24 Survey of Income and Housing.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University, by no later than 9 30 am on 3 September 2025:

(a) a copy of any reports resulting from an investigation conducted by Ashurst into work health and safety concerns within the National Computational Infrastructure; and

(b) the book of documents the Australian National University prepared to assist Ashurst with its investigation.

Question agreed to.

I remind senators that yesterday, after 6.30 pm, a division was called on Senator Bragg's motion proposing a disallowance. I understand it suits the convenience of the Senate for the deferred vote to be held now. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

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

The Albanese Labor Government's failure to act on repeated warnings-including those of the February 2023 Senate inquiry-by only now moving to list the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation, despite clear evidence of its role in spreading terror in Australia and abroad.

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.

In September 2022, the world watched in horror as Mahsa Amini died in the custody of the Islamic Republic of Iran regime's so-called morality police. Her death sparked a global outcry, and here in this chamber it sparked action. Shortly after the uprisings and following obscene brutality from the IRI regime towards its own citizens, particularly women and girls, this Senate referred the situation in Iran to the Senate Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade References Committee for an inquiry, which I had the honour of chairing. That inquiry wasn't just about documenting atrocities; it was about demanding action to ensure that our government holds the IRI regime to account for its abhorrent actions against Iranians both in Iran and here in Australia. The report from that inquiry made 12 recommendations. Two were the most critical: to list the IRGC as a terrorist organisation, and to reduce diplomatic ties with the Iranian regime. That was February 2023. The Albanese government could have taken action then. Instead, they waited until yesterday, 2½ years on, to finally do so.

We in the coalition welcome yesterday's announcement, but here today I want to step through exactly what happened while the Albanese government dragged its feet in taking the action we all know has come far too late. We now know that in the middle of January 2023, the government was preparing to list the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the IRGC, as a terrorist organisation. The threat was known. The evidence was clear. The Attorney-General's Department was in possession of two documents: a statement of reasons and a nomination form to list the IRGC as a terrorist organisation. We also know that on 31 January 2023, the day before the foreign affairs committee was due to table its report, that same department made a late submission to the committee, stating that it had determined the IRGC couldn't be listed under the current legislative regime, because it was determined to be the organ of a nation state.

The next month, in February 2023, the then minister for home affairs, Clare O'Neil, publicly attributed a foreign interference attempt to the IRI regime. The coalition responded immediately and offered bipartisan support to the government for any legislative change required to allow the IRGC to be listed as a terrorist organisation, but those offers were ignored, and the opportunity to act decisively was missed. Six months later, on 13 September 2023, just days before the anniversary of Mahsa Amini's death, the government finally tabled its response to the Senate inquiry and made it clear that it would be rejecting those two key recommendations. I would have thought that moment, the anniversary of Mahsa Amini's death, could have inspired action. Instead, it exposed indifference on behalf of this government. It is a moment the Iranian diaspora will remember, not for courage but for cowardice. Then came the 7 October terror attacks in Israel. Hamas launched its brutal attack on Israeli citizens. The IRGC's role in training and financing Hamas is well documented, but still the Albanese government refused to act.

This Senate did not let the matter rest. In November 2023, and again in February 2024, we ordered the production of those documents I mentioned, prepared by the Attorney-General's Department. Those documents contained the statement of reasons for listing the IRGC before the idea was kiboshed by someone else in government—exactly who that was, we don't yet know. On both occasions when the Senate asked for those documents, the Attorney-General claimed public interest immunity, and the government continued to stall. Then, in October last year, one year on from the October 7 attacks, I moved a matter of urgency in this chamber, and I called on the government to list the IRGC as a terrorist organisation and to declare the Iranian ambassador persona non grata. We must remember that members of this government said in this chamber that moving that motion was utterly reckless and irresponsible.

A few days later, the consequences of that same inaction became tragically clear. On 20 October last year, we now know, the IRGC orchestrated a terrorist attack on Australian soil, on Lewis' Continental Kitchen in Bondi. In December they targeted the Adass Israel Synagogue in Melbourne. These were not isolated incidents. They didn't come out of nowhere. The reach and threat of the IRGC on Australian soil was longstanding, and the government had every reason to act, and it chose not to. When foreign agents orchestrate violence on Australian soil, the rules of engagement have to change. Our response must be swift, it must be firm and it must be unequivocal.

Finally, yesterday, the Prime Minister announced that the IRGC will be listed as a terrorist organisation under Australian law. I welcome this, but let's be clear: the listing is overdue, the delay has put lives at risk and it must never happen again. (Time expired)

Yesterday the Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Home Affairs announced that ASIO had enough credible intelligence to reach a deeply disturbing conclusion, that the Iranian government has directed at least two antisemitic attacks on Australian soil. Iran has sought to undermine the cohesion of our community with acts of aggression that sought to terrify Australians and put Australian lives in danger. This has crossed a line.

That is why the government has declared Iran's ambassador to Australia, as well as three other Iranian officials, persona non grata. The government has 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 Australia's broader security. This is the first time Australia has expelled an ambassador in the postwar period. The government will also legislate to list Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the IRGC, as a terrorist organisation. When the Foreign Minister announced this yesterday, she said:

We have sought to lower the temperature in Australia, and to not reproduce the conflict in the Middle East in Australia. I again urge others to consider whether their actions help those who want to divide our nation. We all want the killing in the Middle East to stop, and we want to retain our character as a nation that welcomes people of different race, religion, views, united by respect for each other's humanity and our collective desire to live in peace. We will always safeguard our communities and protect Australians from all forms of hate.

The Albanese Labor government knew that yesterday was not a day for division, but already today we have this debate. We have the Greens, in their statements, already using these horrific attacks for their own political purposes. The Greens political party are in no position to give lectures about Iran. We have heard from former Greens members about how Greens leaders ignore the oppressive role of Iran. We have heard that the Greens leader ignored the experiences of Iranian Australian members of the Greens and found their pain to be politically inconvenient. The Greens don't understand that Iran's support for Hamas has undermined and oppressed Palestinians and then, at a time of unimaginable suffering in Gaza, continued the same divisive politics here at home.

The Albanese government has worked deliberately and strategically with partners to apply pressure on the Iranian regime. The Albanese government has 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 on the Status of Women and co-sponsored the successful Human Rights Council resolution establishing an independent investigation into human rights violations in Iran. We have bolstered Australia's autonomous sanctions framework to enable us to target more Iranian individuals and entities involved in oppression inside Iran, including against women and girls. We have consistently and forcefully raised our concerns directly with Iran.

The Iranian regime's attacks were designed to cause disunity and division in our country. It is a terrible shame that the Greens political party cannot show unity today. In unprecedented times, like we find ourselves in now, it's more important than ever that we leave party politics aside and take the side of team Australia. We want people to feel safe and to be safe. That's why we will always safeguard our communities and protect Australians from all forms of hate. I join with Senator Wong, the Foreign minister, in urging others in this place to consider whether their actions help those who want to divide our nation. I encourage everybody in this place to join team Australia and work towards unity in our nation.

That was the most uninspiring speech. I wonder if you really believe what you said. The Labor government's expulsion of the Iranian ambassador comes far too late for the victims of these crimes.

For years, people who have escaped that hideous regime have been telling the Australian government about the illegal activities of the regime and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in our country—surveillance, intimidation, coercion, threats and the violence unleashed on our streets. ASIO should be commended for its excellent work in uncovering the links between the Iranian embassy and the attacks on the Australian community. ASIO should have been listened to much earlier, when it made warnings about the regime and its activities.

It turns out others should have been heard, too. That includes One Nation. For years I've been warning about the threat of Iran and similar countries where radical Islam is dominant. In fact, only days after the terrorist attacks orchestrated by Iran against Israel in October 2023, I said:

Australia must … re-examine its relationship with the regime in Iran, the financier and supplier of Islamic terror across the world. At the very least, our diplomatic presence in Tehran must be withdrawn and any Iranian diplomats should be expelled from our country.

I said that here almost two years ago. It also includes the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, which in February 2023 recommended the government take steps to list the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation.

But Labor refused to listen, probably because Iran was doing exactly what the Labor Left wanted them to do by attacking Israel. Labor has only now been embarrassed into taking action, after ignoring the warnings and pretending Iran was no threat to Australia. I urge this incompetent government to act decisively and increase security resources so this may never happen again. And heed my warning: don't bring people from Gaza into this country. (Time expired)

More than two years ago, the coalition urged the Albanese government to take decisive action and list Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the IRGC, as a terrorist organisation. We did so because the evidence was overwhelming. The IRGC is not a conventional military force; it is a global exporter of terror, a sponsor of antisemitic violence and a direct threat to democratic societies, including our own.

The case for listing the IRGC as a terrorist organisation rests on clear and compelling grounds. The IRGC is a key driver of global terrorism, directly funding, training and arming groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Its activities extend well beyond Iran's borders, threatening Jewish communities and undermining international security. Listing the IRGC as a terrorist organisation would align Australia with other allies, close legal and financial loopholes, deter extremism at home and signal that state sponsored terror will not be tolerated.

Despite the calls to act and to act decisively, the Albanese government did nothing. They dismissed the danger. They turned their backs on bipartisan calls for action. Now, after confirmed antisemitic attacks on Australian soil—one targeting a synagogue in Melbourne and another a Jewish owned restaurant in Sydney—the government has finally acted. It has expelled the Iranian ambassador, and it has also signalled that it will move to designate the IRGC as a terrorist organisation. These steps are welcome, but let me be clear: they should never have taken this long. This is not leadership; it is weakness. Iran has been exporting violence, sponsoring terror and fuelling hatred for years. Strong action was required long ago not only to confront Tehran abroad but also to send a clear signal here at home, because, while this government delayed, the consequences were felt on our own streets.

We have witnessed a disturbing rise in antisemitism across Australia. I have spoken to Jewish families who feel unsafe in their schools, in their workplaces and in their places of worship. Terrorist incidents and the threat to the Australian community is rising, and this is no coincidence. When government is weak on principle, extremists are emboldened. The failure to stand firmly and early with Israel has compounded this problem. Of course, legitimate criticism of Israel is reasonable, but that is a world apart from undermining Israel's very right to defend itself, yet that is what this government has done—equivocating, delaying and in effect rewarding terrorism.

Since October 2023, when 1,200 innocent Israelis were slaughtered by racist totalitarians, Israel has been fighting for its survival.

It is a democracy under constant threat from Iran's proxies. Its right to defend itself is beyond question, yet Labor's refusal to speak with clarity and conviction has implied sympathy for those who would seek to destroy it. That silence has emboldened extremism and intimidated Australians who would've felt confident to stand in solidarity with our ally.

When Israel struck Iran's nuclear facilities to prevent a catastrophic escalation, Mr Albanese hesitated. He waited for the United States before he dared to act. That is not foreign policy; that is following the leader. When Hamas praised Mr Albanese for recognising Palestinian statehood, he failed to condemn them. Has he forgotten that Hamas is a terrorist organisation?

This government is not just soft on terror; it is soft on organised crime, it is soft on foreign interference and it is soft on the enemies of democracy. And, in being soft, it has betrayed the values that should define us as a free and just society. Yes, expelling the Iranian ambassador and signalling a move to finally list the IRGC are the right decisions, but Australians must not forget the cost of this government's hesitation. When leadership falters, hatred fills the vacuum, and the price has been paid by Jewish Australians who have been terrorised in their own homeland.

We must take actions together against Tehran's networks. We must confront antisemitism wherever it appears, because if we do not stand strong with our democratic allies, we cannot expect them to stand strong with us should we face danger ourselves. The coalition will never hesitate to call-out terror no matter where it comes from, no matter who it sponsors and no matter how uncomfortable it makes this government feel.

Yesterday the Prime Minister, the Foreign minister and the home affairs minister announced that ASIO has credible intelligence showing the Iranian government directed at least two antisemitic attacks on Australian soil, possibly more. I want to acknowledge the work of ASIO on this investigation and commend them for their commitment to protecting our national interests.

Let me be clear: there is no place for antisemitism in our country, there is no place for violence or for aggression in our country and there is no place for interference in our country. We cannot tolerate them. Acts of aggression such as these strike at the heart of our community and have no place in the Australian way of life.

In response, the government has declared that Iran's ambassador to Australia is persona non grata, along with three other Iranian officials. It is the first time we have expelled an ambassador in the postwar period. These are not decisions that can be taken lightly. We have suspended the operations of our embassy in Iran, for the safety of our officials and for the broader security of our nation.

We will also legislate to list Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation. We take this matter very seriously. When the Foreign minister joined the Prime Minister and the home affairs minister to make this announcement yesterday, she said:

We have sought to lower the temperature in Australia, and to not reproduce the conflict in the Middle East … I again urge others to consider whether their actions help those who want to divide our nation. We all want the killing in the Middle East to stop, and we want to retain our character as a nation that welcomes people of different race, religion, views, united by respect for each other's humanity and our collective desire to live in peace. We will always safeguard our communities and protect Australians from all forms of hate.

I encourage everyone in this place to reflect on those words from our Foreign minister. This is not a time for division.

Yesterday the opposition leader said that the opposition was united with the government on the measures announced yesterday, but, sadly, we're seeing them throw out this bipartisanship on this really serious matter. It's disappointing to see some in this place use this as an opportunity for political pointscoring.

Our government has taken decisive action on Iran. We have worked deliberately and strategically with our partners to apply pressure on the Iranian regime.

The Albanese government has sanctioned 200 Iranian linked persons and entities, including almost 100 IRGC linked individuals and entities. Those opposite, when they were in government, did not place a single sanction. We led efforts to remove Iran from the Commission on the Status of Women, while those opposite said nothing. We co-sponsored the Human Rights Council's investigation into abuse inside Iran. We strengthened Australia's sanctions framework so we can better target Iranian officials who oppress their own people, including women and girls. We have consistently raised our concerns directly with Iran. We did this work carefully with our partners because that's how you apply real pressure on a dangerous regime.

In speaking on this motion, I wish to remind those people who seek to use this issue for political benefit to reflect again on the words of the Foreign minister yesterday. Consider whether your actions are helping. There is no place in our country for antisemitism or any other kind of hate and vitriol, and stoking further fear and division in our community is no way to handle a situation like this. Iran's attacks were designed to sow hatred and fear here in Australia. It is our responsibility as leaders in this chamber and as leaders in our communities to stand against this hate, to protect our communities and to defend our democracy.

This government is taking antisemitism seriously. We take our national security seriously. We are protecting Australians. We are sending a clear message to any state or actor who wishes to do us harm.

The coalition will not be lectured on how to tackle antisemitism in this country. The Albanese government thinks it has been on the front foot in listing the IRGC as a terrorist organisation. It thinks it has been strong. It has the gall to suggest the coalition has politicised this issue, while they have politicised it.

But Australians aren't falling for this ruse. This government hasn't been on the front foot; it's been on the back foot. This government hasn't been strong; it's been weak. From its first day in office, this government has politicised foreign policy issues to grandstand to a domestic political audience. The crisis of antisemitism afflicting our nation started with the Albanese government's supine response to the sordid scenes on the footsteps of the Sydney Opera House. Its weakness in the wake of that intolerable incident created an atmosphere of permissibility for more intolerable incidents.

As recently as 3 August some pro-Palestinian protestors gleefully carried a photo of Iran's oppressive dictator during the rally across the Sydney Harbour Bridge. The Prime Minister astonishingly described this event as a 'peaceful demonstration'. When we hear the calls of 'bring down genocide' and 'stop genocide', let me tell you, Iran is for genocide. Iran is for the genocide of Israel. When we hear Australians, including those who sit in this chamber, chant 'from the river to the sea', they are calling for genocide and they are calling for terror, yet the Albanese government has failed miserably to attack these sorts of calls for genocide within this country.

Iran is a totalitarian state run by the odious, revolutionary and antisemitic Iranian regime. The regime oppresses its own people. The regime funds terrorists—Hamas, the Houthis and everybody else involved that wants to see harm come to not just Israel but the West. I suggest that the Prime Minister, if he hasn't already, views the footage that I have viewed from Israel of October 7. I can never erase that from my mind—seeing children, little boys as young as nine or 10, run into a shelter while Hamas hurls a bomb. Their father comes after them, only for his body parts to be blown to smithereens. This is what Iran seeks. They sit gleefully and watch as hordes of Australians wave flags that support their symbols.

The Albanese government has been weak, and the Australian people need to stand up once and for all against antisemitism— (Time expired.)

Madam Acting Deputy President Chandler, I'm so pleased you're in the chair as I make my contribution on this debate. I really want to emphasise the extraordinary role that Senator Chandler has played in terms of the prosecution of this debate and your advocacy after leading the Senate inquiry which prepared the references committee report calling for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to be declared a terrorist organisation and registered as such. It was an outstanding piece of work. And then your continual advocacy over a number of years has provided hope, comfort and reassurance to our Iranian diaspora, and they deeply, deeply appreciate it. It's something which I do hope you take with you long after you've left this place in terms of the positive impact you've had on the lives of some of our most vulnerable Australians.

The IRGC should be declared a terrorist organisation because it is a terrorist organisation. I've said those words multiple times in this chamber over a number of years but also in conference rooms where I've met members of the Iranian diaspora and members of our Kurdish community and talked about these issues. I had one such meeting in November last year, three weeks before the Adass Israel synagogue was burnt to the ground. After I had that meeting, which was public and in which I called for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to be declared a terrorist organisation, I received a letter from the Iranian ambassador. I received a letter from the ambassador on 4 December 2024. The Iranian ambassador wanted to meet me for 'a fair and balanced and informative discussion on different subjects'. That was on 4 December. On 6 December, the Adass Israel synagogue was burnt to the ground. I didn't meet the Iranian ambassador, who is now persona non grata. I didn't meet with him. I didn't need to meet with him, because I'd met with wonderful members of our Iranian diaspora community, and they told me about the horrors which they'd fled from that were occurring in Iran, especially after the murder of Jina Amini, that wonderful, wonderful young lady, in Iran in 2022.

Senator Whiteaker wanted to portray us on this side as trying to cause division on this issue. Senator Whiteaker wasn't here when we were having these debates during the last parliament, so I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. But I want to quote from the record on a resolution that was moved by Senator Chandler on 8 October 2024. About two months before the Adass Israel synagogue was burnt to the ground, Senator Chandler called for listing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation and declaring the current Iranian ambassador to Australia persona non grata. We were calling for this months—years—before it occurred. So it's our duty to raise this issue in front of the Australian people and ask: why didn't it occur? Canada declared the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organisation. The United States declared it as such. Lithuania declared it as such. We put it on the record and said: 'If there are issues with the law, talk to us. Discuss it with us. Let's change the law.' Those entreaties were ignored.

Worse than that, in that debate, this is what Senator Ayres said about Senator Chandler—and Senator Ayres should reflect on this and perhaps consider whether or not he should now make an apology:

The fact that she continues in this vein is contemptible. For somebody who seeks future leadership roles in foreign affairs and geostrategic affairs to continue with this line of argument while they have been briefed is utterly irresponsible.

That's what Senator Ayres said about Senator Chandler. What do those remarks look like now after the event? I say this: Senator Chandler has shown every single attribute of a great leader in terms of foreign affairs and issues of geostrategic significance. She has shown outstanding leadership. She has shown the leadership that the people of Australia deserve. Senator Chandler has shown the leadership the Iranian diaspora so greatly appreciates.

Pursuant to order and at the request of the chairs of the respective committees, I present reports on the examination of annual reports tabled by 30 April 2025.

I present additional information received by the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on its inquiry into the impact and mitigation of aircraft noise.

I present Scrutiny digest No. 4 of 2025 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, and move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Question agreed to.

I present Delegated legislation monitor No. 5 of 2025 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, together with ministerial correspondence, and move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I rise to speak to the tabling of Delegated legislation monitor No. 5 of 2025. The monitor reports on the committee's consideration of 53 legislative instruments registered between 25 July and 11 August 2025.

In this monitor, the committee has commented on one new and one ongoing instrument. The new instrument that the committee has commented on is the Competition and Consumer (Notification of Acquisitions) Determination 2025. This instrument supports a new merger control system that was introduced in 2024 through amendments to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. Under the merger control system, certain acquisitions of share or assets must be notified to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission for assessment. Part 6 of the instrument determines the notification and public benefit application forms, and the information and documents required to accompany these forms.

The committee is raising concerns about the instrument's compliance with its enabling legislation, the Competition and Consumer Act, under scrutiny principle (a), and the appropriateness of disallowance under Senate standing order 23(4A). The explanatory statement to the instrument explains that part 6 has been made pursuant to subsections 51ABY(5) and 51ABZQ(5) of the act. The explanatory statement further states that any determination made pursuant to these sections is exempt from disallowance, and, therefore, part 6 of the instrument is exempt from disallowance. However, the remainder of the instrument appears to be disallowable. The act provides that a determination made under subsections 51ABY(5) or 51ABZQ(5) is a legislative instrument not subject to disallowance.

It appears to the committee that the intention of the act is that the exemption from disallowance applies to a standalone instrument. Therefore, an instrument which determines matters under these provisions is wholly exempt from disallowance. Accordingly the committee was unclear as to whether the act authorises the exemption of only part 6 from disallowance rather than the instrument as a whole.

The committee is therefore seeking the advice of the Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury as to the legal basis for exempting part 6 rather than the instrument as a whole from disallowance.

Additionally in this monitor, the committee is seeking further advice from the Minister for Housing regarding the Help to Buy Program Directions 2025. This instrument directs Housing Australia in relation to the performance of its functions under the Help to Buy Act 2024 in administering the Help to Buy program. In Delegated Legislation Monitor 4 of 2025, the committee sought the minister's advice in relation to a number of scrutiny principles, including incorporation of the intergovernmental agreement on the Help to Buy scheme under scrutiny principle (f). In response, the minister confirmed that the agreement is incorporated into the instrument and, whilst not currently publicly available, will be made freely available online. The minister also undertook to update the explanatory statement with these details. While the committee is pleased to conclude its examination of this issue, it reiterates that all documents incorporated into legislative instruments should be freely accessible at the time the instrument is made.

In monitor 4, the committee also raised concerns that the instrument confers a range of broad discretionary powers on Housing Australia. For example, subsections 29 (1) and 30 (1) require Housing Australia to exempt a participant from complying with a participation requirement if satisfied that it is impractical due to circumstances including hardship and other compassionate grounds. However, the committee was concerned that neither the instrument nor its explanatory statement set out the relevant factors or examples of factors that may be taken into account in exercising these powers, nor were there definitions of broad terms including 'hardship' or 'other compassionate grounds'. In her correspondence, the minister advised that the discretionary powers identified by the committee would be exercised with appropriate judgement, interpreting terms in accordance with their ordinary meaning and taking into account relevant circumstances and considerations. The minister also advised that Housing Australia would publish guidance material on the principle that would be considered when exercising these powers as well as the policies and procedures applying to these concepts.

Although the committee considers that this guidance may be helpful in future to assist actual and potential program participants, the committee remains concerned that currently neither the instrument nor the explanatory statement sets out the factors that may be taken into account or defines the key terms used in making these discretionary decisions. Accordingly, the committee is seeking the minister's further advice in this monitor as to the factors or examples of such factors that will be taken into account in making discretionary decisions under the instrument, as well as definitions or examples of key terms in those provisions, including 'hardship' and 'other compassionate grounds'.

Further, the committee previously sought the minister's advice as to whether an independent merits review is available for discretionary decisions under the instrument. In response, the minister advised that it is the government's intention to recommend to the Governor-General the making of regulations to allow for the review of a range of discretionary decisions by Housing Australia. While the committee is concluding its examination of the issue on this basis, it is requesting that the minister update the committee when these regulations have been made and notes its expectations that, if regulations do not provide for review of any decisions, the explanatory statement will justify this in line with the Administrative Review Council's guidance document, entitled 'What decisions should be subject to independent merit review?'

Finally, in monitor 4, the committee sought the minister's advice as to why it was considered necessary and appropriate to include significant elements of the Help to Buy scheme in delegated rather than primary legislation. While the committee acknowledges the minister's advice that legislative authority to provide for these matters in delegated legislation was given by the parliament when passing the Help to Buy legislation, the committee maintains its view that, as a matter of principle, significant elements of such schemes should be included in primary legislation to provide for a greater level of parliamentary oversight. Accordingly, the committee has resolved to draw the inclusion of significant matters of the Help to Buy scheme in delegated legislation to the attention of the Senate under standing order 23 (4).

The committee is continuing to monitor the implementation of outstanding undertakings and has recently resolved to report on undertakings that remain outstanding for more than 12 months.

The committee is pleased to advise that six undertakings have been implemented and six new undertakings have been made in this monitor's reporting period, while 13 remain outstanding for more than 90 days and two remain outstanding for more than two months. The committee will continue to monitor the implementation of outstanding undertakings and reminds ministers and agencies that the committee expects all undertakings to be implemented in a timely manner.

I would also like to take this opportunity to continue to raise awareness of the committee's scrutiny principles and expectations as outlined in Senate standing order 23. Today I would like to discuss principle (f), which relates to access and use. Under this principle, the committee scrutinises each legislative instrument as to whether it and any documents it incorporates may be freely accessed and used. A document is incorporated into an instrument by reference where the document is necessary to interpret, apply or otherwise use the instrument and may be incorporated as it exists at a fixed point in time or as in force from time to time. Under this principle, the committee expects that, where an instrument incorporates a document by reference, its explanatory statement will clearly and precisely specify the document, indicate how it may be freely obtained, the manner of incorporation and, if applicable, the legislative authority for incorporation from time to time.

This principle is underpinned by the committee's concern that individuals should be able to access the law to which they are subject—a fundamental principle. The committee's view is that any incorporated documents should not be subject to copyright, as this may inhibit access to the law. If instruments incorporate copyrighted materials, the committee expects the explanatory statement to justify this by addressing why it was considered necessary to use copyrighted material in an instrument or incorporated document, the impact of the use of copyrighted materials on access to the law and alternative mechanisms to access these materials. While concerns under this principle are relatively infrequent, noting their potential to impact on the ability of individuals to freely access to the law to which they are subject, the committee will continue to monitor this issue and draw attention to its expectations under principle (f), as I outlined earlier in relation to the Help to Buy program directions.

With these comments, I commend the committee's Delegated legislation monitor No. 5 of 2025 to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

I return to the tabling of Scrutiny digest No. 4 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills and seek leave to incorporate my tabling statement into Hansard.

Leave is granted.

The statement read as follows—

The statement was unavailable at the time of publishing.

On behalf of the Minister for Housing, I table a statement concerning five per cent deposits for all first home buyers.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

It's great to be able to stand today and talk about housing once again, following question time and following Senator Chisholm's tabling of the minister's statement. On 1 October, more Australians than ever before will be able to afford to buy their first home with just a five per cent deposit. For decades, owning a home has been part of what we call the 'great Australian dream'. It's more than just bricks and mortar, though. It's about security, stability and the deep comfort of knowing you have a place to truly call your own.

A home is the foundation where our families grow, memories are made and futures are built. It's about the simple joys: putting a hook in the world to hang your favourite artwork or pictures without asking for permission; painting your walls any colour that you like; never submitting another rental application ever again, hopefully; skipping rental inspections and the stress of last-minute cleaning—I've been guilty of that one in my past as well—avoiding unexpected rent hikes; staying put when landlords decide to sell; and having as many pets as you want without needing approval. It's also about having the freedom to decorate your space however you want.

But for too many Australians, especially young people, renters, and families doing it tough, that dream has felt out of reach for far too long. We've all heard the stories. We all know people who have struggled to get into the housing market. It's just been out of reach. Parents are worried that their kids won't have the same opportunities that they did. I was really fortunate when I was 18; I could buy my first home. It was $174,000 for a little unit in Spreyton. Now that unit would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. It's incredible.

For far too long the Commonwealth government wasn't stepping up to the task of helping people to get into homes. The heavy lifting was done by others. Under the last 10 years of the coalition government, for most of the time there wasn't even a housing minister. We often refer to it on this side as the last decade of neglect. There were just 373 social and affordable houses built during that decade. The lack of foresight and action is disappointing, to say the least, and it's failed young people.

Under the federal Labor government things have changed. We've made housing a national priority by appointing a fantastic minister for housing who cares. We've created an envoy for social housing and homelessness. We're committed to tackling the housing crisis from every angle. We've got bold, ambitious action that hasn't been seen since the postwar action, and we're already seeing results. Over 180,000 Australians have bought their first home through our five per cent deposit program. That's 180,000 dreams that have come true. One million households have received a 45 per cent increase in rent assistance. We've built 500,000 homes since coming to office, with new housing approvals up 30 per cent and construction costs stabilising. From 1 October, a first home buyer will be able to buy a $844,000 home—which is the median house price nationally—with just a $42,000 deposit. On the government's figures, they could save up to eight years in time needed to get together their deposit and avoid about $34,000 in lenders mortgage insurance. The five per cent deposit scheme will cut years off the time that Australians require to save for a deposit and will save people tens of thousands of dollars in mortgage insurance.

We're backing in unequivocally and unashamedly. We know housing is hard, but our $43 billion housing agenda is focused on making things better and has three big goals: building more homes, making it better to rent and making it easier to buy. This term we're going even further. We've got the task and we're on track. We're building 55,000 social and affordable homes and 100,000 homes for first home buyers. We're working towards a bold national goal of 1.2 million homes in five years. We're helping renters too, supporting the construction of thousands more rental homes and lifting rental standards, in partnerships with the states. We're making it easier to buy with the Help to Buy scheme, our first national shared equity scheme, and continuing that first home deposit guarantee for every first home buyer. We know that when the shared equity schemes have been run by the states they've been welcomed and taken up by homebuyers.

This is what it looks like when a government backs in its people. If you're a young person wondering if you will ever own a home, know that we hear you and we're fighting for you. If you're a renter struggling, we're going to back you. If you're a parent or grandparent hoping your children or grandchildren will have the same opportunities we did, we're making that possible. It's a turning point and it's just the beginning.

From Tasmania's perspective, it's going to make a huge difference to Tasmanians. It's going to mean that people who are struggling just to save to pay lenders mortgage insurance—most people don't even understand what it goes towards; it feels like they're just giving the banks money. We're going to get rid of that for first home buyers. It's going to make a hell of difference for Tasmanians.

I wasn't planning to speak on this matter, but, quite frankly, some of those points need to be responded to. It could only be a Labor government that comes up with a $43 billion housing policy that manages to build, I think, 17 houses—Senator Bragg, is that where we're up to?—that is going to be completely distortionary in the market and that will do nothing for the people involved. As you lower the threshold for the deposit required that brings more people into the market. Because you haven't done anything on the supply side of the problem, you have more people competing for the homes that are available in the market, and that can only drive the price of housing up, making it more unaffordable for all those Australians who aspire to get into their own home.

We have the rent-to-buy plan which, as Senator Bragg has exposed, is an absolute folly. It's a tax break for multinational corporations and pension funds, which will come here and build the sorts of homes I'm not sure Australians want. You look at what the experience has been of the high-rise social housing that's been utilised in England for generations, and study after study and report after report show that people who grew up and were raised in those kinds of environments did noticeably worse off than their peers in other kinds of housing arrangements. They were noticeably worse off—higher suicide rates, lower educational attainments, lower incomes throughout their lives and social disadvantage that went on for generations. Is that really the kind of model we want to import into Australia? I ask those listening at home to think about that—to think about whether this Labor housing plan that we hear so much about is actually the kind of housing plan we want in this country.

I rise to take note of the ministerial statement. In doing so I make the point that it appears that the Minister for Housing is declaring mission accomplished on housing. It's a bit like the aircraft carrier moment for the Prime Minister and the housing minister, where they declare that henceforth the housing problem in Australia is resolved because the government is spending $43 billion of taxpayer funds to build fewer houses than were built under the last government.

The numbers don't lie. Effectively, you've got a government that is now presiding over an economy that's only getting 170,000 houses a year on average, compared to 200,000 a year on average under the last government. They brag about $43 billion, but they're getting fewer houses. The pinch has never been harder for the Australian people, because we've got the biggest population that we've ever had, and we've got a housing construction collapse. That is why younger people are going crazy about housing.

It's getting a bit rich to read all these ministerial statements, puff pieces, media releases and social media posts from the housing minister and the Prime Minister, declaring that the housing mission is accomplished, because of course it's not accomplished, and it will not be accomplished by these policies. The ministerial statement irritatingly goes through these 55,000 social and affordable houses—none of which seem to have been built after two years of the Housing Australia Future Fund. I make the point that today in question time I asked Senator Wong, 'How many houses have been built by the Housing Australia Future Fund?' We didn't get an answer. We didn't get an answer last sitting.

This is, again, more evidence of the government treating the Senate like absolute dirt. This is the most secretive government since the Keating government, according to the Centre for Public Integrity. Only 25 per cent of OPDs are properly complied with, compared to 50 per cent under the Morrison government, which was a government where the Prime Minister was sworn into secret ministries, so it's not a very high standard. That's the starting point. The government doesn't want to provide information about this scheme. I assume it's because they're embarrassed by the scheme. The scheme's had two years. It's got 10 billion bucks in the bank, and it has built either 17 or 2,000 houses.

The fact that a senator is asking the Leader of the Government in the Senate repeatedly, 'How many houses has this scheme built, paid for by taxpayers?' and the Leader of the Government in the Senate refuses to answer the question shows the lengths to which the government is prepared to go to degrade this chamber and to degrade this democracy.

I say to the members of the crossbench and others: this is something that we need to take more seriously going forward. We have the theatrics of question time, and we have the processes which are supposed to yield us some information about the government's activities. This is part of our role as we work for the people who have elected us—to be stewards of accountability and to get information out. These are taxpayer funds. So I don't think we should accept—I don't think it is sustainable that we have this position, where we get laughed at when we ask questions about the expenditure of public money. There is no '55,000 new houses' built by the taxpayer. There may be 2,000; there may be 17. We don't know.

The other piece of note that comes up in this ministerial statement is approvals being up 30 per cent. The overall numbers are down. The numbers are 170,000 houses a year on average under this government compared to 200,000 houses a year on average under the last coalition government. The government has spent billions of dollars on bureaucracies which don't build houses, and what we see this week is more hot air.

The nationalisation of the lenders mortgage insurance market is a radical economic policy. It is a radical plan by the government, which has decided that it will take on a massive contingent liability by underwriting all the mortgages of first home buyers without any caps on places and without any income cap. They've decided to do away with any income caps; therefore, the wealthiest Australians, if they choose to use this scheme, will be subsidised by taxpaying workers, which seems bizarre to me. Government programs are very important in this country, and we live in a democracy where we value government undergirding people who need assistance and help. But the idea that the wealthiest Australians should be given government support in this form is not sustainable and not affordable. When you look at the budget—the budget is buggered. The budget is broken. You're looking at 10 years of deficits; it's a structural deficit. We've had two threadbare surpluses, which were provided via commodity prices spiking. This government will never deliver another surplus, and maybe no government will in the future under this current arrangement. The reason for that is the largesse. You've gone from 24 per cent to 27 per cent of spending to GDP, and now you're proposing to underwrite all these mortgages, including for very wealthy people. This is the sort of stuff that the taxpayer, in the long run, cannot afford. So I make the point that the $62 billion contingent liability is significant. We look forward to seeing exactly what Treasury has modelled here, because I think it's a pertinent question.

The other point that has been made in the reports produced by Nick Gruen is that there would be an increase in housing costs because of the bringing forward of demand. People who wouldn't have used this scheme but had other means will now use this scheme. They will add to the demand, and that will push up prices by up to 10 per cent. So the lower income people, who were the original beneficiaries of this scheme, will now be pushed out by people who have more income, more assets and more means to get a first home, which I think is manifestly unfair.

The Minister for Housing, Clare O'Neil, says this is a scare campaign. She has scolded, apparently, members of the insurance industry and has said that they shouldn't criticise the policy. It's not really surprising though, is it?. It's not surprising that the government that doesn't comply with orders of the Senate, is the most secretive government since the Keating government and wants to change this scheme without any parliamentary oversight, debate or review is telling the industry that may have legitimate concerns or may produce some legitimate research, 'Don't release your research.' It's not a very healthy culture, I have to say. It's not a healthy thing for a minister to be doing. We're all big people here. We make our own judgements; we explain ourselves. If you're the minister, you should be prepared to be criticised and be prepared to back in the judgements that you've made. But instead they decided that they would try and threaten industry out of releasing a report, it seems.

So the taxpayer risks are very significant. I note that Alex Sanchez, a former economic adviser to Mr Albanese, has said, 'The government is taking on so much risk on its balance sheet with housing,' pointing to the Housing Australia Future Fund and this scheme. It's a good point by Mr Sanchez, and there are many other economists, including Saul Eslake, David Koch and many others, who have pointed out the major problems of this scheme. So this is not going to solve the problem.

The problem facing the Australian people is one that I don't think the government will ever solve because they've spent three years lining the coffers and the pockets of all the rent seekers, bloodsuckers, lobbyists and people they're close to, in terms of the union movement, the super funds and all the other people they hang out with, and they've had no time to solve the problems facing the Australian people. This is another example. We saw the government use their economics summit last week to try and funnel more money to the super funds so they can own houses, which they're already supercharging through the build-to-rent scheme and the Housing Australia Future Fund, which we now see is making payments to the super funds. This is not a conspiracy; this is happening. This is part of Labor's agenda.

Because they are so focused on these bureaucratic solutions and solutions that have been put forward to them by vested interests which have their own commercial interests in mind, I don't believe the government will ever solve the real challenge, which is to get the supply side moving and to build the houses that Australians need to live in. Until that time, we're going to drift on through a period of large growth in our population and a continuing collapse in housing construction. In due course, there may be a case for targeted demand side measures. But you're not going to solve the housing crisis by opening up a targeted scheme to the children of billionaires and then exposing taxpayers to a massive liability which pushes up prices for people who, frankly, deserve better from their government.

Question agreed to.

I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning emission reduction targets, Housing Australia's availability payments, the National Climate Risk Assessment and National Adaptation Plan, and the risk of climate change to national security.

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

by leave—I move:

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

Education and Employment References Committee —

Appointed—

Substitute member: Senator Hodgins-May to replace Senator Faruqi for the committee's inquiry into Australia's early childhood education and care system

Participating member: Senator Faruqi

Environment and Communications References Committee —

Appointed—

Substitute member: Senator Blyth to replace Senator Dean Smith for the committee's inquiry into algal blooms in South Australia

Participating member: Senator Dean Smith.

Question agreed to.

The committee is considering the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill 2025, and amendment (1) on sheet 3408, moved by Senator Kovacic.

I was waiting for an answer from the minister as we finished up previously. If the minister would like to answer the question.

I remember that, but I don't remember the question! Would you mind re-asking the question.

Does the minister accept that this bill may lock employees out of choosing arrangements that, for them, balance flexibility and their own financial security?

No.

The Fair Work Commission general manager's 2024 report into individual flexibility arrangements paints a starkly different picture to the one that the minister has set out at the table in this debate. The report observed the following:

… IFAs were not utilised more widely due to a limited understanding and awareness of the entitlement. There was also a concern by employers that an IFA could be unilaterally terminated by the employee, leading to uncertainty.

The data is equally telling. Between 2021 and 2024, most people involved in making or responding to IFAs had experience with only a handful of them, 46 per cent reported just two to 10 arrangements, 15 per cent reported between 11 and 20 arrangements and only 10 per cent had experience with as many as 51 to 100 arrangements. Across multiple sectors, interviewees described the practical difficulty, and indeed the rarity, of actually implementing IFAs. Their words speak for themselves:

IFAs were an area that was often asked about, but more occasions than not, this did not translate into actually implementing the IFA.

Another interviewee said:

… I've worked for this business for 7 years and I can't even remember when we do IFAs … we just don't do them.

Another responded:

I don’t think IFAs have been used properly or they are used in the wrong context. So, I've seen that probably the understanding of when an IFA should or shouldn't be used hasn't always been consistently applied a lot of the time.

A union official conceded that the complexity of IFAs deters employers. They said:

Employers routinely refuse. And I would say that the main reason they refuse is because they don’t understand it. It's too hard. I've got enough things to think about.

Employers also pointed to termination provisions and the uncertainty of passing the better off overall test, particularly when non-monetary benefits were concerned, stating, 'There was uncertainty around the status, and of a non-monetary benefit as whether it was sufficient to hold the validity of an IFA, and so, for that reason, combined with the unilateral termination provisions there was a reluctance to use them.'

The report further highlighted that in some cases enterprise agreements clauses themselves deliberately narrowed the scope of what an IFA could cover, further restricting their practical utility. Against that backdrop the government's repeated assurances that vulnerable workers, particularly women—as I outlined earlier—retain flexibility through enterprise agreements, and IFAs ring quite hollow.

Minister, were the commission's findings showing that the IFAs are rarely used, highly complex and create legal uncertainty considered by the government when they were drafting this bill?

The point I was making, where this question comes from, is that there remains the ability for workers to enter arrangements with their employers which change terms of employment beyond what is set in an award. That can be done through IFAs. That can be done through collective agreements.

So I'm not saying that every employee who wants an individual arrangement has to pursue an IFA. The point is that there are arrangements in place for employers and employees to come to agreements. But what we're doing here is talking about awards.

Could you outline for me what that mechanism is outside of an IFA or an EBA.

There are a number of ways that employers and employees can enter agreements around terms of employment: EBAs, IFAs and common law contracts. That is all still possible and not interfered with through this bill. This bill is about protecting penalty rates in awards.

To be clear, outside an EBA and IFA, is the mechanism a common law contract?

They are the mechanisms I can think of that allow for agreements to be reached, yes.

Minister, the Fair Work Commission's own report makes clear that IFAs are areas often asked about but, more often than not, 'this did not translate into actually implementing the IFA'. The commission acknowledges their limitations. Does the government disagree with the commission's findings?

I've got no comment to make regarding the commission's findings. This is not a bill about IFAs; this is a bill about awards.

Minister, I note the IFAs, and I'm asking questions about them, because in the previous session you spoke to me about IFAs being the solution for flexible arrangements. I'm putting to you now that IFAs are not actually a practical solution. I want to get a picture of whether you believe that that is the case or not.

I don't think I went as far as saying that IFAs were the solution, I was putting it forward as an example of a way that employers and employees can reach agreements that provide different terms to the award. I've obviously given some other examples where that can be done as well.

I note that during the hearings the department also pointed to IFAs as a particular solution. I'm trying to understand why something that the commission themselves has called problematic is being pointed to both by the minister and the department as a particular solution. You have said this bill will protect vulnerable workers, particularly women—this is where we led into the conversation around IFAs—while still affording them flexibility via IFAs. But the Fair Work Commission's report shows that IFAs are too hard for many employers, rarely implemented and easily terminated. If the very mechanism you are relying on to deliver flexibility has been found to be so ineffective, how can IFAs genuinely safeguard that flexibility in practice?

Again, I'm not saying that IFAs are the way for people to get that flexibility. They are an option, as are the other mechanisms that I was talking about before. Again, we need to remember that what we're talking about here is a bill that prevents the Fair Work Commission from cutting penalty rates in awards. If employers and employees want to go and make different agreements, they're entitled to do that through that range of mechanisms. This is about the many employees across the economy who are employed in line with the award. This gives some security that in future their penalty rates cannot be taken away from them under the award.

Minister, earlier you told the chamber that the bill won't impact IFAs. Based on the conversation—the questions and answers we're having now—if your government isn't addressing the unworkability and barriers to entry identified in the commissioner's own report, can you explain to me how, in practical terms, IFAs are meant to deliver genuine flexibility for workers, particularly in the case that I outlined earlier? How can an IFA be used to deliver that flexibility, as one of the solutions that you offered?

Again, this is not a bill about the structure of IFAs. I am simply making the point. I accept what you've said—that there have been reservations expressed about IFAs. Perhaps people might like to choose other mechanisms, such as enterprise bargaining agreements. God forbid—maybe they'll even make an agreement with a union, as well as individual workers. It's simply an example. The other point that should be made is that after this bill is passed it will remain possible for exemption rates to be included in awards. The point is that the awards will not allow for penalty rates to be cut.

Minister, stakeholders told the Fair Work Commission that IFAs are confusing, are rarely implemented and create uncertainty. For the benefit of the workers you say could rely on IFAs to obtain flexibility, could you explain step by step how an award-reliant single mother in a clerical role under the Clerks—Private Sector Award, not covered by an enterprise agreement, is to enter into an IFA to finish at 3 pm to collect her children and then make up the hours later from home with a working-from-home agreement instead of working penalty rate late shifts. In doing so, can you also explain to me how her employer is to navigate the better off overall test, the written documentation requirements, the risk of unilateral termination and the general confusion and reluctance to use IFAs that your own department's report identified. How do they do that?

I'm not going to give a step-by-step process on how someone enters into an IFA. The Fair Work Commission has plenty of explanatory materials on their website for those who choose to do so. The more these questions get asked, the more I question whether the opposition actually supports the principle of this bill, which is simply about protecting penalty rates in awards. That's what it's about. If you question that, then you are saying that penalty rates should be able to be removed from awards. I'm surprised that that's the position of the opposition.

Thank you, Minister. I accept your concerns because this is very confusing, and it's even more confusing for those that want to implement or retain agreements that they do have, particularly where their circumstances may not meet a blanket set of circumstances. That leads me to think about flexibility. Did the government consider how this bill might restrict working-from-home arrangements currently under consideration in the clerks award test case?

I'm pleased to see that the Liberal Party has changed its position on working from home and is now the guardian of working from home. Congratulations! Welcome to the club. I seem to remember you were one of the more sensible voices on that matter, Senator. This bill will have no impact on working-from-home arrangements.

How does the minister justify compliance obligations that may require intrusive recordkeeping of hours for employees working remotely?

There are no new obligations on employers here relating to recordkeeping or anything else.

Does the minister accept that many employers could refuse to offer working from home to avoid breaching recordkeeping obligations?

No.

How does the government reconcile this outcome with the widespread demand from employees for greater flexibility in working hours and location when multiple employer groups suggest that this actually will impact the ability to work from home? Should there have been greater consideration as to whether this is an unintended consequence of the legislation?

No.

Minister, earlier, when I was asking questions in relation to IFAs, you spoke about enterprise bargaining being another option, another alternative for businesses to enter into and, I think you noted, 'heaven forbid', perhaps engaging with the union. Could you tell me, Minister, how the government expects small and medium businesses who are already struggling significantly under a compliance workload and a cost-of-doing-business crisis, to afford the cost and time burden of enterprise bargaining as the only way to perhaps secure customised pay arrangements, given it appears that IFAs might be a problem.

It's a matter for every business whether they want to enter into an enterprise agreement or not, and, as you know, many businesses choose to pay on the award. All that this will mean is that a small business who currently pays their employees in line with the award today will continue to pay those employees in line with the award tomorrow, when this bill is passed and when it commences. It's just that the award, in the future, won't be able to remove penalty rates. As long as they want to keep paying the award, then that's what they'll do. The kind of businesses that you're talking about, I think, are those who largely pay in line with the award now. As long as they keep doing that, there are no new obligations for them.

Why does the bill effectively push small businesses towards union representation as the default in bargaining processes? We've established that IFAs are rarely used. The alternative is to have particular agreements. As I outlined earlier with my case of the single mum that had a specific agreement with her employer that could now be retrospectively captured under this legislation, the option for them is to go to the EBA. Why isn't there a process where they can continue the arrangement that is beneficial and acceptable to both of them without engaging with a union for that purpose?

All the existing arrangements remain unchanged. Those who wish to pay their employees in line with the award will continue being able to do so. Those who wish to take a job that pays award wages and has award conditions will be able to do that. Those who wish to do an enterprise bargaining agreement, with or without a union, can do so. So nothing changes in that respect.

I think it may change based on the potential retrospectivity of the bill. Given it can take a small business somewhere between six to 12 months to negotiate an enterprise agreement and the cost of that is somewhere between $30,000 and $70,000, does the government consider that to be an affordable and reasonable pathway for flexibility for a small business and their employees? It's fine if you're a large retailer, a major bank or a large institution, but, if you're the local cafe, retail shop, vet, dentist or any small business that is relied on for people's day-to-day needs outside of major institutions, is that fair? Is that reasonable and affordable in your view?

No-one is forcing a small business to enter an enterprise agreement. Plenty of small businesses pay in line with the award, and I suspect that will be the case after this bill's passed.

I'm trying to understand why we are then legislating in a way that pushes those small businesses into those costly bargaining processes rather than allowing those simpler, direct arrangements with their own staff and with the people that they deal with on a day-to-day basis. Why can't they just do that?

We're not pushing anyone in any different direction. We're simply saying that you can't cut penalty rates in awards.

The Bills Digest says that your bill may make it more difficult for enterprise agreements with rolled-up rates of pay or annualised salaries to be approved. To quote directly from the digest:

The Bill also does not provide protections for penalty or overtime rates in enterprise agreements. However, existing requirements concerning the approval of enterprise agreements, alongside the new measures in the Bill, may make it slightly more difficult for enterprise agreements that include 'rolled up' rates of pay or annualised salaries to gain approval in the future.

Throughout the inquiry into this bill, the government and unions insisted that, if workplaces want flexibility, they can achieve it through enterprise bargaining.

Why is the government now making it harder for workers and employers to include flexible arrangements in enterprise agreements?

Well, there are two parts I think your question around why we are doing this. The only impact I can think of that this would have on the Fair Work Commission is that they will clearly need to benchmark what penalty rates equate to in someone's wage versus a rolled-up rate and that—oh, looking sharp, Senator Sharma!

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: We're all getting dressed up for the ball.

Wait 'til I get changed!

Well, it's in your hands how long you have to get changed. Sorry, I've lost my train of thought. The only impact I can think of that this will have on the Fair Work Commission in terms of the time it will take and the complexity of approving EBAs would be to compare what the penalty rates would work out to versus what a rolled-up rate might be and how they compare. So, sure, that's a little bit of work, but the commission does that sort of thing all the time. I think your actual question in the end was effectively, 'Why are you doing this?' As I said before—because we think penalty rates matter.

My question was more around the flexibility element. In answering your questions before about where this line of questioning is coming from and if we actually oppose penalty rates, I again reaffirm, as I have multiple times, that we do not and we do not have any issue with protecting penalty rates.

What we're also trying to do is ensure we protect workers' rights to flexibility, which is something that has become significantly important to Australian workers, particularly as they navigate a cost-of-living crisis and a housing crisis. That flexibility is such an important element of making everyday life just that little bit simpler when things are already very hard. So the question was around why it is now more difficult to negotiate flexibility or flexible arrangements as a result of this legislation, because it must now be done with an IFA—which, we have made very clear, are difficult, complex and rarely used—or an EBA.

It comes down to the principle that drives this policy, that we took to an election and that was supported at an election, which is that penalty rates matter and that people who work those unsociable hours should be compensated more for doing so.

Do you also assert that flexibility matters?

Not when it comes to cutting people's wages.

Do you think people have the right to choose a pay arrangement for themselves where they counter the financial benefits and the flexibility elements, including the security of ongoing regularity of income?

We think it's important to preserve, for all workers, penalty rates when they work unsociable hours.

In the prosecution of this bill, there's been commentary around 'closing the loophole' in relation to the legislation. How does the minister respond to the Law Council of Australia's view that there is no loophole allowing underpayment through rolled-up rates?

They're entitled to their view, but we took this policy to an election, and the Australian people voted for it.

I'm trying to understand your answer in terms of the Law Council of Australia's view in relation to a loophole not existing. Does a loophole actually exist, or is it a hypothetical loophole?

I can't explain why the Law Council chose to express that view. I certainly don't recall, as the former minister on this portfolio, talking about this as a loophole.

Certainly, we have talked about some of our previous legislation as closing loopholes, such as same job, same pay and such as the fact that there were no minimum rates for gig workers et cetera, but I couldn't explain why the Law Council have said that.

I think it's because the explanatory memorandum, from memory—and I would have to check—notes a reference to a loophole, so there would have been some reference from the government in relation to that. Would you have anything further to add?

Again, I don't know exactly why those words were used in the explanatory memorandum, but, to the extent that there is a loophole, what we're talking about is the fact that, under the current law, without this amendment, it is possible for awards to be varied in a way that leaves workers worse off through the loss of their penalty rates, notwithstanding any additional compensation they receive. I've already put to you some evidence that was presented by at least one union, which demonstrated that would be the effect for workers in the retail sector.

Thank you, Minister. I note your comment that there were concerns that it was possible for awards to be varied in a way or for payments to be varied in a particular way—rather than it actually happening. So it's a hypothetical. Why legislate in response to a hypothetical concern, whether or not that's a hypothetical union concern, rather than real decisions of the commission?

All parties are entitled to put forward evidence of what they factually say will be the effect of a variation to an award, and that's what's happened here. I might remind you, Senator, that before the break you were putting a number of hypothetical cases to me.

I was, and they were hypothetical cases in relation to how the legislation might work, based on hypothetical scenarios. I think that that's reasonable and fair. Again, we have the Fair Work Commission, whose role and purpose is to protect workers. Can you explain to me how the government justifies undermining the independence of the Fair Work Commission through this bill, effectively taking away the ability for the Fair Work Commission to make these decisions if and when they occur or when they come to them. Why aren't they given the ability to continue to do the work that they're already doing?

I think I answered that question earlier today in saying that of course the Fair Work Commission retains the ability to make its own decisions but that there are plenty of other sections within the Fair Work Act that set parameters for the Fair Work Commission in making its decisions, and this would be a new one.

We have a problem with productivity in our country at the moment. We had a productivity roundtable last week, which has been much publicised, raising a couple of very interesting ideas. The empty bedroom tax, I think, was one of those, which has been discussed here today.

We'll go back to general productivity. Could you please help me understand and explain to me how the government reconciles this bill and the potential impacts of this bill with the fact that Australia's labour productivity is at its lowest level in 60 years, particularly as we've outlined the potential impacts to Australian small businesses.

I'm very glad you asked me this question, Senator, because this gives me the opportunity—an opportunity I haven't had for some time, since changing portfolios—to say that one fundamental difference between the Liberal Party and the Labor Party when it comes to productivity is that the Labor Party does not accept that cutting people's wages is the route to higher productivity. There is plenty of factual evidence that backs up that position. The decade prior to our coming to office, when the coalition pursued a strategy of wage suppression, delivered the lowest productivity growth over a decade that we had seen in Australia for 60 years. So, if cutting wages or keeping wages low were the route to higher productivity, then we would have seen the coalition deliver much higher productivity than the lowest productivity growth over a decade that we had seen in 60 years.

The way we get higher productivity growth in Australia is not by cutting wages but by investing in people, through competition reform, through the renewable energy transition and through the various other things that the government is doing to lift productivity.

Minister, no-one is suggesting that we cut wages, but it's an absolute fact that this legislation will create more regulation that Australian businesses, particularly Australian small businesses, need to navigate. Australian small businesses are already spending 15 hours a week navigating compliance and red tape, which is just under 40 per cent of the standard working week. So could you explain to us why the government has ignored the Business Council's warning that the bill will divert resources from productive work into compliance for those businesses.

I utterly reject that. It's no secret that there are issues on which the government and the BCA disagree. I did note the BCA statement yesterday welcoming my announcement that we will be accelerating EPBC reforms, so thank you to the BCA for that, but there are other issues we disagree on, including workplace relations. There is no reason to expect that this will add any further compliance costs to small businesses, because it is about simply maintaining current arrangements for award based workers rather than allowing their penalty rates to be cut in future. If employers employ people on the award rate now, they can continue to do so into the future; it's just that in the future the penalty rates can't be cut.

Minister, I note your disagreement with the BCA on this matter. Speaking about another industry group or industry employer, ACCI, their evidence suggests that small businesses will face repetitive manual reconciliations based on this legislation, only to deliver lower pay outcomes. How do you respond to that, particularly given that this is yet another significant employer group that is pointing to the challenges or the unintended consequences, perhaps, of this legislation?

I don't agree with that view.

Why introduce legislation that will make rostering more rigid and complex rather than enable flexibility? Australians want flexibility in their work. We have these employer groups, many of whom sat in particular forums you had and were at your productivity roundtable last week, and whom, as you say, you agree with on many things. This is a very important or significant impact on Australian businesses. Why would you not consider their comments, their views and their warnings—I think it would be best to note them as warnings—that this will make it harder for Australian small businesses, particularly in relation to reporting and rostering?

As I say, I don't agree with their views. More importantly, those employer groups opposed this policy when it was announced during the election campaign. The Australian people had their say, and we're simply delivering on a commitment we made to the Australian people.

These are warnings from Australian business groups—the same groups that attended the Treasurer's productivity roundtable last week—but their views are being dismissed in the drafting of this bill. Their concerns, their views, their warnings, whatever you want to call it—you're basically saying they are wrong. Could you tell me what you actually need from them to actually accept that what they are saying might have some validity, or did you just dismiss it out of hand?

I don't think I said I dismissed it; I said I disagree with their views. We could not have been clearer before the election what we intended to do here. In fact, I think I remember announcing this policy on Easter Sunday. Was it Easter Sunday? It was certainly over the Easter holidays. I remember all the employer groups disagreeing with it, opposing it, campaigning against it. The Australian people had their say, and now it's our role to fulfil that commitment.

Minister, do you consider it still your role to follow through with a commitment if it has become clear that there are potential risks and unintended consequences that make the legislation difficult for employers and employees to navigate?

I place a very high premium on governments delivering on their commitments, and everyone in our government does as well. I don't think it's exactly a surprise to hear, with the greatest of respect, employer groups opposing changes to workplace laws that are about protecting workers' wages. The same groups opposed every part of our workplace relations reform agenda in the last term of office. Senator Cash went as far as saying it would send us back to the Dark Ages, that it would empty supermarket shelves, that it would close down Australia—all the usual hyperbole you get from Senator Cash. She has moved onto a new portfolio but maintains the hyperbole. All of those statements proved to be wrong. Employer groups have a role to play. They represent the views of employers. I get it. They're not always right.

I think no-one amongst us is always right. I guess that is the question that I'm asking you. Rather than asking if you agree or if you think the employer groups are right, my question is actually: do you have concerns that perhaps there are some issues with this legislation? Despite the fact that you went to the election with it and that the intent is to deliver, if it does create problems for workers and employers, particularly as it impacts flexibility and productivity, should we not pause to see whether we should make appropriate amendments to ensure that that does not occur?

No, we shouldn't—and I welcome the member for Goldstein to the better chamber! No, we shouldn't. What we should do is pass a law that delivers an election commitment that we made to the Australian people, that the Australian people voted for and that will protect voters from having their penalty rates cut.

Respectfully, Minister, it is not our job to wave through election promises in this chamber. This is the chamber of scrutiny, and it's a job that I think we all take very, very seriously. That comes to the core of my questions, and I want to ask that question again to you. I acknowledge and understand that it's an election commitment. It was taken to the election. You have won the election; you want to deliver on that promise. But the scrutiny that has taken place in this chamber and in the committees of this chamber has shown that there are potential issues and potential unintended consequences that could impact the flexibility for Australian workers in the arrangements that they have negotiated with their employers. If that has occurred, and if that has become clear, which it has via the evidence in the inquiry, should we not take pause to make appropriate amendments to ensure that what we are delivering to the Australian public is fit for purpose and delivers on their needs?

The government does not accept the views that were presented to the inquiry and for that reason would not be supporting the types of amendments that you're suggesting. It's obviously a matter for you and your party to decide whether you're convinced and would support those amendments.

Minister, how do you respond to Clubs Australia's concerns that section 135A as drafted could invalidate longstanding above-award pay provisions in the clubs award?

We don't agree with that view, and existing arrangements will continue. It's only if they're varied; the only thing that will change here is the inability of someone to seek to vary an award. If there's an award in place today, it will remain in place tomorrow.

Minister, do you accept Master Builders Australia's evidence that the protections the bill seeks to introduce already exist following earlier amendments to the act?

No.

There are lots of things that you don't seem to agree with. We have the Business Council, we have ACCI, we have employer groups, we have Clubs Australia and we have Master Builders all providing warnings and flagging concerns in relation to this legislation, none of which have been considered or accepted. Could you tell me why we risk freezing modern awards into static, outdated instruments that fail to reflect the nature of contemporary work and contemporary workplaces?

I don't think we do risk freezing modern awards. There are provisions which remain in place for modern awards to be varied on the application of a party. What we are saying as a community—and the Australian people agreed when they voted for this policy—is that penalty rates are special and deserve to be protected.

Minister, how does the government then justify drafting legislation that, again, may unintentionally reduce the wages of managers and staff who are currently on above-award arrangements?

If they are the arrangements that those employees or managers are paid under, they would continue. This is this point about retrospectivity. We're not changing arrangements that exist right now. What we're saying is that, in the future, if an employer wanted to vary an award in a way that cut penalty rates, that would not be possible to do. But, if a manager is receiving particular arrangements now under the award, that stays in place.

My next question relates to the ones that I'm ready asking. I'm trying to get an understanding of how this legislation was drafted and the thinking behind it. Why would we legislate to prohibit mutually beneficial award variations, where an employee and employer have said: 'This works for both of us. Let's do this'? Even in the simplest of circumstances, why would we actually say to them: 'You can't do that. We will determine for you, via this legislation, what your arrangements can be'? Why insert legislation into a mutually beneficial arrangement between an employee and employer, particularly as it relates to flexibility?

There are a couple of ways I will answer that. For starters, I don't accept that those arrangements are always mutually beneficial in the sense that both parties win. As I've already said to you, there has been evidence produced that shows that the elimination of penalty rates, even when rolled-up rates are provided, would still see workers' pay go backwards. So it might be beneficial to the employer, but it is not beneficial to the employee to have their pay go backwards. More broadly—and, again, I know I've said this or similar before—the current laws make all sorts of rules about the sorts of things that can and can't go in awards. We've got the National Employment Standards, below which people cannot be paid. We as a parliament and as a community have decided that some things are sacrosanct, and we say, and the Australian people said, that penalty rates are sacrosanct as well.

Just so I understand, are you saying that the government and, if and when the legislation passes, the parliament have said that certain things are sacrosanct, and that that means an Australian worker who seeks to negotiate an arrangement with their employer that benefits them for a variety of different reasons, like the hypothetical woman that I described earlier, can't have that, because ideologically that is unacceptable and sacrosanct?

It is still possible for those sorts of arrangements to be reached between employers and employees. We're back to where we were half an hour ago, going through the options there.

KOVACIC () (): Respectfully, via an IFA or an enterprise agreement; is that what you're suggesting?

I'm advised that, even when these changes pass, it is possible to pay an employee a higher rate. What you can't do is pay them a lower rate and cut their penalty rates and have them go backwards. That would be the practical effect of this.

Just to clarify: a lower rate compared to what—for themselves or a hypothetical circumstance?

As I've said a number of times, it's still possible to have exemption rates or rolled-up rates in awards and in agreements that are reached at the workplace level. If a particular employee on an award would have received, let's say, an extra $10 an hour for their shift through penalty rates, what's not possible, following this legislation, is for them to get $5 extra an hour through a rolled-up rate. You can reach an agreement that pays $10 or more; you can't go below that. That's what we're saying here.

Minister, are you able to tell us why the bill uses the phrase, 'The Fair Work Commission must ensure', rather than 'may ensure', when this drafting risks compelling the commission to alter existing terms rather than it exercising its discretion?

I've already made the point several times that it's not unusual for the Fair Work Act to provide parameters for the Fair Work Commission to make its decisions around. We're saying here that, in practice, the commission must not allow for penalty rates to be cut. That was the position we outlined before the election and that's the position we now seek to implement.

Minister, I acknowledge your comments around setting parameters for the Fair Work Commission and I acknowledge you have said that previously, but the drafting doesn't set a parameter; the drafting says the Fair Work Commission 'must ensure' rather than 'may ensure'. Could you explain to me how that is setting a parameter? That is, in my view, defining an outcome.

I've said a few times now that there are other provisions within the Fair Work Act which, if you like, dictate to the Fair Work Commission what they must do. In fact, section 134, which sets out the objective of modern awards, starts with subsection (1):

The FWC must ensure that modern awards, together with the National Employment Standards, provide a fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and conditions, taking into account:

(a) relative living standards …

(aa) the need to improve access to secure work …

(ab) the need to achieve gender equality—

and so on. The provision we're seeking to introduce here is hardly the first time that the Fair Work Commission has been told that it must do certain things or must consider certain things. That's one example. I'm sure I could pull out dozens more.

Minister, why has the bill failed to define what constitutes a reduction in remuneration, given it's been so prescriptive in other elements, particularly in the context of narrowing overtime hours or reclassifying allowances?

That is exactly the type of thing that would be left to the commission to determine using its discretion. They have to consider all of those things that you've just given as examples to determine what amounts to a loss of remuneration or whatever the term exactly was. They've got to do those calculations, rather than being told, 'This is how you've got to work it out.'

I guess that's what confuses me—this imbalance of discretion versus prescription. We have a Fair Work Commission that already has the remit of protecting penalty rates. We're saying, 'We don't trust you or believe you're capable'—effectively—'of protecting penalty rates under your current function so we're going to legislate.' But for other elements you're saying, 'No, no, use your discretion to be fair and reasonable.' Can you help me understand why it's one case here and another case in relation to the reduction in remuneration question that I asked prior?

I guess the distinction is that we use the word 'must' in the act when we are setting out the principle that the commission must take into account. The way it works that out and the way it reaches its decision is a matter for its own discretion. That's probably the simplest way I can explain that distinction.

Minister, are you able to tell us why the bill doesn't clarify how annualised salary provisions are to be assessed against penalty and overtime entitlements, leaving this open to confusion and speculation?

I'm advised that existing section 139(1)(f) on annualised salaries will continue to apply.

Earlier we discussed the ACTU statements in relation to retrospective operation. I'm curious to understand why, in the drafting of the bill, there was no clause expressly excluding retrospective operation, given that the ACTU has acknowledged that it could be applied and given that industry groups have indicated that this is a potential unintended consequence. Surely it's a simple way to navigate this potential problem.

In my experience it's not typical drafting practice for legislation to say that things don't operate retrospectively, because it's unusual for legislation to operate retrospectively. That's why, on occasion, you see legislation say it is going to operate retrospectively. If it doesn't say that, it operates prospectively. That's the case in all legislation that we consider.

Just to clarify finally, you don't have concerns, given the ACTU's acknowledgement that it could be applied to existing awards and effectively be retrospective?

No.

Why does the bill's drafting not distinguish between legitimate above-award arrangements and unlawful underpayment, which are two very different things—thereby risking the capture of arrangements like the clubs award provisions that I spoke to earlier?

Sorry, I was momentarily distracted by another dashingly dressed senator—and, no, I'm not talking about you, Member for Goldstein; I know you thought it! They're one of ours, actually. Sorry, what was the question again?

I'll try and remember how I said it. Why does the bill's drafting not distinguish between legitimate above award arrangements and unlawful underpayment, which are very different things—thereby risking the capture of arrangements like the clubs award provisions that I referred to earlier this evening?

There are a couple of fundamental points where we aren't on the same page, and this includes the clubs award as well.

If an award allows for workers to be paid certain amounts as penalty rates and certain amounts as base pay, that will continue into the future, and any variation won't require payment by an employer of underpayments for things that have happened in the past. This bill is about changing arrangements for the future. If an award at the moment allows for people to be paid certain penalties and certain base rates of pay, that will continue into the future until the award is varied.

When it comes time for the award to be varied, what we're saying is that penalty rates can't be taken away in that award. This retrospective argument is, with respect, wrong, and I know it's largely employer groups who are making that argument. It's not about saying that what people were paid five years ago was wrong and you've got to repay them for an underpayment. It's about saying what you will need to pay them into the future.

Noting your comments that the employer groups are wrong and that the employer groups represent employers, many of them large employers as well, there is clearly confusion in relation to the operation of the bill. Why would we not then simply articulate that it is not retrospective in the drafting of the bill? Wouldn't that make it simpler? We've had a long discussion here about whether it is or whether it isn't, and there are a lot of concerns and there is clearly a lot of confusion. Why would we not just do that? Why wouldn't we simplify this piece of legislation and make that crystal clear?

Every piece of legislation that this parliament considers operates prospectively unless it's said otherwise.

Why then, given all of these concerns, wouldn't the government consider a regulatory impact statement for this legislation?

It's not imposing any additional burdens on employers.

Why is the bill drafted in a one-size-fits-all manner without exemptions or carve-outs for small businesses, despite the obvious and disproportionate compliance burden of additional legislation on small businesses?

I think I answered that at the very beginning of the committee stage, which is to say we don't distinguish between employees of large or small businesses when it comes to penalty rates.

At a time when productivity is at a 60-year low, which I referenced earlier, Australians deserve policies that lift output and not something that, as I noted before, is one size fits all and stifles flexibility. Since your government came into office, productivity in this country has fallen by more than five per cent. Australians are working harder, but they're taking home less, and it is tough. Whether you're an every day Australian or a small-business owner, things are very challenging. Many workers prefer the stability of a higher income and more consistent salary base, as I've articulated before. It helps them with budgeting, with growing their superannuation, with their borrowing capacity and with avoiding income volatility in Centrelink payments. These are all things that are very important to Australians. Again, I go to the question of a regulatory impact statement and the fact that the government hasn't conducted one. Why would you expect the parliament to be asked to legislate on this blind, without that impact statement?

As I said before, this bill does not impose any additional obligations on employers, and I couldn't agree with you more about the need to lift wages in this country. That's exactly what Labor's workplace relations reforms have done over the last three years, and every single one of them has been opposed by the coalition.

(Quorum formed)

Again, I'm referencing the lack of a regulatory impact statement and the fact that one was not done before introducing this bill. What concerns me is—and I would really like to get a deeper understanding of this—given that the inquiry evidence in particular has now highlighted that there are a number of problems and there is confusion and a clear divide between the evidence from employer groups and unions as to the operation and function of this legislation, why wouldn't you get that regulatory impact statement? Given that the problems that you're trying to seek are hypothetical and untested, why not just proceed to that point and take away the confusion and concern? As you articulated earlier, your view is that the employer groups are wrong. Why not use a regulatory impact statement to actually prove that they're wrong?

The Office of Impact Analysis determined a formal policy impact analysis was not required for this reform as the bill does not impose new obligations on employers and instead focuses on the parameters of the commission's decision-making powers.

And has your view changed or been altered at all, given the inquiry evidence which, I'm assuming, was after the advice from the department?

My view has not changed.

Can I confirm that that advice was provided prior to the inquiry evidence?

Yes.

Shouldn't the inquiry evidence then be paused for the government to go back to the department and say, 'Are you sure you've got this right?'

We were not persuaded by that evidence.

You were not persuaded by the evidence of organisations who were then invited to the productivity round table put together by the Treasurer to seek guidance on the productivity of this country or the impacts to productivity in this country? So their information is useful in one environment, but when it comes to concerns in relation to this legislation the government is unmoved?

We didn't make it a compulsory rule of being an attendee at the round table that you had to agree with the government on every point. We included a cross-section of views. But we were not persuaded by the evidence from those groups. As I say, it's not unusual for employer groups to oppose changes that Labor governments make to workplace relations laws.

Minister, what is the government's estimate of the bill's impact on productivity, noting that we had the productivity round table just last week?

I'm not aware of whether any particular work was done on that for this bill. I make the point I made before: if coalition parties or employer groups were correct in saying that lifting wages or stopping wages from being cut was the way to lift productivity, then we wouldn't have seen the worst decade in 60 years of productivity growth under a coalition government which suppressed wages. Suppressing wages did not lift productivity growth under the coalition. It is not the way to lift productivity growth, and it's not the way that this Labor government intends to seek productivity growth.

That's raised a number of questions in my mind, the first of which is: did the government consult the Productivity Commission in the drafting of this bill?

No, but they were entitled to make a submission in the way that every other Australian organisation was.

In the inquiry evidence that didn't move the government to reconsider whether we needed to make any changes to the bill. In relation to productivity, let me think about this. The Productivity Commission was not consulted, there was no modelling done in relation to the impact on productivity and the most significant piece of work the Treasurer has done since the election has been the productivity round table. So we have a piece of legislation before the parliament that we are speaking about now that was subject to an inquiry where a large portion of the evidence suggests there are problems with this legislation, particularly as it relates to impacts on productivity, particularly for Australian small businesses, yet the government is saying: 'There is nothing to see here, everything is okay and there are no impacts from this. We don't need advice from the Productivity Commission and we didn't need to discuss the impacts more broadly.' Can you help me understand how those two fit together, because that doesn't make sense to me at all.

I'm pleased to see that at least one member of the coalition is embracing the fact that the government held a productivity round table. Senator Kovacic obviously attaches quite a lot of importance to the productivity round table. Unfortunately, the shadow Treasurer didn't seem to think so, and I think multiple coalition figures—probably including the ones sitting up the back there—talked about it being a talkfest. Good on you for seeing the benefit of bringing different views together. It's a bit like how there's been a conversion on work from home from some members—although not from the member for Goldstein, who regards it as apartheid, given the remarks he made in the media recently. Some people have got a little bit of learning to do, including about modern history. Be that as it may, there is no evidence whatsoever that cutting people's wages delivers higher productivity growth. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary; it's called the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government.

With respect, Minister, my question didn't relate to cutting people's wages. It related to the productivity round table, and I note that it has been referenced as a talkfest by many. I would suggest that the answers to the questions here this evening suggest that perhaps it was more of a talkfest than a productivity round table, because a key piece of legislation that this government took to the election as an election commitment—which you articulated earlier was very important to deliver—was not raised or assessed with the Productivity Commission. There was no financial or economic modelling done in relation to it and it wasn't discussed at the round table. And the people that you did invite to the round table and who you note may or may not agree with you but could provide a contest of ideas and could scrutinise what's been put forward—just hasn't happened. Why do you not want proper and appropriate scrutiny of this legislation?

I'm now not sure whether you support the productivity round table after all, Senator. You've fallen back in line!

We'll keep you guessing!

Primarily, that sort of analysis is not needed because it doesn't change existing arrangements and it doesn't impose new obligations on employers.

The problem is that—and I acknowledge and understand what you are telling me—evidence to the inquiry of this parliament, of this Senate, gave us different information. Some of the information is in line with what you have stated, but there was a significant amount of evidence contrary to that. So I would like to understand why that would not be considered, particularly the unintended consequences around productivity and flexibility and the impacts to both workers and small business before the passage of this legislation. Why go blindly and say: 'We're not listening to you. You're wrong; we're right,' despite significant evidence to the contrary that was quite credibly presented?

I don't think I ever said that we didn't consider that evidence. We just disagree with that evidence.

Could you tell me how and in what manner it was considered?

The very smart people sitting to my left spend a lot of time trawling through evidence that's provided by Senate committees. I'm sure the minister considered that evidence as well, and the ultimate result was that we didn't accept that evidence. We decided it was a good idea to deliver on a commitment that the Australian people voted for to stop penalty rates being cut.

Could I ask if there was a briefing from the very capable people who went through the evidence to suggest that there were concerns there, or was it very much, for want of a better description, a tick-a-box exercise?

The very capable people sitting beside and behind me considered the evidence so much that an amendment was made to this bill in the House of Representatives to clarify some of the points that employer groups raised. I think that's pretty good evidence that it was considered.

Could you confirm if that was before or after the Senate inquiry?

I'll clarify that, but I guess the general point I'm making is that people's concerns have been listened to. Sometimes they've been acted on and sometimes they haven't. That's how it works.

My point of clarification—and I would like you to come back to it—is that the amendments in the House were not triggered, let's say, by the Senate inquiry. So I would like to get an understanding of when those amendments were made relative to the inquiry and the report from that inquiry.

We've talked about the different work that was done and the modelling. I'm confirming that the government didn't commission any economic modelling before introducing this bill. Could I also confirm that the government didn't model the compliance hours and costs that small businesses could potentially face under this bill?

I'm not aware of any such modelling occurring, and that would be because there is no additional burden being imposed on employers.

Now that there is significant evidence from the Senate inquiry suggesting that there may potentially be a burden to small businesses and that that could be an unintended consequence of this bill, would you consider that modelling should be done before the passage of the bill to ensure that Australian small businesses aren't placed under even more pressure than they already are under?

No.

Will the government commit to measuring the bill's effect on employee earnings including by using actual payroll data within six months of operation?

We monitor wages all the time, so of course wages will continue to be monitored.

My specific question was to measuring the bill's effect on employee earnings. Will you commit to measuring that within six months of operation?

I think what I said earlier was that the evidence shows that, since we made previous workplace relations reforms, Australian wages have risen in real terms for seven quarters in a row for the first time in many years since we saw the real wage falls under the coalition. I would expect that we will keep track of what wages are doing after these laws pass, in the same way that we've kept track of the impact on wages of our previous reforms.

Minister, will the government ensure the bill does not have a negative impact on workplace flexibility, including on work-from-home uptake and rostering?

Again, all of those issues are monitored through regular reporting, and we will clearly keep an eye on that.

If the bill truly benefits Australian workers and Australian small businesses, why not welcome an independent regulatory impact statement to prove it, as I asked before? Why not actually clear the air on it and leave no doubt? Can I have an understanding of why that is something the government simply refuses to do?

I refer to my many previous answers.

Okay. Minister, does the commission already have obligations under section 134 of the Fair Work Act to ensure employees are fairly compensated for working unsociable hours, weekends, nights and public holidays?

Yes, they do, but this bill will strengthen those obligations.

Why wouldn't you trust the Fair Work Commission, the independent umpire, to ensure that these protections continue to be in place, as they have been?

That's because our view and the Australian community's view is that penalty rates should be protected.

Yes, I understand that, and we believe that penalty rates should be protected as well; we're not suggesting that they're not protected. The Fair Work Commission already has the remit of protecting penalty rates.

I'm trying to understand why, effectively, the government is duplicating these protections in legislation instead of trusting the Fair Work Commission to do their job.

It is the responsibility of the Fair Work Commission to protect pay rates. At the moment, the Fair Work Commission does have the ability to cut penalty rates. We don't think that's right, and the Australian people don't think it's right either. That's why we're seeking to amend the bill.

Has the Fair Work Commission cut penalty rates in the last three years, or has there been an attempt to cut penalty rates in the last three years?

I'm not aware of the Fair Work Commission having done that in the last three years, but I certainly remember them doing it under the former coalition government. That's true; they did. There are live applications before the commission right now seeking to cut penalty rates.

I think I also give you the example in 2016 where an SDA agreement caused penalty rates to be cut, but that's not what we're talking about here. You mentioned the current cases. Do you know how many current cases there are before the Fair Work Commission that are actually seeking to reduce penalty and overtime rates?

I'm aware of two, being the retailer award matter and the banking and clerical award.

If there are two, is that not then the government legislating for a problem that doesn't exist, given that the Fair Work Commission has a clear capacity to deal with two applications before it?

I'm actually advised that it's three separate applications: retail, banking, clerical—all separate. I don't think it would be right to label that as a problem that doesn't exist. I think it's a very real problem for the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of workers who are paid under those awards.

My question related to whether you feel that the Fair Work Commission is not capable of dealing with those two matters before it. I will change my question: do you not feel that the Fair Work Commission is capable of dealing with those three matters before it, and that it requires a legislative change?

I'm not going to express an opinion about the Fair Work Commission. We think that it's important that the commission be asked and required to not cut penalty rates, in exactly the same way as the act requires and directs the Fair Work Commission on a whole range of other matters. If that logic were correct, Senator, then we would be sitting here tonight removing a whole range of provisions from the act which require the Fair Work Commission to do certain things. We're not doing that, because the parliament does set parameters for the Fair Work Commission, and this is another one.

I'm not sure that that's quite accurate, but I will continue. Under proposed section 135A(1)(b), could common award provisions like annualised wage arrangements or time off in lieu be prohibited unless they guarantee that no employee is ever financially worse off under the strict penalty and overtime rates? I will be clear here: so that no employee is ever financially worse off.

I think I said earlier in the debate that annualised salaries can continue to occur. What can't occur after this bill is passed is cutting penalty rates.

Minister, can you guarantee for Australian workers that this bill will not reduce their flexibility, particularly where that flexibility is the greatest priority for them in terms of their employment arrangements, particularly in the example I used before, of the single mum who has particular care needs for her family?

I think I've answered that question several times.

This is another question that came through in the inquiry. If a penalty or overtime rate itself remains unchanged but the circumstances in which it's supplied are narrowed, would that be treated as a rate reduction under proposed section 135A(1)(a)? In other words, if the hours of work change but the rate doesn't change, will the bill see that as a reduction?

This is exactly the kind of matter that would be up to the commission to determine.

How do they determine it, if you've legislated that they 'must' do something? That's confusing to me, because you've been prescriptive to them in the application, and you've said that a regulatory impact statement wasn't required because the bill was about how the Fair Work Commission operates. That doesn't make sense to me. Which is it?

We've established that the word 'ensure', as in the 'Fair Work Commission must ensure', is used in this act 71 times. So, in the past, the parliament hasn't been shy of requiring the Fair Work Commission to do certain things—and this will make it 72, I guess.

I guess I haven't met many shy people in this place, so I'm sure that that's not a surprise at all. Perhaps I'm not articulating myself properly. Through this bill, the government is giving the Fair Work Commission a directive, as opposed to letting them use fair and reasonable measures of their own judgement, yet you can't explain how they're going to be directed. That's confusing to me. And I guess it's confusing to the employer groups and the others that provided evidence in the Senate inquiry that suggests that this could potentially be problematic.

It's not unusual in this legislation for the Fair Work Commission to be effectively told that they must do certain things or that they must ensure certain things. It's also not unusual for the Fair Work Commission to be then given discretion to determine a whole range of things. That's what will happen here too.

Senator, I might just make the point that you have said several times that the coalition supports penalty rates. We're entirely able to vote on this bill right now, if you support penalty rates. This has been going for a while, and we've been going round and round in circles. It feels a lot like holding up a vote on penalty rates.

In scrutinising legislation, I take my role as a senator very, very seriously. I actually very much enjoy my committee work. I think that it is a critical component of what we do here, and I don't take it lightly. I don't believe that scrutinising any kind of legislation suggests that you don't support it. What it means is that we are asking the appropriate questions to ensure that the laws that are passed in this place are fit for purpose and don't create problems and challenges for those people who we're here to represent.

I acknowledge that this may be frustrating for you, but I do have more questions. When applying proposed section 135A(1)(b), is the commission required to consider only actual patterns of work, or must it also account for extreme or hypothetical scenarios? I used the example in a different set of questions earlier today of a worker who maybe just works on Sundays or a worker who just works on public holidays.

I answered that question hours ago, and I refer to my previous answer.

I don't think we answered that particular question.

In cases such as annualised wage arrangements, how would the commission reconcile the requirement under section 139(1)(f) to include safeguards against disadvantage with a stricter requirement in proposed section 135A(1)(b) to guarantee no loss of remuneration? Which of these two would take precedence?

All of that is a matter for the commission.

Surely, in the drafting of the legislation, we've considered if there are two competing clauses and which one is a priority—or are you suggesting that that was not considered in the drafting of the legislation?

No, I'm suggesting that the commission has discretion to interpret the legislation and apply it.

Are you able to share with us the government's view or your belief in how you would intend or think that it would operate, or do you have no view whatsoever as to how this element of the legislation you're putting forward would be effectively implemented?

I don't think it would be appropriate for me to suggest how the commission would apply that.

I'm not asking how the commission would apply it; I'm asking what the government's intent would be in terms of the legislation.

We don't regard those clauses as competing; we regard them as consistent.

The Fair Work Commission's live work-from-home test case is exploring how to remove barriers to flexible working. Can the government guarantee that this bill will not prevent the commission from refining penalty rate constructs to enable work from home?

I think I said before that this doesn't have any impact on work-from-home arrangements.

I'm going back to the question earlier today in relation to nondisclosure agreements. Are you able to tell me the number of nondisclosure agreements that were entered into as part of the consultation process on this bill?

My understanding is that no new NDAs were entered into for the purposes of this bill. I think what I said before was that NDAs are entered into as part of an annual arrangement with the parties who participate in that process, and that agreement then applies for whatever consultations occur over the course of that 12 months.

I've spoken before about the regulatory burdens that small businesses in this country are experiencing, particularly the constant stream of new compliance burdens from this government. I spoke as well about businessowners spending some 15 hours a week on compliance time, taking away from serving their customers, from hiring staff, from growing their business or even, heaven forbid, from spending time with their families on the weekends. Unlike large organisations, these small operators cannot readily absorb this resource drain or these costs, and the result is fewer jobs, less competition and more market power being handed to big business instead of small business. COSBOA and other business groups invited to the productivity round table/talkfest have warned that this bill will discourage employment and drag down productivity. These are important things to worry about.

You've said you cannot say how many small businesses will be impacted or what the real cost will be. I think it's unfair to assert that none will be impacted, because it is clear that there is a retrospective element to this bill, whether the government wants to accept or not, and these businesses are facing record insolvencies, high compliance obligations and rising operational costs. I can talk through some more words around that, but what I'm trying to say to you here is that things are really, really hard for Australian small businesses.

It's tough. They're struggling. Many are struggling to stay afloat. Many business owners are not taking salaries or payments themselves, in order to ensure that they can keep their staff, keep their doors open and keep serving their community. What we're worried about is the fact that this legislation adds yet another layer of confusion and complexity.

I acknowledge that you say that you do not accept or do not agree with the evidence provided at the Senate inquiry. But there was substantive and compelling evidence that suggests that small businesses will be significantly impacted by this legislative change. That's what we're trying to do with these important amendments—protect, and ensure we protect, those businesses. In protecting them, we're actually protecting Australian workers, because, if an Australian small business closes its doors, then that employee loses their job. It's not one versus the other.

I owned a number of small businesses for a number of years. One of my key priorities was to ensure that my employees were well paid and happy and that their work arrangements suited them. I had a number of people with flexible work arrangements, and that is really important. Small businesses aren't the bad guy here. I have a concern that this is being labelled as one versus the other. We are trying to protect the interests of Australian small businesses, which are entirely consistent— (Quorum formed)Ultimately, what we are trying to do is protect Australian small businesses, protect Australian workers and ensure that their right to make mutually beneficial agreements remains, particularly as it relates to flexibility and working from home.

I have asked you this question in a different frame before, but I will ask you now differently. Given the evidence that has come out from the scrutiny via the Senate inquiry, will the government look at doing some modelling as to the potential impacts to small business of this bill, particularly in hours and dollars, as it relates to compliance burden?

As I said earlier, we will continue to monitor all of these impacts in the way that we ordinarily do, but what we're seeking to do is deliver on a commitment that we made to the Australian people and that the Australian people voted for.

I understand that, and it is very noble to deliver on a commitment. That commitment was made prior to the House moving the legislation through based on a Senate inquiry, and that Senate inquiry has raised concerns. We need to understand that the scenario we have today is somewhat different to the scenario that we had when the promise was made. So my question is around whether you will now consider it, given it wasn't considered before the passage of this legislation—rather than moving forward.

No. Employer groups opposed this policy when we announced it. They opposed every change we made to workplace relations laws in the last term. They opposed it during the Senate committee. They will oppose it, I predict, after the law is passed. And the committee recommended that this bill be passed.

There was also, I'm told, a very good dissenting report attached to that committee decision, which highlighted the many concerns. I think it's important again for us to note that that compelling evidence clearly stated that there was going to be significant compliance burden for Australian small businesses. Are you concerned that the risk of this compliance burden could actually force many Australian small businesses to cut staff or hours because of potential complexities that arise from this bill?

No, I'm not, partly because the same groups said that every other piece of workplace relations reform we passed would cut jobs, send businesses broke et cetera. It didn't happen, and I predict that those warnings will prove to be untrue as well.

Minister, I find that deeply troubling. Are you suggesting to me that we are currently not seeing record small-business insolvencies, particularly in the construction sector and hospitality?

My recollection of the figures is that, in percentage terms, the number of insolvencies that we're seeing now has not gone up. I can pull the figures out when we resume tomorrow that show, in fact, that it compares quite favourably to what we saw under the coalition. Of course, there are small businesses that become insolvent. That has happened, unfortunately, for those businesses forever. I mentioned some figures in question time today that showed that the number of small businesses in Australia is actually higher now than it was when we came to office. So I understand there are insolvencies, and that's really difficult for the businesses going through that and the people who work for those businesses. But there's no evidence to suggest that the government's changes have led to those insolvencies in the way that some people claim.

Just for my own clarity and understanding, Minister, are you suggesting that this government is not currently presiding over record small-business insolvencies?

Again, I'll get you the exact figures tomorrow, but my recollection is that, in percentage terms, the number of small businesses becoming insolvent has not increased. I'll get you the correct figures tomorrow. You can look at raw numbers. There are more small businesses in Australia now than there were two or three years ago. It's therefore not surprising that there are more small businesses insolvent. But, in percentage terms, the figure is not as unfavourable as you're suggesting.

I would be interested in you providing those figures and the basis for that assessment, Minister, thank you. Did the government make any assessments or considerations as to whether this bill would accelerate consolidation towards big business in our country, leaving small-business operators unable to compete, effectively throwing their hands up in the air, unable to take any more?

Before I give the call to the minister, I remind the chamber that we have about four minutes left before adjournment.

I think your question was whether I accept that proposition, and the answer is no.

Apologies, Minister. I asked whether or not the government assessed whether the bill would accelerate consolidation towards small businesses, with small businesses effectively giving up, saying it's too hard.

I'm not aware of that having been assessed.

Did the government conduct any work or any assessment to quantify how many employees could potentially lose flexibility to negotiate higher base pay in exchange for rolled-up penalty arrangements?

I'm not aware of that having occurred. What I am aware of, and to clarify something I said earlier in terms of the number of employees who would benefit from this bill, is that the current matters before the commission, the three different awards—there are 443,500 employees covered by the retail award; the banking, finance and insurance award; and the clerk's award. That's 15 per cent of award-reliant workers, and they are exactly the people whose penalty rates are currently under threat from the application being brought by employer groups. They're exactly the people who will benefit from these laws.

This bill represents the 36th major change to the Fair Work Act since this government came to power in 2022. Of the 35 major changes thus far, 34 disproportionately affect small businesses—like a cafe, say, with five employees—just as much as they do a large corporation with 10,000 staff. Do you think that is fair? Do you believe that small-business owners are coping with this fast pace of change? Do you believe that it is reasonable to expect them to take on the burden of yet another regulatory change without the appropriate impact statements and assessments being made?

As I've repeatedly said, we think that what's important is that we deliver on a commitment that we gave to the Australian people, that the Australian people voted for, that penalty rates should be protected in awards.

I've actually been provided with those figures that I was talking about regarding small businesses becoming insolvent. According to ASIC data, under this government insolvencies as a proportion of all companies have been the lowest on record, averaging 0.29 per cent. That's half the rate recorded under the Howard government, which was 0.5 per cent, and lower than the Abbot-Turnbull-Morrison government's, which was 0.32 per cent. Average monthly new company registrations are higher under this government than under any government on record, at 25,000 per month. So, for all the predictions that our workplace relations laws would mean the end of the world for small businesses, that has not been the case. I predict it will not be the case when this bill is passed either.

I will be interested in looking at the granular data. I think we asked some questions at the last estimates in relation to that. Some of those businesses that are noted as being the new businesses might actually be microbusinesses that actually don't have any staff. So there is a variance between businesses that are employers and businesses that are not employers. However, I will move on.

My next question relates to business automation. If business automation reduces the need for casuals to work unsociable hours, will those workers take home less pay under their awards as a result of the implementation of this bill?

I'm not sure that it's got anything to do with business automation. What will happen as a result of this bill is that employees in Australia, whether they be employees of large or small businesses, will not face having their penalty rates cut from the awards, and that includes the 443,500 employees who are currently subject to a cut.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: It being 7.30pm, I shall now report to the Senate.

Progress reported.

I wanted to talk tonight about the issues that we are experiencing nationally and internationally in relation to cybersecurity and the attacks that have happened, as we know, in some major companies like Qantas. We saw the devastation of the impact of their cyberattack and the concern that gave Australians when their names, addresses and date of birth were accessed during that cyberattack. We were very fortunate that credit card details, passport data and Frequent Flyer numbers were not accessed. It is a concern not only to us in this place but to the Australian community. We all have a responsibility to protect those things by monitoring the amount of time we spend on social media platforms and the information we give out.

Yet we know this is a troubling pattern. If we go back to September 2022, Optus suffered a massive breach that affected over nine million Australians. Sensitive data such as drivers licences, Medicare numbers and passport details were exposed. People had to queue at service centres to urgently replace IDs and come to grips with the fact that their personal information might be circulating on the dark web indefinitely.

Not long after that, Medicare, another cornerstone of the Australian service landscape, was attacked by cybercriminals who accessed deeply private and distressing health records. Sensitive information relating to mental health issues, abortions and chronic illnesses was stolen and, in some cases, released publicly in an attempt to extort.

Just last year we saw what is now considered the largest cyberincident in Australian history: the attack on MediSecure, a digital prescription service. This breach exposed the data of nearly 13 million Australians and underscores just how expansive our vulnerability is when it comes to third-party service providers.

Australians are losing confidence in the ability of businesses to protect their most sensitive information. The public now lives in a constant state of alert, wary of the next scam email, suspicious phone call or identity theft, and who can blame them? We cannot and will not allow this burden to affect Australians. As a government, we will do everything we can, but we also have to individually take responsibility.

As Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Law Enforcement during the last parliament, I heard countless testimonies through the committee from witnesses about the global challenges surrounding cybersecurity and how security agencies including ASIO, the AFP, Border Force and ACIC are working around the clock with other jurisdictions and foreign governments to bring cybercriminals to justice. What we know now is that there are no borders when it comes to cybercrime. We know there are no borders when it comes to the sexual exploitation of children, but what I do know is that our agencies are working, as I said, around the clock and across borders internationally to hold those criminals accountable for their actions.

The Albanese Labor government understands what is at stake. That's why we have made cybersecurity a national priority. We've established a National Cyber Security Coordinator to oversee preparedness and respond swiftly in the face of these incidents. The Albanese government has expanded the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act to ensure that sensitive sectors, from transport and telecommunications to health and financial services, are treated as essential to national security, and they are essential to our national security.

Our recently implemented Cyber Security Act 2024 introduces mandatory reporting of ransomware attacks and cyberextortion incidences. Businesses can no longer sweep incidents under the rug. Transparency builds resilience. It builds stronger security infrastructure and it breeds trust within our cybersecurity systems. But some of the most vulnerable people are targeted, like young people. People who are desperate to make extra money at home are used for money laundering. We need to be more alert. We need to talk about this within our communities and within our families, because it can happen so easily. People are embarrassed if they're being scammed, and they shouldn't be. It needs to be reported.

There is a crisis in our nation's schools. For all the investment, reform packages and rhetoric, Australia's education system is underperforming. The evidence is undeniable. International rankings show our students slipping year after year in reading, writing, mathematics and science. Employers lament the lack of basic skills in school leavers. Parents complain that their children are distracted, disengaged and disheartened. Teachers themselves are exhausted by the churn of new fads and initiatives that never deliver what they promise.

We were once a country proud of its education system. Today we are in decline. In the name of progress we have traded rigour for irrelevance and depth for destruction. Classrooms are saturated with devices, yet students increasingly struggle with literacy and numeracy. Curriculums are crowded with ideological experiments, while the bedrock skills that form the foundation of learning are neglected. This is not innovation; it's erosion.

And yet there are seeds of hope. Across Australia parents, educators and communities are rediscovering what truly works in education—an approach which is disciplined, rounded and comprehensive. It is an approach that values knowledge, builds character and forms the whole person.

One striking example is St John of Kronstadt Academy, recently profiled in the national press. This school has embraced screen-free learning and returned to the basics of grammar, logic and rhetoric. These students read great books, engage in sustained thinking and learn without the constant harm of digital distraction. It is a reminder that education is not about keeping up with the trends; it is about passing on truth.

Another beacon of renewal can be found in my home state of South Australia. St Benedict School at Mount Torrens in the Adelaide Hills opened its doors in 2024 with a bold vision—to build a school that is both ancient and new. Its founding principal, Fernando Farrugia, captured the heart of their mission when he said, 'We are not reinventing education; we are simply remembering it.' He described their goal as a school not driven by fads but by formation, and not chasing the culture but shaping it. This is not a theory; it is practice. St Benedict students study Latin, read Aristotle, learn mathematics and begin each day with calm reflection. Their classrooms are filled not with screens but with conversation, reading and genuine human interaction. Their education is not about producing test scores but about cultivating wisdom and discernment—an approach which has proven to develop great thinkers throughout the ages.

Of course, launching such a school was not without its challenges. As Mr Farrugia observed, 'Nothing teaches humility faster than opening a new school.' There were printers that would not print, missing whiteboard markers and donated furniture that was yet to arrive. But, beyond the teething troubles, what emerged was something extraordinary—laughter, genuine learning and a community bound together by a shared commitment to a higher purpose. This model is not elitism; it is humanism in its truest form. It says that every child, regardless of background, deserves to be formed in mind and character, to engage with the great ideas of history and to be taught not only how to succeed but how to live well.

This raises important questions for us all. What kinds of citizens are we raising? Are we forming minds capable of reasoned debate, hearts attuned to justice and young people grounded in knowledge and wisdom, or are we producing graduates with credentials but no character and with skills but no discernment?

The answer lies in what we choose to value. If we continue to pursue fashionable theories, digital gimmicks and ideological agendas, the decline will deepen—all the more so if we continue to lower standards in an attempt to be inclusive. But if we champion schools that teach children to think deeply, speak clearly and act justly, there is every reason for hope.

The soul of society is passed on through its schools. If we neglect that inheritance, we risk losing it. But if we nurture it, we can once again build a generation equipped with knowledge, character and the capacity to shape the world for the better. Let's reclaim our inheritance.

Public universities are in a deep, structural crisis. I have had the privilege of working at a university, teaching students, guiding and supporting them and seeing firsthand how universities can transform lives for the better—not just of those within their walls but of the communities they serve. But now, unfortunately, the opposite is becoming true as universities are run like corporations, where staff and students are being treated as faceless numbers, as pockets to empty and passions to exploit.

VCs are playing right out of this government's playbook—quash and silence any dissent, suppress academic freedom, cut jobs and services wherever possible and, most of all, be beholden to the industry lobbyists and profit-driven, climate-destroying and warmongering interests like the coal and gas corporations and the weapons industry. Universities, which should be beacons of democracy, debate, equity and freedom of speech, have become places where dissent is silenced, free speech is suppressed and staff and students have less and less say in how their institutions are run.

You only need to look at the treatment of students and staff who have stood up and spoken out for justice for Palestine to see our morally bereft and hostile universities have become to activism and protest. Democratic rights have been thrown right out the window. The University of Melbourne is just one example emboldened by this government's complicity in Israel's genocide. It went on a witch-hunt to expel student activists and broke privacy laws when it chose to spy on students and staff. Surveillance is the tool of authoritarian states, not places of learning. A university that spies on its students has lost its moral compass.

Across the country, universities are set to cut more than 3½ thousand jobs. Of these, 1,500 are in New South Wales. These are people whose careers now hang in the balance. There is a tsunami of corporatisation and dismantling of the public mission of our universities. Jobs are being cut left right and centre, while the largesse of the executive class and their corporate consultants is on the rise. Staff are fearful, intimidated, traumatised and disrespected while million-dollar VCs rule the roost. Courses are being closed while student fees and debt just keep increasing.

These decisions that destroy lives and futures are guided not by public interest or the university community but by private consultant firms like KPMG and Nous Group. The consequences have been brutal, with thousands of jobs slashed and courses cut across universities, while these consultants are being paid millions of dollars of public money—funds that are much needed for supporting learning, teaching and research.

Successive Labor and Liberal governments can't wash their hands of this as they are also the architects of this crisis in higher education. They cut funding, froze funding, hiked fees, dog whistled on international students and, for years, ignored the rampant casualisation, insecure work and systemic wage theft that is now amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars, with tens of thousands of staff affected at almost every university across the country, while VC and executive salaries have exploded.

The corporatisation and commodification of public education is obscene. This cooked system that governments and uni managements have created is well overdue for an overhaul—and university communities are going to force you to do this.

Because, when you punish staff and students, when you replace courses with consultants and when you collapse under your own arrogance, you create resistance. You galvanise staff, students and unions. Our universities are the future of our students, our staff, our communities and our society, and we know that a better university built on democracy and equity, run by staff and students, is possible. We will fight for it and we will win.

I rise today to acknowledge the incredible work being done by the Salvation Army of Hobart. Recently I had the privilege to attend and hear about the wonderful work the team are doing for the Hobart community. The Salvation Army is an organisation that continues to stand as a pillar of hope and practical support for so many in our community. Every Sunday evening, the Salvos in Hobart open their doors to deliver more than just a meal. They deliver dignity, connection and care. Each week, around 50 to 60 people gather for a warm, nutritious three-course meal. But this is not simply about food on a plate. It's about creating a sense of belonging and a place where people who are doing it tough know they are seen and valued. It's easy to underestimate the power of that connection. For many of those attending, this might be the only time in the week they share a meal at a table with others or feel part of a community.

The Salvos provide a lifeline that is as social and emotional as it is physical. Alongside this, the Hobart Salvos are deeply committed to supporting young people. They provide a dedicated space and youth group for teenagers, giving them a positive environment to develop life skills, build friendships and access mentoring. But what really stands out is the holistic nature of their work. They recognise that poverty, disadvantage and crisis are never just about one thing. They take a wraparound approach by addressing not only physical needs but also emotional needs, and help individuals move towards stability, wellbeing and a sense of hope for the future. Through partnerships with other organisations like Orange Sky, they offer practical services so people can have a shower, wash their clothes if they need to and restore some personal dignity.

What I find most inspiring about the Hobart Salvos is how they create pathways for people to give back. Nicole from the Hobart team shared two very powerful examples with me. The first story is of a community member who once accessed Salvos' recovery services. Having come through that journey, they now volunteer regularly. Their lived experience gives them a unique ability to connect with others who are vulnerable. The second story is of someone who faced significant mental health challenges and was searching for a place to belong. Now, every Sunday, he helps pack up the chairs and tables after dinner and prepares the space for Monday morning. It might seem like a small act, but it's an act of service and pride, and it shows what happens when someone is welcomed and valued.

These are stories of transformation and community. They remind us that the real strength of organisations like the Salvation Army lies not just in the services they provide but in the human connections they foster. I want to place on record my deep thanks to the Salvation Army Hobart team—Stuart, Jo and Amelia—and to every volunteer who gives their time and heart to this mission. You are changing lives and building community, and, through that, you're making Tasmania stronger.

Rugby in Australia is more than a game. It is part of our identity and community. Nowhere is that more evident than in the growth of women's rugby. Since the first New South Wales women's team was formed in 1994, the Wallaroos have gone from strength to strength. They are now competing at the highest levels, inspiring a new generation of girls and young women to believe that they, too, can run out in the green and gold.

Over the weekend, the Wallaroos took to the field against Samoa in what was a powerful and symbolic contest. As an Australian, I was of course proud to cheer for our Wallaroos, but this match was about far more than the final scoreline. For the first time, it was broadcast free to air, giving young girls in Sydney, Samoa, Suva and beyond the chance to see women competing at the highest level. That visibility matters. If you can see it, you can dream it. For too long, women's sport has been hidden in the shadows.

This fixture between the Wallaroos and Samoa also highlighted the deep bonds we share with our Pacific neighbours. Rugby has always been one of the strongest cultural connections between Australia and our neighbours. In Samoa, Tonga and Fiji, rugby isn't just entertainment; it's nationhood, identity and pride. For many of our Pacific neighbours, their national rugby teams embody the strength and hopes of their people. When Australia plays these nations, it is more than competition. It is a celebration of friendship, mutual respect and the ties that bind us across the Pacific.

I had the privilege of recently meeting with Peter Murphy, the chief executive officer of NSW Rugby Union. His passion for the game and his vision for the future was inspirational. He spoke about the scale of rugby in New South Wales, where more than 100,000 players are registered—over 56 per cent of the national participant base. That makes New South Wales rugby the powerhouse of Australian rugby. From the Shute Shield to the Jack Scott Cup, from suburban clubs to country competitions, rugby in this state is a vast ecosystem of players, coaches, referees and volunteers. I wish the players all the very best this Saturday in the Shute Shield. I'll be there to cheer you on; it's going to be a great battle.

What is just important, however, is that rugby in New South Wales is not confined to elite competition. Rugby is about building inclusive communities, creating pathways for women and girls and ensuring the game reaches every corner of our state—from Newcastle to Dubbo, from the Illawarra to Western Sydney. Through initiatives such as the Rugby for Good program, the game is being used to improve health and wellbeing, provide opportunities for young people and strengthen community connections. In 2024 alone, $1.1 million was invested into Rugby for Good initiatives. That is evidence of a code that understands its social responsibility and is acting on it.

Australians of course love a World Cup. We saw it with the FIFA Women's World Cup last year, which was a watershed moment for women's sport in this country. We will see it again with the men's Rugby World Cup hosted here in 2027. But let me say this very clearly: this is a warm-up act. The real showstopper will be the 2029 Women's Rugby World Cup right here in Australia. That tournament has the potential to transform women's rugby forever, leaving a legacy in participation, visibility and recognition that will endure for generations.

When we talk about sport we often focus on wins and losses, but the true power of sport lies in its ability to unite. Rugby has always carried political and social power. It goes beyond divisions of language, culture and geography. In the Pacific, rugby is as much about diplomacy as it is about competition. It builds bridges, it fosters respect and it reminds us of our shared values.

I stand here today in strong support of women's rugby because, when our Wallaroos take the field, they are representing far more than a national side. They represent progress, they represent opportunity and they represent the enduring spirit of our Pacific family. Above all, they show every young girl in this country that the future of rugby and the future of sport is theirs to shape.

Senate adjourned at 19:54