If there is no objection, the meetings are authorised.

The Members of Parliament (Staff) Amendment (Providing Certainty and Improving Integrity) Bill 2025 exists for one reason and one reason only: the Prime Minister of Australia, Anthony Albanese, has used parliamentary staffing as a political weapon. The Australian Senate has an opportunity to stop the Prime Minister of Australia from starving the parliament of scrutiny, because that is exactly what he has done.

The Australian people don't often actually know what goes on in this place, so it's up to us, as senators on the non-government side, to make sure they are aware on a daily basis of what the Albanese government is doing to undermine democracy. When you undermine democracy, you undermine the very fundamentals that the Australian people live and breathe on a daily basis. What Mr Albanese doesn't understand is this: parliament isn't the Prime Minister's private office; it is the people's house. Those who are not on the government benches have an obligation to the Australian people to ensure that the actions of the government are properly scrutinised.

Let us be very, very clear: Mr Albanese has treated parliamentary staffing like a political weapon. All this bill does—it's a very simple bill, and that's why anybody on the non-government benches should be supporting it—is take that weapon out of the Prime Minister's hands. He's got to realise that cutting opposition staff doesn't save money. It's a great catchcry, though. What it does, though, is this: quite deliberately it buys less scrutiny of the government by the non-government parties on behalf of the Australian people. Quite frankly, those who are not in government need to ensure that the Australian people are served and are served well.

All we are doing with this bill is putting a minimum floor—that's it—under staffing so that the Prime Minister cannot starve the parliament of the resources that it needs to properly hold him, his ministers and his government to account. This has got nothing to do with entitlements at all. This is all about democracy, the undermining of democracy by the Albanese Labor government, and, more than that, this is about integrity. Strong governments not only withstand strong scrutiny; they welcome scrutiny, because they are so committed to the decision that they are making that they are prepared to have that decision scrutinised. Well, not this government.

Quite frankly, the Australian people need to understand what has happened to the Australian parliament since May 2022. This place has become a shop floor. Quite frankly, the non-government side is resembling the textile union. The textile union is bullied by the construction union, which is now the government. The way you silence democracy is to make it look all pretty on the outside so that the Australian people believe their parliament is functioning. Well, guess what, Australia? This government is undermining democracy. There is next to no scrutiny left in this place, let me assure you, courtesy of the Albanese government teaming up with the Greens to make as many changes as they can to ensure that scrutiny does not occur. This place, quite frankly, is now resembling the union movement.

You've got the big union—that is, the government—on one side, doing everything it can to silence the smaller union—that is, those on the non-government side. That is not healthy for democracy. But, my goodness, that is actually how the Australian parliament now functions. Why even bother calling us the Australian Senate? All we resemble now, going into the fourth year of a left-wing socialist government, is a shop floor. Any business out there that has dealt with a big union that seeks to bully, intimidate and silence knows exactly what I am talking about. This place is no longer the Australian Senate; this place is a shop floor. God help Australia when the big union, aka the Albanese government, is in control, silencing—and every day it gets a little bit worse—the smaller unions, which are now those of us on the non-government benches.

Labor will vote against the bill, don't worry about that, as will, unfortunately, the Australian Greens, but we'll get to them shortly. They've got a brand new party room, almost a million bucks worth, courtesy of the Australian people. They will do a deal. They will do a deal on anything. They will do a deal later today on an estimates schedule. They talk about transparency. They talk about more scrutiny of this government. They get offered something, and they backflip. You'll watch that today. Later on today, there will be a vote on adding a bit more scrutiny. We'll be supporting the very reasonable motion that Senator David Pocock is putting forward to ensure that the smaller union has an opportunity to scrutinise the bigger union on the shop floor. Let's watch the Australian Greens; let's see what they do. I can tell you right now that they won't be siding with us. They'll be siding with the big union in the Australian government.

Labor will vote against this bill. And why will they vote against this bill? Because they're voting to keep a system where the Prime Minister of the day decides who gets to scrutinise him and who doesn't. So the Australian people will ultimately be the ones who miss out. The way the current system works is that, under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984, the Prime Minister of the day holds the absolute discretion over who gets personal staff and who doesn't. Normally, the Prime Minister of the day, and even Labor prime ministers in time gone by, action on a convention to ensure that those on the non-government side—it doesn't matter if I like you or not; it doesn't matter if I agree with you or not—are adequately resourced so that they can properly scrutinise the decision of that government.

Let us be very, very clear about what has happened here. Mr Albanese, the Prime Minister of Australia—and I'm going to call him what he is, the head unionist—has abused that discretion. He has ripped up decades of convention, cutting opposition—it gets worse—and some crossbench capacity. If you're on the centre right—guess what?—you're actually targeted by the big union. If you're Senator Payman, God help you. You left the big union. You're actually worse off than the rest of us, because you're now a rat and they're out to get you.

They cut the staff of those they don't like. Obviously, they like the Australian Greens, and they do deals with them. The big union plus the Australian Greens equals the number in this place, and that will shortly get us onto an almost $1 million, brand-spanking-new, beautiful party room for the Australian Greens. Ironically, the poor journalist who took the photo has been locked out of this place for a week. They talk big on transparency. God help any journo, though, that goes in and tries to actually take a photo to show the evidence of the dirty deal that's been done between the Greens and the big union, the Albanese government, in relation to staffing, because they'll complain, and then you'll be banned from this place. Again, when you want to talk about the undermining of democracy, that is the undermining of democracy at its very best.

Mr Albanese has ripped up decades of convention, as I said, cutting opposition and some crossbench capacity, and as a result has deliberately weakened the parliament's ability to hold the left-wing, socialist Albanese government to account. This legislation doesn't just fix it for Mr Albanese; it fixes it for any government of any persuasion going forward. It's very simple. It restores balance, transparency and integrity to a system that the Prime Minister, Mr Albanese, has treated like a private fiefdom.

Let us be clear about the problem. Right now there are no minimum staffing levels for non-government parliamentarians. There is no transparent basis for how resources are distributed. There's no review and no appeal. The Prime Minister, as he has done, can reward his left-wing friends. He can punish his critics and even reduce an allocation to zero, as he has done, and there is no check or balance on that power. This isn't hypothetical. This is what occurred in 2022 and has again occurred in 2025. That, quite frankly, is not good enough.

This is a Prime Minister who, every day, when he stands up, talks a big game on openness and transparency, because that's exactly what you do when you're the big union. You present a facade to the world and you hope none of them come to the shop floor, the Australian Senate, to see what's actually going on—the silencing of democracy. He talks a big game on openness, but, when it comes to staffing, he shuts the books.

As I said, where are the Albanese government's little friends, their partners in crime, the Australian Greens? When this bill does come to a vote—it may not come to a vote today—let's see where they sit. When Senator Fatima Payman sought scrutiny of the Prime Minister's staffing decisions, the Australian Greens would not back her push for accountability. Worse, while others copped the cuts and delays, the Greens, as I said, have benefited from a newly constructed party room in Parliament House, reportedly costing around $886,000. Let's round it up to the nearest million.

What is worse is that they got angry when a photo was published of it. I thought we liked to talk about transparency in this place, because that's what happens every time the Greens stand up and every time the big union, Mr Albanese, stands up. Yet a journalist takes a photo, purely to show the Australian public—'There's a million bucks of your money well spent, or not, on the Australian Greens' new party room.' What happens to the journalist? He's banned from this place for a week. If you want to silence democracy, that is exactly how the big union does it when this place is treated like a shop floor.

That should tell the Australian public everything they need to know about the Australian Greens—special deals for themselves; silence on scrutiny for everyone else. The Greens were happy to find a budget for their new party room but not the courage—you can't put a price on courage—to actually back transparency. There are special deals for you, and you silence everyone else. When it came time to choose scrutiny or perks, what did the Australian Greens choose? Well, it's there for all to see—the photo was taken. They chose the furniture. Guess what? This bill will draw a line under that behaviour. All it does is place a floor of what staffing for non-government parliamentarians can fall to whilst at the same time—and this is important—preserving the government's overall control of staffing numbers and the Prime Minister's discretion above those minimums.

What this says to the Australian people is this: 'You win!' This is because it ensures that those who are not on the government benches and who are not part of the Australian Greens have the staffing and the resources required to properly scrutinise the government's decisions. Why does this matter? Because it's about a healthy democracy. That is what we are talking about now. This is a direct attack on democracy. My God, look at other countries in the world where they silence the opposition! That's where we're heading in Australia.

I don't call this the Australian Senate anymore, I call this a 'Shop floor'. This government behaves like the big union—aka, the construction union—and we on this side are the textile union, constantly crying out for a voice. Guess what, Australia? You're the textile union and you ain't got no voice under this Prime Minister! Seriously.

This shouldn't be a partisan question. It's a democratic one. And if you respect democracy, if you respect that people died for us for the freedoms that we have today so that we could be the great democratic nation that we are, I would have thought—ensuring that democracy is preserved and the basic accountabilities of a government are enforced—this would be an easy decision for you. This shouldn't be a partisan question. It's a democratic one.

Parliament is not Anthony Albanese's private office. It belongs to the Australian people. If you're afraid of the questions, fix your policy. Don't rig, as you have done, the staffing outcome. Support the bill, strengthen the parliament, support democracy and restore accountability. I hope that all of you, senators, have a look at the bill and understand that if you're backing democracy and the Australian people you'll support this bill. (Time expired)

I rise to speak to the Members of Parliament (Staff) Amendment (Providing Certainty and Improving Integrity) Bill 2025. I share the concerns of the crossbench and the opposition about staffing levels and the way resources are shared and acknowledge that this has become increasingly problematic as the make-up of our parliament changes.

The Greens received a national vote of 12 per cent at the federal election, which equates to just over 35 per cent of the government's vote, but the government has arbitrarily decided that our staffing should be pegged at three per cent of theirs. Interesting maths. It's completely inappropriate that minor party and Independent parliament staffing is entirely at the discretion of the Prime Minister. Under the current arrangements, the government of the day can disempower minor parties and Independents and use staffing allocations punitively against members of parliament whom they disagree with. The model proposed by the coalition, however, is more of the same, which entrenches the power of the major parties.

Several years ago, we made the important decision to create an independent tribunal on parliamentarians' pay. It is long overdue that we depoliticise staffing resources too. Personal staff contracting is a consistently challenging process to navigate and one that has a significant toll on staff wellbeing. We took steps to deal with the impacts of the stressful nature of the work parliamentary staff do, through the Jenkins review and the implementation of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service. A staffing formula that gives certainty and structure to staff would be an important reform.

I know that when politicians start talking about themselves people tune out. They don't want to hear about parliamentarian staffing levels when there are so many big issues before this parliament and facing ordinary people in their daily lives. It's important that we get on with those real issues. Yes, in order to do so, we need to make sure that parliamentarians have the staff to enable that work, but we have a number of concerns with this bill that were previously conveyed to the Liberals but have not been addressed in the final version they have introduced.

Mainly, it entrenches the power of the major parties. It entrenches a large number of resources for the opposition, regardless of how many votes or members they have. It provides a significant number of resources for Independents, bringing their total staffing up to eight each, with no regard to whether they're in balance of power or not and the significant workload that that entails. It actually provides significant new incentives for MPs to leave parties and become Independents, and, ironically, it places further barries on the Nationals' ability to split from the coalition. This bill does not reflect an appropriate use of parliamentary resources because it's not a staffing model that respects the will of the voters. It fails to reflect and reinforce the choices of those voters, particularly the millions of people who voted Greens.

I note that those who introduced this bill have claimed that there are winners and losers in the Prime Minister's allocations in 2025, but as far as I can see there have been cuts all round. In 2022, the Green party room grew by 60 per cent, and that's why, in 2022, we asked for a party room that we could fit in. That's now been delivered, but it's somewhat bizarre that the coalition thinks that's a recent thing; we've been waiting for 3½ years for that party room—by the by. In 2022, our party room grew by 60 per cent but we saw zero increase in personal staff. After this most recent federal election, the Greens party room returned to its former size, but we still had staffing cuts.

I share the frustrations of those who put this bill forward, and, with no rhyme or reason for the staffing levels, it is a difficult experience for parliamentarians and primarily for staff. But the coalition's failure to do the work required to develop a model that reflects the purpose of this place and respects the trust that voters have placed in their elected representatives means that we can't support the bill in its current form.

I move the second reading amendment that's been circulated in my name:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to work with all elected groups and individuals in the Parliament to develop a fair and independent staffing model for allocating personal staff that reflects the diversity of representation, as elected by the Australian people, and addresses staff wellbeing and sustainability of workload."

I want to address another matter regarding staff in this building that made the news again yesterday. Brittany Higgins was raped in this building, in her workplace. She experienced the worst of political life, but she made a selfless choice to tell her story. She fought to drag her story into the sunlight and forced everyone in this place to face the truth—that this workplace is not safe, that men in this workplace feel entitled to make women unsafe and that bosses fail to hold them accountable. There are people who will go to sleep knowing that they did not do everything in their power to protect Brittany or help her tell her story, and those people's consciences are up to them—

Senator Hanson, a point of order?

I've got a question. This is completely right off topic of what this debate is about: staffing allocations—not to do with Brittany Higgins.

We always allow a fair degree of latitude in discussion of bills in the second reading stage. Senator Waters, you have the call.

We are talking about staff; thank you for that ruling. On behalf of the Greens, I thank Brittany Higgins and all survivors for their courage. The Set the standard report found that one in three parliamentary—

Senator Henderson?

I have a point of order on direct relevance. I understand your earlier ruling in relation to some latitude in these debates, but I really would urge you to bring Senator Waters back to the subject matter of this bill.

As I said earlier, we've always allowed a fair degree of latitude in second reading debates. Senator Waters has the call.

The Set the standard report found that one in three parliamentary staffers in this building had experienced some form of sexual harassment, as had many female parliamentarians. This is unacceptable. Everyone has the right to a safe workplace, whether that's in Parliament House or anywhere else. According to the Australian Human Rights Commission, more than 40 per cent of women and 26 per cent of men have experienced workplace sexual harassment, and one in five women and one in 16 men have experienced sexual violence.

Sexual assault is underreported, and convictions are very rare. We know that an alarming number of people still disbelieve or victim-blame survivors of sexual violence. Partially because of this, almost nine in 10 incidents of sexual assault nationally are not reported to police, and those who do decide to take their perpetrators to court describe the process as horrific and retraumatising. We've seen high-profile cases like Brittany's, Saxon Mullins's, Grace Tame's and countless others play out repeatedly with intense media coverage, and we know the devastating impact that those proceedings can cause all victims-survivors. Women watching the media coverage of those cases are left feeling like they can't come forward, that their experiences may be weaponised or that the contents of their personal text messages might be splashed across the front pages. I salute the strength of anyone who seeks justice through the courts for sexual violence, as it's often re-traumatising and horrific for all survivors of gendered violence.

When Brittany Higgins and Grace Tame appeared at the Press Club in 2022, they asked for three things from parliament: to take abuse in all its forms seriously, to invest in prevention education and for structural change. Those are things that women have been demanding for years, yet progress remains painstakingly slow, and, in some cases, it feels like we're going backwards. It should go without saying that everyone deserves to be free from harassment, bullying and sexual assault. It's a tragedy that it takes the sacrifices and the public re-traumatisation of brave women to wake many people up. This is still unfinished business for staff safety in this building, and the Greens will continue to champion it.

Australians were told this prime minister and his government—straight from his own lips—would be honest, open, fair and accountable. Well, for the last three years, we've seen anything but this in the way he's treated people and this parliament. We are a democracy, yet he treats us as a socialist union controlled government. The one time he gave Australians a real say about any issue was the Voice to Parliament, and they rejected and humiliated him. They showed him he was completely and utterly wrong, and he's never forgiven the Australian people for that. That's why his government is now more secretive than ever. They're doing everything they can to avoid scrutiny and accountability, hiding their true plans and motives.

The Prime Minister has sole discretion to choose how many advisers One Nation and other crossbench senators are allocated. So what did the Prime Minister do? He radically cut the staffing of those senators who do not support the Labor Party. Which party opposes the radical, unworkable policies of Labor more than any other? Of course—One Nation. When the Prime Minister cuts the staffing of those senators who take an opposing political view, he has an obvious conflict of interest. The incentive for the Prime Minister is to cut the resources of his political opponents in seeking to take political advantage and cut us off at the legs. Reducing the number of support staff for a senator effectively reduces the ability of a senator to function on behalf of their electorate and to provide an effective opposition, which is a foundation of our Westminster system of democratic government. Before continuing, here's some background.

Each member of parliament is allocated electorate officers to serve constituents. These are the same in number for all senators. Crossbench senators have, until recently, been allocated two parliamentary advisers who are designated personal advisers. Their duty is to assist senators with researching proposed legislation, assist senators in writing speeches, advise on parliamentary tactics, be the first point of contact with community groups and deputise for senators in meetings when the senator is engaged in the chamber or elsewhere in the state. You may wonder why we need the extra staff. It's because we must do the same work as the major parties with far fewer resources for scrutinising legislation, liaising with effective stakeholders and getting the input of the Australian people, let alone trying to get our legislation drafted to put on the floor of parliament, which is another issue.

On 23 June 2025, Prime Minister Albanese notified me he would not allocate any additional staff to One Nation's two new senators, giving me the responsibility of allocating the same staff resources across twice as many senators. In doing this, he had exercised a discretion authorised under section 4(1), 11(3) and 12 of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984, MOPS. I now present his allocation of senators across the crossbench. Some crossbench senators, including Senator Roberts, were not allocated any personal staff. Senator Payman, who left the Labor Party in disgust, has had no personal staff allocated to her. Senator Lambie, though, who often supports Labor, has been granted three personal staff to assist her in the relatively small state of Tasmania. She's not the only senator. Remember, they've also got 12 senators, including Senator Lambie.

The state I represent, Queensland, has around 10 times the number of constituents as Tasmania. One Nation secured Senate seats in New South Wales, which has more than 8.2 million people, and Western Australia, which has more than three million people—but no personal staff. Remember, Tasmania, with half a million people, has three extra personal staff. Yet we don't get anything for Western Australia or New South Wales; these offices were allocated no staff at all. Significantly, Senators Lidia Thorpe, David Pocock and Tammy Tyrrell are often supportive of Labor and the Greens and have retained their allocations of two each—surprise, surprise! One Nation senators, who often hold Labor accountable—very often, I should say—are cut to an average of one each. Senator Ralph Babet, who holds Labor accountable, was slashed to one. The pattern is clear. Crossbench senators who support Labor were unaffected. Those who hold Labor accountable were halved, gutted.

This clearly shows the Prime Minister to be incapable of fairness and clearly displays his vindictiveness, incompetence and bias. He breached important provisions of administrative law, as defined in common law through decisions in courts including the High Court. These breaches include that he gave no reason for his decision, he had not consulted or sought input from any One Nation senator and he did not act in good faith. Further, he did not act with a proper purpose. He had not considered relevant matters. He had not acted on reasonable grounds, given that One Nation had doubled its existing number of senators from two to four with no increase in personal staff allocated. He did not act based on supporting evidence. He had not provided affected persons with procedural fairness, including personal staff and senators. Senators and affected staff were given no opportunity to put their case to the Prime Minister before his decision to reduce staff.

He or his office ordered the employment of Senator Roberts's staff to be terminated before they were made aware. It's the only senator's office in which that occurred. Senator Roberts was given 12 minutes notice to respond to a deadline late on a Friday night. Senator Roberts worked that night until 10.30 pm and did not check his emails. The Prime Minister had not properly considered the merits of the decision. He has still not indicated that he had evaluated all relevant evidence. He had not acted reasonably or fairly, as senators were not allocated staff on the basis of need, nor were senators treated evenly. Some senators had savage cuts made to staffing, and some had no cuts made at all. The Prime Minister did not inform senators that he had made a decision that affected them. Some senators found out via the media—the respect that is not shown in this place!

The decision flies in the face of the recent review by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet of health risks to parliamentary staffers from workplace stress and excessive work demands. This raises serious workplace health and safety issues. The Parliamentary Workplace Support Service's review concluded that staffing levels overall are not adequate to meet all the parliamentary and electoral work demands placed on staff in some offices. It was stressful to some of the staff—because I've had to deal with it. It's just absolutely disgusting, the way in which it was done. Like I said, it was done through the media. That's how they found out. Also, what's their future? Where are their jobs? The way this has been handled is absolutely disgusting.

In essence, this meant personal staff were overworked. That translates further to workplace health and safety issues. Clearly, the way in which this prime minister actioned core staff to be brutalised shows he doesn't care about workers, especially not One Nation workers. He rants and raves about how he cares about the Australian workers and everything like that. That's a load of garbage, as far as I'm concerned. It has been shown in his actions and his behaviour in this matter.

The Prime Minister and his chief of staff refused to meet Senator Hanson and Senator Roberts. He refused to meet me. I had a meeting with him. This affected Senator Roberts's office. He is the one whose staff had to go. Senator Roberts and I went around. I said: 'No, you have a right to meet with the Prime Minister, Senator Roberts. You will come with me.' So we went around to the Prime Minister's office. The chief of staff came out and said: 'No, he's not meeting with Senator Roberts. He's only got a meeting with you.' I said: 'This affects Senator Roberts. He should have a right to be there in the meeting.' He said, 'I'll go and see what happens.' He came out, and guess what he said: 'Senator Roberts can come in. You can't.'

I'm the leader of the party. I've been given the authority to disburse staff to where I believe they should go. I'm not a parliamentary party. I am an individual senator heading a political party. We are not a recognised parliamentary party, but he's telling me I have to authorise where the staff have to go. Therefore I was also denied the right to go into the office. He couldn't face two of us. He couldn't face me. He didn't want to face me; only Senator Roberts. This Prime Minister is weak, and he couldn't face the two of us to put his case across for why he did what he did. The chief of staff refused to meet with both of us.

In his meeting with the Prime Minister, Senator Roberts raised three main issues: the unfairness of the Prime Minister on staff allocation; the Prime Minister's actions breaching recognised process expected under administrative law provisions; and his partisan decision imposing needless stress on staff, who were already working hard in the taxpayers' interest. The Australian courts have clearly recognised that the exercise of administrative decisions, including the decision to reduce support for senators, must follow the procedural principles set out in Australian case law. The Prime Minister didn't follow any of these principles.

If the Prime Minister supports a fully functioning parliament, democracy and accountability, then he should ensure that members and senators are provided with reasonable resources, including qualified and professional advisers as personal staff. After securing re-election based on claims of transparency, the Prime Minister has abused his position, disrespected Australian law and courts and jeopardised democracy for his political advantage. He has shown that he is incapable of fairness. Our staff have been treated unfairly. This stinks of corruption. That's why we have notified the National Anti-Corruption Commission, and it's why we will be taking this matter to the Fair Work Commission.

The Prime Minister's politically motivated decision will lead to a lack of accountability and, without that, he will be prone to overstepping and bringing himself down. He will be more able to hide behind reduced opposition and scrutiny. That hurts Australia and undermines democracy. This is clearly a further example of the Prime Minister seeking control over the democratic process. I remind everyone that always beneath control there is fear. Why is he afraid of democratic scrutiny? Why is he afraid of losing the control that he covets?

Under the new bill, the government retains over 520 staff while it also retains access to thousands of departmental staff. This bill provides a fairer allocation to the government, opposition, Greens, other parties and crossbench Independents. This bill is well-considered, well-written and fair. Its co-sponsors include the Liberals, Senator Payman, Senator Babet and One Nation, indicating broad support. The bill offers career progression for crossbench staff. It only nominates minimum standards. The Prime Minister can allocate more.

We're all tired of partisan politics that threaten to destroy our country and destroy our democracy. The bill will ensure that support for senators and Australian democracy is not subject to the whims of a recalcitrant prime minister who puts his own personal agenda ahead of the effective operation of this chamber. Both preceding coalition prime ministers allocated equal numbers of personal advisers to each crossbench senator, showing they both saw merit in fairness and democracy. Prime Minister Albanese hides from democracy. He buries democracy. He prevents democracy. One Nation welcomes the spirit with which many diverse senators approached this issue in a united way.

Look, I have my differences with a couple of the other crossbench senators here, but the fact is we've been treated unfairly. I believe that Senator Payman has been treated unfairly too. She has not been given any personal staffing allocation at all. That clearly shows that he never got over the fact that she walked away and turned her back on the Labor Party, and with good reason. That is not fair in this place. This is where the allocation of staff should be fair right across the board for everyone here. We were actually allocated the staff because crossbench senators don't have the huge machine behind us.

As I said, the Labor Party has 520 staff, plus all the departments. You have all that staffing available to you, then you have consultants and you get others in to help you. We don't have that. We have to deal with the legislation, which can change on a daily basis. We have to be across the legislation and what we have to vote on in this chamber—and you've cut our staff. It is disgusting what this Prime Minister has done. I will keep following up.

Our staff that have lost their jobs are going to take this to the Fair Work Commission. I will follow through with the national crime commission. According to the national crime commission, the way this has been handled is wrong. This is not the Prime Minister that we deserve.

This parliament will be known as 'the mean parliament' because of the Prime Minister's mean and tricky actions to reduce the staffing allocation to non-government senators. Under the Labor Party, some staffers are more equal than others. Under Prime Minister Albanese, Labor staffers are more equal than coalition staffers. Indeed, under Labor, Labor members of parliament and senators are more equal than coalition members of parliament and senators.

Australians should expect that our parliament operates in a democratic and transparent fashion. It is an unfortunate and shameful reality, however, that Labor's prime minister is anything but transparent. Remember that this is the least transparent and accountable government since that of Paul Keating.

This Members of Parliament (Staff) Amendment (Providing Certainty and Improving Integrity) Bill 2025 only exists because of the Prime Minister's wilful and deliberate attempts to continue to avoid transparency and scrutiny, the supposed hallmarks of his government. You may recall that the Prime Minister promised to lead the most transparent and accountable government ever—another broken promise, because he leads the least government that Australia has known for decades. On two occasions now Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has broken decades of convention and personally abused his discretionary powers by cutting staffing allocations from the opposition and the crossbench. By making these decisions, Mr Albanese has directly and deliberately reduced the Australian parliament's ability to hold him and his government accountable.

The prime minister of the day should not personally hold arbitrary powers allowing them to strip opposition staffing allocations. It flies in the face of democratic principles and serves only to shield the government from legitimate political and policy scrutiny. This bill makes simple changes to the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984, commonly known as the MOP(S) Act, to create clear guidelines on staffing allocations for the opposition and crossbench. It sets up a fair, balanced and transparent system in the place of discretionary powers given over to the Prime Minister that are open to abuse. That is the current case under Mr Albanese.

Currently, there are no minimum staffing levels for non-government parliamentarians. The system is opaque, confusing, and, up until this point, relied on convention and the goodwill of a prime minister who had the stomach to weather legitimate scrutiny in parliament. But this prime minister, because of his mean and tricky actions, has shown that he has a glass jaw when it comes to legitimate questioning concerning the operations of this Labor government.

This bill fixes these issues and, in doing so, provides clarity and scrutiny for parliamentarians and staff for all sides of politics.

The Greens Senator, Senator Waters, said earlier in her contribution:

… we have a number of concerns with this bill, which were previously conveyed to the Liberals but have not been addressed in the final version they have introduced.

I can advise the Senate that the reason the coalition stopped working with the Greens on this bill is because the Greens—quel surprise, here—did a deal with Labor in the first fortnight of this parliament to vote down Senator Payman's inquiry, despite previously indicating support. Senator Waters also said that the bill provides a significant amount of resources for independents, bringing their staffing up to eight each. Well, that also is incorrect. The table within this bill sets the minimum at three for independents or at a number higher than that which can be determined by the Prime Minister. Perhaps, if the Greens hadn't sold out their principles and the values which they like to lecture us about, they might have read the bill properly, supported this bill and held this government to account.

We know from the government's own review into the MOP(S) Act that the current system is an issue. The review describes limited transparency about staffing decisions, perceptions of unfairness or political influence and real work health and safety concerns driven by sustained workload pressures. Prime Minister Albanese's decision to cut staffing allocations has only made things worse for staff already dealing with substantial workloads, and this goes to my point that some staff are more equal than other staff. Under this Labor Prime Minister, Labor staff are more equal than non-government staff. Indeed, it appears that the Prime Minister who proclaims to talk about standing up for the workers will only stand up for those workers who work for Labor parliamentarians and that those staff who do not work for Labor parliamentarians are second-class staffers.

On this issue, I'd also draw the chamber's attention to the independent review into resourcing of parliamentarian officers that was released earlier this month. I quote:

Offices where the parliamentarian had shadow portfolio responsibilities or other roles related to the Senate or House of Representatives and had not been allocated a personal staff member, struggled to meet the demands of the portfolio or parliamentary work in addition to electorate work.

It's there in black and white. Under-resourced officers struggle to meet the demands of their responsibilities. So who directly benefits from this? It's the government. This is why the government have made the decision. It is a clear political decision by the Labor Prime Minister and the Labor government to limit the ability of non-government parliamentarians to hold the executive to account.

The report also highlights the significant workloads being placed upon staff in general and the flow-on negative effects on wellbeing. Labor has talked a big game when it comes to improving workplace conditions in Parliament House, but they're not delivering. It's clear that Prime Minister Albanese does not care about the additional pressures he is putting on non-government staff. It is time the Prime Minister took his own advice and acted to create a healthier work environment for all staff and all parliamentarians in this parliament, which is a workplace. This bill simply guarantees opposition and crossbench parliamentarians a set number of staff. It does not restrict the Prime Minister from allocating more staff. It merely stops him from allocating less than a fair minimum.

When a Prime Minister cuts staffing from his political opponents, what is the true cost? The true cost is a fair and free democracy. The true cost is the ability of the parliament to hold the executive to account. A healthy democracy requires a strong parliament that is adequately resourced to review, scrutinise and, where possible, improve government legislation, which is what we saw in previous parliaments, where the opposition and the government, regardless of their colours, often came together to ensure that the legislation that passed through this place was the best that it could be. Australians deserve better than an opaque staffing system controlled by a mean and tricky Prime Minister.

If Labor vote against this bill, they will be supporting secrecy, not transparency, and they will be directly contributing to poorer workplace conditions for staff. The same can be said for the Greens; if the Greens vote against this bill, they are voting for a poorer workplace for staff in this building. Australians deserve better. The hardworking staff—all staff—in this building deserve better. This is not a question of partisan politics. It is a question of this government's commitment to democracy. It is a question of making sure that all staff are treated equally. It is a question of ensuring that all parliamentarians, regardless of their political colour, are treated equally. I commend the bill to the Senate.

If I had bumped into the Prime Minister today, I would only have one question for him: 'Prime Minister, what happened to our working relationship? You used to welcome me warmly. You were friendly in public, always with a smile, talking about me to young people in your speeches. But that changed the moment I stood on principle, and today I find myself co-signing a coalition bill not because I have changed sides but because I have stayed true to my duty.' For the past year, the Prime Minister has used the levers of power to punish dissent. Some might call it coercive control. I call it political retribution.

I didn't cross the floor on a whim; I crossed it on a matter of principle—and in support of Labor policy, no less. It is the very same principle the government have now come to support 14 months later. It was never personal, but the response has been. Since that moment, I have been excluded from key processes and stripped of the resources every senator needs to do their job. I have been treated more harshly than those sitting on the opposite side of the chamber. When I was a schoolgirl, I had my hijab ripped from my head by bullies. That didn't shake me then, and bullying won't shake me now.

I thank the coalition for introducing the Members of Parliament (Staff) Amendment (Providing Certainty and Improving Integrity) Bill 2025 to amend the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984. I also thank Senator Hanson for acknowledging my situation. When that act was first debated more than 40 years ago, a Liberal senator from Tasmania, Senator Michael Townley, warned that the act would one day be weaponised by an authoritarian prime minister to reward loyalty and punish dissent. He said:

I do not believe that is at all a good thing. It is open to patronage and should not really be contemplated by the Government.

Senator Townley saw what we're now living.

I have had no advisers since I joined the crossbench in July last year, a deliberate and targeted decision by our prime minister. No other crossbencher has been treated that way. This is the action of a vindictive prime minister who has disadvantaged Western Australians by weakening my ability to represent them. I am the only Western Australian to be able to put the people over any party. I am the only independent senator able to actually stand up for the interests of the great state that I represent. But the Prime Minister is stopping me from doing my job effectively. I have faced down online trolls, Islamophobes, racists and neo-Nazis, but I will not be bullied in my workplace.

If the Prime Minister were here in this chamber, I would ask him, 'Is this leadership, or is this a page torn from the Trump playbook?' because what we are witnessing is an abuse of executive power. Denying senators the means to scrutinise legislation isn't just unfair; he is in breach of the spirit of our Constitution, undermining the very purpose of the Senate as a house of review. Does he understand how this looks—petty, authoritarian, a political bully trying to coerce and control. I am a young Australian Muslim woman of colour. I've been bullied out of Afghanistan. I will not be bullied by this man.

I remember when the Prime Minister came to power he said something along the lines of, 'It's going to be a kinder, gentler type of politics.' Rubbish! What was this man talking about? That's not the case at all. That's not what happened. I'm pleased to support and co-sponsor the Members of Parliament (Staff) Amendment (Providing Certainty and Improving Integrity) Bill 2025. I thank Senator Cash for her efforts in drafting this bill.

Do you know what Prime Minister Albanese has been doing? He's been treating parliamentary staffing like it's his own personal loyalty program. That's what he's done. If you agree with him—and many of you in this place know I struggle to agree with most of what he says—you get a gold tier membership. If you don't, then enjoy doing your job with one staff member or no staff members. Maybe you can just do your job with a prayer instead!

It's not about budgets; we know that. It's not about efficiency. So what's it about? It's about control. It's definitely not about fairness. It's about the Prime Minister trying to control the narrative. It's about the Prime Minister trying to hamstring the people that speak against his far-left socialist agenda. The Prime Minister has figured out that if he can't win the argument he'll just simply make sure that no-one else has the resources to argue back against him. It's clever, I'll give him that, but is it democratic? Absolutely not.

Since the Prime Minister has been returned to power he's gutted opposition staff and slashed crossbench support. No warning, no consultation, nothing—just the stroke of his pen, and, boom, less scrutiny and more secrecy. Apparently that's what new politics looks like. Under this current set-up that we have right now, there's no baseline and there are no guidelines. What transparency, Prime Minister? Staffing levels are entirely at his whim. Even the government's own review in 2022 called it out—limited transparency, unfairness, dangerous workload.

This bill fixes that. It sets a minimum staffing level for non-government MPs, and we need it. It puts a floor under fairness and a ceiling on the Prime Minister's ego—and that's very important, because his ego is a big one. It ensures that parliament, not just the Prime Minister's office, has the people it needs to do the job that Australians sent us here to do. When you cut staff to the crossbenchers, what are you really doing? I'll keep saying it: you're silencing your opposition. Worse than that; you're silencing the Australian people. When the Prime Minister starts to buy silence, it's time we all start shouting.

Parliament does not belong to the Prime Minister; it belongs to the Australian people. The Australian people deserve a system built on integrity, not secrecy. That is why I support this bill and why I urge my colleagues in this place to do the same—although I don't think some in this place will because, possibly, they've been offered some sweeteners not to.

It's rather disappointing, isn't it, that we have to have a debate of this nature in this parliament. I was reflecting on the contributions of colleagues. This place is about a better future for the Australian people. We all come here wanting to do good things, but, as has been highlighted by a number of speakers now, that becomes incredibly difficult when the resources you are normally afforded are taken away from you, making it harder to do just that. So here we are; instead of talking about a better education system, a better health system or a more robust transport system, we are talking about resources that should be made available to members of parliament to represent their constituents in this parliament.

To start with, I want to reflect on the contribution of Senator Payman. I can tell this chamber and anyone who might be listening that I suspect Senator Payman and I disagree on many things. You know what? That's great. That is democracy at work. There are things we have regularly voted on opposite sides of the chamber on. I say that's a wonderful thing. In this free, democratic country we can exercise our ability to do just that. Senator Payman points out that an independent senator has, unlike any other independent senator, been offered no additional support. I am flabbergasted at that. That is not based on any methodology. That is not based on any formula. That is not based on any open and transparent mechanism where senators are given a certain amount of support in order to do the work that they do.

I think there is a degree of vindictiveness here because of certain things that have transpired. I know Senator Cash reflected on that earlier on—that it was, perhaps, a bit of payback, given Senator Payman is no longer part of the Australian Labor Party. How is that good for democracy? They may not like it, but it is reality. As I said, Senator Payman has very, very different views to me on a range of issues, and has probably never voted with me—I don't know; I've never done a count. But she should not be denied the support due to her as an independent senator from Western Australia because of political evening of the ledger—comebacks, pointscoring and keeping someone down. While it wouldn't aid me to have my opponents better resourced, it is the right thing to do. To that end, I thank Senator Payman for her contribution.

The fact that we are having this debate around resourcing parliamentarians to do their job is a very, very disappointing turn of events. It is a fact that, in a massive break from convention, the government, in its vindictive way, has decided, 'Hey, opposition, you've just lost the election; we're going to take a further 20 staff away from you.' If that had been evenly applied across all nongovernment parties—including the government as well; they are talking about fiscal restraint and being good budget managers—I'd probably think, 'Okay, fair enough; that's unfortunate.' But it hasn't been applied that way. There was no formulaic approach to this. It was: 'Well, you're the opposition. I don't like what you've got to say, and therefore I'm going to take away a degree of support that you rely on to do your job. Oh, and independent senator X, or independent senator Y, we're going to treat you this way.'

There is one group in this chamber who have, bizarrely, avoided the scalpel that was applied to the rest of us, and that is the Australian Greens. As I understand it, I think they might have lost one staff member out of the contingent they went into the election with. They did lose members of their team, but that doesn't seem to matter. It applied to us, it applied to others, but not to the Greens.

Indeed, as we know, not only did they seemingly escape the scalpel when it came to staff in this place; they were rewarded. There was this obscene expenditure on a room in this building to keep them in comfort while they meet and talk about how they're going to agree to the government's agenda and prop up this government in the Senate. A million dollars of taxpayers' money was put into a room in this building—not into doctors in regional Australia, not into better roads in communities across Western Australia or Tasmania, even—but into a room for senators to sit in. We have seen images. Earlier on, in introducing and moving the second reading of this bill, Senator Cash referred to images that appeared in the newspaper relating to the sumptuous Greens party room with the beautiful big red leather chairs, lovely finishes and amazing special species timber cabinetry—something that, if they got their way, would never be killed in a forest and used in furniture making. Anyway, they're happy to take it as part of their million-dollar refurb.

I think there will be a long-term repayment plan—a buy-now pay-later arrangement between the Australian Greens and the Australian government—for taking this beautiful room that was updated through the parliamentary break since the last election. They came back here, all refreshed after this election result that we all experienced, and saw this beautiful gift from the honourable Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister of Australia. They've lapped it up. But, as I said, it is a buy-now pay-later arrangement where they take the room and, over the course of time, will be able to do things to pay down the debt they owe the Labor Party, like supporting various bills and agreeing to certain arrangements. And we'll see it again today, I expect. This is an issue of transparency, which we were promised four years ago was going to come to a new high—more transparency in this parliament for the Australian people; they deserve it. But when the Centre for Public Integrity tells us that this government is the most secretive in a very long time, if not ever, I am very alarmed at anyone who would get into bed with this mob and support their agenda, including their approach to Senate estimates.

There was a motion on the books yesterday to extend the estimates schedule by an extra week. To the people who are here in the gallery today and perhaps listening online, Senate estimates is an opportunity to go through the government's books and see how they're spending taxpayers' money on their behalf. There is a week set aside for estimates. Senator David Pocock, another Independent senator who no doubt has been dealt with in a vindictive way by having staff taken away from him, proposed an extra week of Senate estimates because we've missed out on a number of opportunities this year, given the election and other matters. But, between the Greens and the Labor Party, they don't want a bar of it. They do not want that extra week of Senate estimates; they do not want that extra week of scrutiny. They would prefer to hide away from prying eyes. They'd like to cover over whatever it is they're doing. We saw it again yesterday with the Housing Australia Future Fund, where they refused to tell us exactly how they spent $277 million of taxpayers' money.

That side of the chamber over there, between the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens, refuses to open the books and refuses to agree to extra sittings of the Senate for the purposes of Senate estimates. Again, it is not hard to see why they're being so cooperative with one another when you've got arrangements where nearly a million dollars of taxpayers' money is being sunk into the refurbishment of a room in this place and they're signing up to the government agenda. It is an alarming development when a crossbench party like the Greens props up the government's agenda in the way that it does. Again, the need for us to be able to do our job and hold a government to account is extremely important. A government is only as good as its opposition. That opposition includes the crossbench parties—the minor parties and the Independents—who need to be able to interrogate what a government brings into this chamber. By taking away extra eyes and minds to interrogate the work of the government, you are silencing dissent and preventing proper scrutiny. That is an alarming development in our democracy and is something that we need to ensure is overturned, hence this bill.

As I said, it is lamentable that we are here having this debate today, instead of private senators' time being used for something like improving educational standards, or reforming the EPBC Act, or something like that. No; instead we are trying to restore fairness to the arrangements that apply to the operations of this parliament when it comes to non-government parties. Earlier, I heard the Leader of the Australian Greens highlight her concerns with this bill. I would invite Senator Waters to perhaps move not just her second reading amendment but some substantive amendments to this bill to enable measures to be put in place to restore that fairness. A formulaic approach that prevents the Prime Minister from becoming vindictive in his approach to how he doles out staffing and other resources in this parliament is something the Greens could constructively do. They could actually play a constructive role here.

While I am on Senator Waters, I think it is important to reflect on a couple of points that were made. There were a couple of comments that alarmed me. We've seen some terrible events occur in this building in recent years, and I don't intend to reflect on or go over those issues. But I think some of the gendered remarks that were made by Senator Waters could have a very damaging effect for members of not only this parliament but staff. There are male victims of some of the horrendous things that have happened here and elsewhere, and we cannot forget them. When we talk about things in the terms that Senator Waters did, it does not do any justice for those who have been victims and are somehow maligned in the attacks on those who perpetrated wrong to people in our community.

Senator Waters needs to think about her language as she pursues these matters, because as someone who can identify with victim-survivors her language in this place is incredibly important. I understand that sometimes when making a point we need to be straight to the point and remove nuance from what we say, but when we reflect in the way I heard Senator Waters reflect earlier it can be an incredibly damaging experience for many in this place and beyond. So I would urge Senator Waters to exercise some caution in her language when she pursues these matters.

Back to the bill at hand. This is about democracy. This is about scrutiny. This is about ensuring that this parliament, which has a government with a massive majority in the other place, is held to account. No-one was given a blank cheque or a free pass at the last election. The mandate the government has to progress its agenda does not mean it should not be progressed without scrutiny or without the need to negotiate with the crossbench—or even the opposition, which has expressed on a number of occasions a high degree of willingness to contribute to the public debate and progress some of the legislation and make some very reasonable amendments.

When you take away those resources that we all depend on, when you've got complex legislation, which can go into the hundreds of pages when you include an explanatory memorandum and all of the other attached documents and appendices, it is incredibly important that we have people with us, on behalf of the people of Australia—the people we represent in this place—assisting in making sure we are getting it right.

I would invite the Greens to reconsider their position on this legislation. I heard Senator Waters outline a range of concerns she has with the legislation as it stands and I saw the second reading amendment but I would invite the Greens to perhaps consider substantive amendments—

Debate interrupted.

The committee is considering this bill and amendment (1) on sheet 3408 moved by Senator Kovacic.

We're up to the beginning of volume 2, Minister Watt, so we won't be too much longer—just kidding. I'm going to sum up and we'll be done. The coalition supports penalty and overtime rates and the mechanism that they provide for additional remuneration for employees who work overtime, for employees who work weekends, for employees who work, what we call, unsocial or irregular or unpredictable hours. The coalition also supports the agency and freedom of employees to negotiate with employers, in good faith, terms and conditions that suit their respective needs, priorities and interests, and these are not 'one size fits all'.

At a time when Australia's productivity continues to decline and when the burden of excessive regulation has been recognised by the government as contributing to Australia's problematic economic performance, our problematic productivity, these new regulations and imposts on small businesses, in particular, should give us cause to pause and carefully assess and weigh things up. Following the Senate inquiry into this legislation, the evidence provided a clear divide between the submissions that support the bill as a symbolic protection of penalty rates, from the union movement, and business and legal experts, who warn that there may well be some unintended consequences here, including compromising the independence of the Fair Work Commission, impacts on flexibility and choice, and duplication. Coalition senators remain concerned, as noted in our dissenting report, that in its current form the bill does not achieve, in a practical sense, the government's stated intent of safeguarding penalty rates. It is important that we point that out, because that is the very purpose of the Senate committee process, of the scrutiny of that process—to consider and assess proposed legislation and to point out to government any potential issues to ensure that the laws that leave this place are fit for purpose and do the job that they are meant to do. Rather, we believe that this legislation risks creating additional challenges for business whilst limiting employees' ability to make arrangements that best suit their own circumstances. We coalition senators once again affirm our support for penalty rates and overtime for those that work unsociable hours.

Thank you, Senator, for your contribution in this debate. I think it's worth my putting on the record a couple of points to address matters that were raised in the debate yesterday. It is very clear from the debate that we've seen over the last few hours that the Liberal Party just doesn't support penalty rates. They say they do, but actions speak louder than words.

The main reason I want to make this contribution today is to clarify some matters that have been reported in the media today. We have seen some members of the opposition—no-one in this chamber—seek to misrepresent what this bill is about and also to misrepresent comments that I made in the chamber yesterday, so I think it's worth putting on the record what will actually occur as a result of this bill.

Existing award arrangements will not be overridden by this bill. This bill is not retrospective in its operation, despite the claims from some that it is. The bill applies a simple new principle to award variation applications made by unions or employers from the time the bill commences. It's not going to be making changes that apply retrospectively, like most pieces of legislation; it will take effect from the time the bill commences, and the matters contained in the bill will take effect from the time the bill commences. That is a future date—most likely, I'm guessing, the date of royal assent. These provisions will not be applied retrospectively. When I say that it will apply a new principle to applications made by unions or employers, that includes applications that are not yet determined by the Fair Work Commission at the time the bill commences, such as those in the retail, banking and clerks award cases, as well as future applications made by parties.

This new principle will, very simply, prevent the reduction of a penalty rate—for example, from 200 per cent of the base rate of pay to 150 per cent of the base rate of pay—and prevent the Fair Work Commission making exemption rates or rolled-up rates that do not properly compensate employees for the penalty and overtime rates they have forgone. The new principle applies to awards only, not individual flexibility agreements or enterprise bargaining agreements. Employers and unions have a longstanding right to be able to apply to vary awards in line with the law of the day. The bill does not change this. The opposition and employer groups seem to be claiming that the fact that we have not taken away this fundamental feature of the award system makes the bill retrospective in its operation. This is simply incorrect. Employees who have existing rolled up rates under awards or agreements will continue to be paid those rates after this bill commences. Despite claims to the contrary, we have not removed flexibility from awards. Employers will still be able to apply to the Fair Work Commission to vary awards and to include flexible exemption rates and rolled up rates. All that changes is that the Fair Work Commission must ensure the amount the employee is paid under that exemption rate or rolled-up rate properly covers the penalty rates and overtime rates that they would otherwise have received. We have also not amended the provisions in the Fair Work Act that relate to annualised wage arrangements. Annualised wage arrangements will still be permitted under awards. This bill does not impose any new obligations on employers, and therefore no impact assessment is necessary. Of course we will monitor the operation and implementation of this new principle in the same way we monitor the operation and implementation of all new workplace relations provisions.

As I said yesterday and as I said during the election when we made this commitment, this is a commitment from the Albanese Labor government to ensure that penalty rates cannot be cut and that workers can't go backwards under awards compared to where they stand at the moment. I commend the bill to the chamber.

The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 3408, moved by Senator Kovacic, be agreed to.

() (): by leave—I move:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 9), after "employees", insert "(other than employees of small business employers)".

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 15), after "any employee", insert "(other than any employee of a small business employer)".

Are there any further contributions? Otherwise, I'll put the question. The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3409 be agreed to.

I move:

(1) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 6), at the end of the Schedule, add:

3 Regulation impact statement

(1) The Minister must cause a regulation impact statement to be prepared in relation to the operation of the amendments made by this Act.

(2) The persons preparing the regulation impact statement must complete it within 6 months after this Act commences.

(3) The persons preparing the regulation impact statement must give the Minister a copy of the statement.

(4) The Minister must cause a copy of the regulation impact statement to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives a copy of the statement.

The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 3410 be agreed to.

by leave—I move:

(1) Schedule 1, heading, page 3 (line 1), omit "Amendments", substitute "Penalty and overtime rates".

(2) Page 4 (after line 7), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 3 — Requests for flexible working arrangements

Fair Work Act 2009

1 Subsections 65(1) and (1A)

Repeal the subsections, substitute:

Employee may request change in working arrangements

(1) If an employee would like to change his or her working arrangements then the employee may request the employer for a change in working arrangements.

Note: Examples of changes in working arrangements include changes in hours of work, changes in patterns of work and changes in location of work.

2 Subsection 65A(1)

Omit "relating to circumstances that apply to the employee".

3 Subparagraph 65A(3)(a)(ii)

Omit "the circumstances mentioned in subsection (1)", substitute "the request".

4 Subparagraph 65A(6)(c)(i)

Omit "the circumstances mentioned in subsection (1)", substitute "the request".

5 Paragraph 65B(1)(a)

Omit "relating to circumstances that apply to the employee".

6 Subparagraph 65C(1)(f)(ii)

Omit "the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 65B(1)(a)", substitute "the request".

7 In the appropriate position in Schedule 1

Insert:

Part 21 — Amendments made by Schedule 3 to the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Act 2025

129 Application of amendments

The amendments made by Schedule 3 to the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Act 2025 apply in relation to a request for a change in working arrangements under subsection 65(1) made on or after the commencement of that Schedule.

This bill, as it stands, is defensive. It defends something really important—penalty and overtime rates. We know that millions of Australian workers depend on these to put food on their table, and they deserve these rates. The Greens will never stand in the way of workers' rights and increases in their pay, but work is changing. The worker is changing, the workplace is changing, and what we do at work and where we do it are changing. That means we need some ambition in our workplace laws to deal with these changes and we need more ambition from Labor.

Yesterday, Labor voted down a reasonable right to request work from home for up to two days a week. We know from polls in the last two weeks that 75 per cent of Labor voters support a right to work from home and 51 per cent of coalition voters support a right to work from home. Two-thirds of all Australians want this right. They know they need it, and they want to see it in their workplaces. The Victorian Premier is doing it, and the PM has backed her in.

This week, workers in small businesses joined other workers across our country in a right to disconnect. Now all workers across the nation have an important new right, a sensible right—a right to step away from the intrusive effects of an employer who wants them on the phone on a Sunday morning. It makes their lives better, and the sky has not fallen with a right to disconnect. That came about because the Select Committee on Work and Care recommended that right with a lot of agreement across this chamber, we pushed a private members' bill and kept pushing, and, with the support of Tony Burke, we got a right to disconnect up. It was legislated. It's a great success, and a success, as we know—we have heard it many times in this chamber—has many parents; everyone wants to claim it. But the point here is this that a good thing for workers was achieved by this chamber putting workers first.

Yesterday, when Labor voted down a right to work from home, they put politics ahead of workers. They said as much. They said they wouldn't act 'at the behest of the Greens'. You can read it in the Financial Review this morning. That's putting your politics ahead of the interests of those you represent, of workers. Labor knocked back a simple, reasonable right to work from home, not because it isn't needed, not because it isn't wanted, not because it can't be done—it can be done, and it is needed and wanted—but because of politics, because it's our idea. That's putting politics ahead of what's good for workers. That's hubris. That's political pride. That's letting your political hatred get in front of what's good for workers.

Labor had the biggest majority in the other house in my lifetime, and we Greens are here in the Senate to support progressive change. Instead, they've knocked back a right to work from home, and they've knocked back something that would make a difference right now to so many women and men. With these amendments I move today, Labor gets to show whether they are here to put workers ahead of politics. These amendments I now move give Labor the chance to show whether it is in here for workers or is it in here for political advantage. Anyone who knows Labor's history knows how important the Labor Party has been for workers' rights across past centuries. Where are you now? Here is your chance to help all women and men workers across our country who are looking for increased flexibility to put their lives together.

These amendments make it a right for all Australian workers—not just those with a school-age child, not just carers, but anyone—looking for flexibility to ask for it. They can ask. They have a right to get a timely written response from their boss. They have limited ways in which they can be refused, and they have access to the right to contest an unreasonable refusal. Our amendments open up eligibility to ask for flexibility to every worker, to have the right to ask and the chance to be treated decently and have backup when they make that request.

We know that flexible work delivers enormous benefits. It helps people balance their jobs and study. It helps people look after their health, mental and physical. It helps people have a community life. It boosts workplace participation for both women and men. It helps men be more involved in their households. The evidence shows that it increases productivity. It reduces commuting time, with less carbon in our environment, and it improves wellbeing. It is good for women, it is good for men, it is good for kids and it is good for families.

This is about fairness. Flexibility should not be a privilege reserved to a particular group of people, such as carers and people with school-age kids. The truth is: workers' lives across the board do not fit neatly into narrow boxes, as set out in our current law. Of course, requests still need to be reasonable. Employers retain the ability to refuse requests on legitimate business grounds. What this change does is ensure that every worker can ask, and employers must properly consider their requests.

The world of work has changed. Technology has made remote and flexible work not only possible but, in many workplaces, utterly normal. The law should catch up with that reality and make sure every worker has the right to request arrangements that suit their lives. And, yes, this is a Greens proposal. These are Greens amendments, but this is a chance for Labor to do the right thing by workers rather than play politics just because you don't like the Greens or just because you haven't been the first to bring it up in this chamber. That's no reason to knock back such an important right that so many Australian men and women want more backup on. That's no reason to deny all workers the right to ask for and get the flexibility they need, including the right to ask to work from home—a real right with real backup.

I'll just make a short contribution to put the government's position on the record, and I'll ignore the irony of a Greens senator spending most of her speech criticising Labor and then saying that we're trying to take political advantage, be that as it may.

The government recognises the importance of flexible work for many workers, including work from home. Our priority is to deliver on our clear election commitment to protect penalty and overtime rates in modern awards, and this bill will implement that commitment. The government will be opposing these amendments because this bill is about protecting penalty and overtime rates. This government supports flexible working arrangements. Anyone watching the last election campaign can be in no doubt that the Albanese Labor government is very strongly supportive of work-from-home arrangements.

The Fair Work Act now permits access to flexible work arrangements in circumstances where the employee is pregnant; the employee is a parent or has responsibility for the care of a child who is of school age or younger; the employee is a carer; the employee has a disability; the employee is 55 or older; the employee is experiencing family and domestic violence; or the employee provides care or support to a member of the employee's immediate family, or a member of the employee's household who requires care or support, because the member is experiencing family and domestic violence. Our secure jobs, better pay amendments require an employer to discuss a request with a worker, consider other changes in working arrangements that could be made and provide reasons in writing for any refusal. Our amendments have also strengthened the commission's powers, including allowing arbitration in a dispute about flexible work.

The Fair Work Act also enables other groups of workers to negotiate outcomes on an industry workplace or individual level. The government supports employers, workers and their unions agreeing to flexible working arrangements that suit them—including through enterprise bargaining, where employees and employers can negotiate and agree on flexible working arrangements that suit their particular workplace. The Fair Work Commission is also currently considering work-from-home arrangements for those covered by the clerks award, which may become a model term for other awards and sectors.

In summary, the actions of the Albanese Labor government have already secured the flexible work rights that these amendments seek to replicate. On that basis we'll oppose these amendments while supporting the bill's intent, which is to protect penalty rates.

Minister, you point to the enormous attention this issue garnered in the recent election, and you point to the level of support out there and the support you and your government have for flexibility and for the right to work from home. In light of all that evidence, all that support and what the polls tell us, why are you opposing amendments that would improve flexibility rights for Australian workers?

I refer to the contribution I've already made.

I think my question deserves a better answer than that. I'm asking on behalf of many workers watching this who want to know why they don't have the right to seek flexibility. These amendments, as you'll be aware, enlarge a right to request flexibility. They don't create a right to get it; they say more workers should have the chance to ask. Why are you opposing that right for those workers?

As I say, I just made a contribution which has set out the government's reason for opposing these amendments.

With respect, it was an inadequate response to Senator Barbara Pocock's question. These are clear amendments that simply extend out who can ask to work from home. I thought that was meant to be Labor policy. You've now got a chance to vote for it, and you're saying, 'That's not what this bill does.' This bill could do that if you vote for these amendments, so why aren't you?

For the third time, I've already set out the government's position and why we're opposing these amendments. I don't see the benefit in repeating that.

Minister, with respect, it sounds like your heart's not really in it. Do you want to have another go?

No.

The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3390 be agreed to.

by leave, I move Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3382 together:

(1) Schedule 1, heading, page 3 (line 1), omit "Amendments", substitute "Penalty and overtime rates".

(2) Page 4 (after line 6), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 2 — Mandatory terms of workplace determinations must be not less favourable

Fair Work Act 2009

1 Paragraph 235(4)(b)

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

(b) ceases to be in operation at the earlier of the following:

(i) when each employer specified in the declaration is covered by an enterprise agreement or a workplace determination;

(ii) if the declaration is revoked under section 235B—at the time the declaration is revoked.

2 At the end of Subdivision B of Division 8 of Part 2-4

Add:

235B Revocation of intractable bargaining declarations

Revocation on application

(1) The FWC must revoke an intractable bargaining declaration in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement as soon as practicable after an application for its revocation is made under subsection (3).

Revocation rather than inclusion of less favourable terms

(2) If:

(a) section 270A applies; but

(b) the FWC considers that it is not empowered in respect of a particular matter to include in a determination a term that is not less favourable to each of the employees referred to in section 270A, and any employee organisation that was a bargaining representative of any of those employees, than a term of the enterprise agreement referred to in section 270A that deals with the same matter,

then the FWC must revoke the intractable bargaining declaration in relation to the proposed enterprise agreement.

Applications for revocation

(3) The bargaining representative for a proposed enterprise agreement who applied under subsection 234(1) for an intractable bargaining declaration in relation to the agreement may apply for the revocation of the declaration.

What revocation must specify

(4) A revocation must specify when it is made and the intractable bargaining declaration to which it relates.

Further applications for declarations may be made

(5) To avoid doubt, a revocation of an intractable bargaining declaration in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement does not prevent an application under subsection 234(1) for a further intractable bargaining declaration in relation to the agreement.

3 Section 270A (heading)

Repeal the heading, substitute:

270A Certain terms must not be less favourable

4 After subsection 270A(2)

Insert:

(2A) A term that is included in the determination to comply with subsection 273(2), (4), (5) or (6), must be not less favourable to each of those employees, and any employee organisation that was a bargaining representative of any of those employees, than a term of the enterprise agreement that deals with the same matter as the term included in the determination.

Note: In addition, the delegates' rights term included in compliance with subsection 273(6) must not be less favourable than the delegates' rights term in any modern award that covers a workplace delegate to whom the determination applies (see subsection 273(7)).

5 Subsection 273(4)

After "must include the model flexibility term", insert ", or, if section 270A applies, a term that complies with section 270A,".

6 Subsection 273(5)

After "must include the model consultation term", insert ", or, if section 270A applies, a term that complies with section 270A,".

7 At the end of section 274

Add:

Nature of agreement required

(4) A term may be an agreed term for an industrial action related workplace determination, or an intractable bargaining workplace determination, even if the agreement in relation to the term, of one or more bargaining representatives for the proposed enterprise agreement concerned, is conditional, qualified or in-principle in nature.

8 In the appropriate position in Schedule 1

Insert:

Part 20 — Amendments made by Schedule 2 to the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Act 2025

128 Application of amendments

(1) The amendments of sections 270A, 273 and 274 made by Schedule 2 to the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Act 2025 apply in relation to a workplace determination made on or after the commencement of that Schedule whether:

(a) for an intractable bargaining workplace determination—the intractable bargaining declaration to which the determination relates was made before, on or after that commencement; or

(b) for an industrial action related workplace determination—any conditions necessary for the making of the determination were satisfied before, on or after that commencement.

(2) Sections 235B as added by Schedule 2 to the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Act 2025 applies on and after the commencement of that Schedule in relation to an intractable bargaining declaration (whether the declaration was made before, on or after that commencement).

The Greens know that there are employers who will always look for every loophole in a law to cut wages or to take away conditions, and the law needs to make sure that workers don't go backwards. That's why the Greens were pleased to work with the government last year to secure changes that stopped the new protracted bargaining workplace determination provisions being used to take away long-held enterprise agreement conditions. That was a loophole in the law, and we managed to clarify the intention of the bill. The longstanding rule that your old agreement stays in place until you've negotiated a new one would continue. That protracted bargaining determination, and strategies like it, were not a back door to take away long-held conditions. We worked hard to make sure that was the case.

Unfortunately, despite that very clear change to the law last year, some employers are still saying there's a loophole. This isn't some obscure theoretical point; it's having real-world impacts right now. In Victoria, for example, an employer is using the law to try to take away firefighters' rights to agree on what uniforms they wear into a fire. This is not a trivial question. This is a life-and-death matter, a serious health and wellbeing issue for those firefighters. This issue has also big implications for many state public sector workers who may get pushed into federal arbitration, and others, like staff in universities, for whom hard-won clauses around consultation are critically important.

To deal with these issues and points like this, the Greens amendment clarifies that, where there is an agreement in place, where parties are negotiating for a new one and one party has applied for an intractable bargaining workplace determination, the determination can't take workers backwards. Each term of the determination must be no less favourable than the corresponding term of the agreement. It restores the position that your current agreement stays in place until you negotiate a new one. The government should be able to support this for the same reasons they fixed the law last year. This is not about giving workers and their unions new terms and conditions; it's about ensuring they can't go backwards. It's urgently needed, and it's in line with the intention of this bill. I urge Labor to protect the conditions of thousands of Australian workers—those public servants, those firefighters—and support this amendment.

The government will be opposing this amendment. The government has been clear that the scope of this bill is in relation to penalty and overtime rates in modern awards. It does not seek to make amendments to the enterprise bargaining framework. It remains the government's position that the process for resolving intractable bargaining should not be used to find ways of making workers' terms and conditions go backwards. Section 270A of the Fair Work Act provides a specific requirement to ensure that a term in an intractable bargaining determination must be no less favourable than existing terms in enterprise agreements. This provision should inform the commission in its approach to this legislation.

Minister, can you assure those public servants and firefighters and their union officials who are representing them, who are very concerned about this loophole, that there is no risk to their current rights in relation to consultation and related items in their bargaining? Are you confident, and can you give them confidence, that there is no way they can go backwards?

I'm not going to provide legal advice to anyone outside this chamber on interpretation of a matter. From government's point of view, the act is clear—in particular, section 270A.

The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3382 be agreed to.

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

In the limited time we have remaining before the hard marker, I'll see how I go in getting the coalition's position on the record in relation to the Pacific Banking Guarantee Bill 2025. Upfront, I want to say that the coalition will be providing bipartisan support for the passage of this bill because we understand the strategic context in which it arises.

As the Minister for Foreign Affairs has said, we are in a permanent contest in the Pacific for influence with nations such as the People's Republic of China, and it is in Australia's national interest to ensure that the people of the Pacific have choices about the banking services that they use and that, among those choices, they are able to choose trusted, high-quality Australian banking services. It has become apparent in recent years that without government assistance it is likely that Australian banking services in the Pacific would no longer be available.

We do have some reservations about some aspects of this bill which I'll place on the record on behalf of my colleagues in a moment, but those reservations are not so serious that they would stand in the way of us supporting this bill or, indeed, moving amendments, because we have received assurances from the government in relation to those issues. It is very clear that this bill is necessary in the strategic environment that we find ourselves in.

One of the issues identified through the inquiry process is the fact that the bill provides for an uncapped appropriation with no maximum dollar limit and no end date. It was argued by the government that this flexibility was necessary. However, an uncapped appropriation does inevitably reduce parliamentary oversight of future spending and increases potential liabilities from future guarantees. Ultimately, these guarantees are contingent liabilities for the Australian taxpayer, and we did not think that unlimited appropriations should be provided without a very strong justification, especially given ANZ is the largest operator in the region and has already been offered a $2 billion 10-year guarantee. However, we do accept the evidence from Treasury that the risk to Australian taxpayers from these guarantees is very low, and, for this reason, we will not oppose the bill.

In addition, Bank South Pacific is the largest and most widespread bank in the South Pacific, and it is unfortunate that it appears that it was not properly consulted before this bill came forward. The coalition would encourage Treasury to reconsider whether there is more information about the guarantee that could be made publicly available to reassure them about their concerns. There appear to be parts of the agreement that are considered confidential that we believe do not necessarily need to be, and releasing this information could help alleviate Bank South Pacific's concerns and increase public confidence in the process.

We're very proud of the coalition's record in the Pacific, which I will not detail given the limited time that we have today, and I do want to reiterate the coalition's strong bipartisan support for this legislation in the strategic environment that we find ourselves in. We have a very important partnership with our friends and family in the Pacific, and we must stand with them in ensuring that they have access to high-quality, trusted, reliable Australian banking services so that they have choice and are not reliant on others.

Debate interrupted.

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

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

Selection of Bills Committee

REPORT NO. 5 OF 2025

28 August 2025

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Senator Lisa Darmanin (Acting Government Whip, Chair) Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip)

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

Senator Ralph Babet Senator Leah Blyth Senator Ross Cadell

Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm Senator Jessica Collins

Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher Senator Jacqui Lambie

Senator Fatima Payman Senator David Pocock

Senator Tony Sheldon (Government Whip) Senator Lidia Thorpe

Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 5 OF 2025

The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 27 August 2025 at 7.07pm.

The committee recommends that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Public Consultancy and Services Contracts Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 30 March 2026 (see appendix 1 for statement of reasons for referral).

The committee recommends that the following bill not be referred to committees:

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

Members of Parliament (Staff) Amendment (Providing Certainty and Improving Integrity) Bill 2025

(Lisa Darmanin)

Chair

28 August 2025

Appendix 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill: Parliamentary Joint Committee on Public Consultancy and Services Contracts Bill 2025

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To scrutinise this legislation and to hear from stakeholders about the importance of this legislation.

Possible submissions or evidence from: Interested parties and stakeholders

Committee to which bill is to be referred: Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s): October 2025 to February 2026

Possible reporting date: 30 March 2026

(signed)

Print name: SENATOR WENDY ASKEW

I move:

That the report be adopted.

I move the following amendment to the motion that the report be adopted:

At the end of the motion, add: "and the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 not be referred to a committee".

I move the amendment circulated by my colleague Senator McKim to the motion that the report be adopted:

At the end of the motion, add: "but, in respect of:

(a) the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill 2025, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 28 October 2025"; and

(b) the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 28 October 2025".

In what was a chaotic day, with so much other news around, we saw the Albanese Labor government try to sneak through yet another vicious attack on the rights of refugees and on the rights of people seeking asylum. They tried to do it on the quiet and to sneak it through. Again, what we're seeing is this government desperately keen to avoid transparency and to avoid scrutiny—in this case, of one of the nastiest, meanest attacks on multicultural Australia and on the basic set of decency and rights that we should be giving to people who come here to seek our protection.

We have seen the Albanese Labor government being led like a little, tame poodle by the coalition down this nasty pathway of a competition to see who can be the most mean, the cruellest, to refugees and people seeking asylum. It is a race that only the least principled, the ugliest, the meanest, the nastiest, can win. My guess is that, at the end of the day, the coalition will win that fight. That's their history. But, I can tell you what, the Albanese Labor government are doing everything they can to put it in contest.

The Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill 2025 removes the rights of natural justice, the right to basically be heard, before some of the most far-reaching decisions are made in relation to people's lives. In this case, the Albanese government wants to be able to make a decision to deport somebody from Australia, often somebody who has already had an asylum claim made in their favour, so we know that they have a need for protection; we know that they have a need for asylum. But now the Albanese government wants to be able to deport them to Nauru without ever asking and without ever testing what impact that might have on their health and on their family—without even asking. Worse, the Albanese government want to be able to approach the Nauruan government to apply for a visa in that person's name to force them to go to Nauru—again, without ever giving these people even the right to know the application is happening, let alone the right to correct obvious errors, to tell the Nauru government and the Australian government about their health concerns or to explain why leaving their child behind might not be fair. They're not even asking.

The right of natural justice has been embedded in our common law traditions not for decades but for centuries. Why do we have a right to natural justice? Because it reflects our values as a country that believes in the rule of law and in basic decency. But it obviously doesn't reflect the Albanese-Labor government's values, because they want to rip it away from some of the most vulnerable people in the country.

Do you know what? If that's not bad enough, once people get to Nauru—under Labor's plan to not tell them, deport them and break up families—the Nauru government has made it clear what they want. They want, in breach of the refugee convention, to send those people back to the countries from which they fled—to send them to Iran, to send them to Afghanistan. They want to do this all without even having that basic human decency of asking or giving the people the right to know that the application has been made or that they may, as human beings, have a right to be heard before the Albanese government deports them to Nauru on their way to Afghanistan or on their way to Iran. Shame on the Albanese government for doing this. Shame on you not even having the guts to put it to the committee so that the Australian public gets a chance to see what you're doing and to see the latest stitch-up job you're doing with the coalition.

Of course, we're moving this amendment to send this ugly bill, this mean bill, this nasty Labor bill to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, so that we can shine some sunlight on your meanness. Maybe that sunlight will be a kind of disinfectant for some of the ugly nastiness that's happening in the Labor government. Maybe you can realise that you have a whacking great majority down in that other house, and, with us, you have a progressive majority in the Senate. You don't need to follow the coalition's dog whistle on this stuff. You can recover a pathway to decency. That's why we move this amendment.

I want to follow up on that excellent contribution from Senator Shoebridge by reminding the Senate that we are dealing with human beings here. As Senator Shoebridge said, the decisions that are encapsulated in this legislation are some of the most consequential decisions imaginable for people who are in an incredibly vulnerable position, who have already been displaced from their homes and who, in many cases, have fled to Australia seeking safety—as is their right under the refugee convention—and had their claims for asylum either accepted or placed under consideration by the government.

I want to remind people in this country that, if you look at the history of persecution of people seeking asylum in this country, almost inevitably the most draconian measures have been introduced by the Labor Party, not the Liberal Party. Why have they done that? Because they are running scared. They have made a decision based on political calculus. The collateral damage of that decision is the lives of some of the most vulnerable people who are currently in this country—refugees and people who are seeking asylum. They are being persecuted by the Labor Party because Labor's political calculus says they can't stand up against the attack dogs in the coalition.

Well, I've got news for the Labor Party. This is now so deeply embedded in your political DNA that you are a bigger problem for the human rights and the natural justice rights of people seeking asylum in this country then the Liberal Party is. You have been for decades. Hang your heads in shame. You should hang your heads in collective shame because you have persecuted people. You have destroyed countless lives. I well recall visiting Manus Island when the decision was made to cut off the food, the electricity, the medical supports and even the drinking water from people in the Lombrum detention centre. I well recall that decision being made, and I well recall the enthusiastic support of the Labor Party for that decision. I well recall the days when mandatory immigration detention wasn't a thing in Australia, and I well recall who introduced it. The Labor Party introduced it.

There is a historic current of racism that underpins the way the Australian Labor Party operates. We are seeing that today—because we know that overwhelmingly, perhaps even exclusively, the people that are going to be impacted by this legislation do not have white skins. They are people of colour. We all know that that is the case.

We have all watched the shameful history of the Australian Labor Party. They are prepared to trample all over the rule of law, they are prepared to trample all over natural justice and they are prepared to trample all over procedural fairness. I say to the Labor Party: we see through you. We see you, and we see through you. We understand that you are historically worse for people who are seeking asylum in this country than is the coalition. Almost all of the most egregious breaches of people's legal and human rights and almost all of the most draconian laws that have been introduced, that discriminate disgracefully against people who are seeking asylum in this country, have been introduced by Labor governments. We see you, we know what you're like and we will fight you every step of the way. We will continue to fight for justice, for procedural fairness and for the legal rights of people seeking asylum.

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

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

Question agreed to.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.

by leave—Could I ask that the Greens's opposition to Senator Chisholm's amendment to the motion be noted.

Thank you, Senator McKim. The Greens's opposition is noted.

I move:

That general business notice of motion No. 126, standing in the name of Senator Tyrrell, be considered during general business today.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That—

(a) the Senate notes that:

(i) the review of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 recommended that the Independent Review of Resourcing in Parliamentarian Offices (the resourcing review) recommend principles to be considered by the Prime Minister in determining staffing allocations, and

(ii) the resourcing review did not make any such recommendations, and

(b) the following matter be referred to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee for inquiry and report by 27 October 2025:

Sections 4 and 12 of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984, with particular reference to:

(i) the appropriateness of amending those sections to remove, place conditions on or insert guidelines to govern the ability of the Prime Minister to determine the number of personal employees allocated to parliamentarians, for the purpose of ensuring that all parliamentarians are adequately resourced to represent their electors, and

(ii) any other related matters.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government will be opposing this motion. The Independent Review of Resourcing in Parliamentarian Offices was an independent review handled independently from government. The final report of this review was released on 1 August. The government has agreed in principle to all 10 recommendations and will work with parliamentarians on our response and reform. I know that the Special Minister of State is, as always, available to engage with anyone who would like to engage on this matter.

I seek to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The coalition believes that there should be a fair, balanced and transparent system in relation to staffing allocations. A healthy democracy requires a strong parliament that is adequately resourced to review and scrutinise government legislation. The Prime Minister should not hold discretionary powers to arbitrarily cut staffing allocations from the crossbench and the opposition to avoid accountability and legitimate political scrutiny. It is appropriate that changes be made to the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984, the MOP(S) Act, to create clear guidelines on staffing allocations and uphold the democratic principles of the Australian parliament.

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

I move the motion as amended:

Amended motion to read as follows:

(1) That the 2025-26 supplementary Budget estimates hearings be scheduled as follows:

Tuesday, 7 October and Wednesday, 8 October and Monday, 1 December and Tuesday 2 December 2025 (Group A)

Thursday, 9 October and Friday, 10 October and Wednesday, 3 December and Thursday 4 December 2025 (Group B)

(4) That the committees consider the proposed expenditure in accordance with the allocation of departments and agencies to committees agreed to by the Senate.

(5) That committees meet in the following groups:

Group A:

Environment and Communications Finance and Public Administration Legal and Constitutional Affairs

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport

Group B:

Community Affairs Economics

Education and Employment

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, by no later than 5 pm on Friday, 5 September 2025, copies of all letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, meeting invitations, meeting notes, emails, text messages and other correspondence in relation to the Australian Defence Force's recruitment strategy on TikTok and in online computer games.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Special Minister of State, 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 the Special Minister of State and/or his office and the Department of Finance in relation to the release of the Independent Review of Resourcing in Parliamentarian Offices, including documents related to the timing of the release.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 123 standing in the name of Senator Payman 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 4 September 2025, any advice, submissions, emails, briefing notes, file notes, meeting notices, meeting agendas or minutes, Microsoft Teams messages, SMS or other messaging service interaction, since 1 January 2025 held by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and/or the minister's office related to the use of artificial intelligence by Deloitte in the preparation of the Statement of Assurance and Report on the Targeted Compliance Framework received by DEWR.

Question agreed to.

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

That the Senate—

(a) notes that on 28 November 2023 the Senate agreed to order for production of documents no. 405, which required the tabling of:

(i) the statement of reasons document held by the Attorney-General's Department relating to a terrorist organisation listing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps prepared in January 2023, and

(ii) the 'Nomination Form—Criminal Code' held by the Attorney General's Department relating to a terrorist organisation listing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, prepared in January 2023;

(b) further notes that:

(i) on 30 November 2023, the Attorney-General made a public interest immunity claim in relation to the documents sought, stating that the production of the documents 'would, or might reasonably be expected to, disclose information that would be damaging to Australia's national security',

(ii) on 27 February 2024, the Senate agreed to a further order for production of documents (no. 472) requiring the Minister representing the Attorney-General to provide to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, on a confidential basis, by midday on Thursday 29 February 2024, a copy of the documents that were the subject of the order agreed to on 28 November 2023, and

(iii) on 29 February 2024, the Attorney-General maintained a claim of public interest immunity, stating again that the production of the documents 'would, or might reasonably be expected to, disclose information that would be damaging to Australia's national security', and

(c) orders that, immediately following the third reading of a bill that gives effect to, or enables, the listing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation, the Minister representing the Attorney-General table a copy of the documents that were the subject of the order agreed to on 28 November 2023.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

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

(ii) on 26 August 2025, the Senate agreed to an order requiring the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to comply with the order by no later than midday on 27 August 2025,

(iii) the order has still not been complied with, and

(iv) on 27 August 2025, the minister sought additional time to comply with the order and advised that the Senate will receive a response to the order as soon as practicable;

(b) acknowledges the minister's advice that more time is required to comply with the order, while also noting that it is now almost one month after the original due date; and

(c) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to comply with the order by no later than midday on Monday, 1 September 2025.

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 Health and Ageing, by no later than 9.30 am on Monday, 29 September 2025, all documentation created during the period from February 2021 to date evidencing the Therapeutic Goods Administration's (TGA) adherence to, and implementation of, the TGA's 'COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Monitoring Plan' (the plan) including but not limited to:

(a) documents evidencing the TGA's implementation of the plan's stated aims and key objectives being:

(i) timely collection and management of reports of COVID-19 vaccine adverse events following immunisation,

(ii) timely detection and investigation of COVID-19 vaccine safety signals,

(iii) timely action to address any COVID-19 vaccine safety concerns,

(iv) timely communications to inform the public of emerging COVID-19 vaccine safety information and to support public confidence in vaccines, and

(v) close collaboration and coordination of effort with other vaccine safety stakeholder groups;

(b) documents evidencing the TGA's implementation of the plan's five key strategies including the TGA's implementation of each of the strategies, objectives and outputs referenced in the key strategies of the plan as follows:

(i) enhanced reporting of adverse events following immunisation,

(ii) enhanced safety signal detection and investigation,

(iii) actions in response to safety concerns,

(iv) communications, and

(v) collaborations; and

(c) any revisions of the plan.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government does not support this motion from Senator Antic. It's another trawling expedition from an anti-vaccination senator. In this case, it seeks documents stretching back to February 2021. It's an unacceptable diversion of departmental resources. The period stretches back to the Morrison government and the National COVID-19 Vaccine Program started by that government, which has continued under the Albanese government. Vaccination is the single most important step each of us can take to minimise the risk of severe disease and death associated with COVID-19 infection. Long-term data and real-world experience continue to confirm both the safety and the efficacy of vaccines for the prevention of severe disease, hospitalisations and death from COVID-19. The TGA closely monitors the safety of COVID-19 vaccines and has well-established and robust systems in place to capture reports of suspected adverse events.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 128, standing in the name of Senator Antic and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.

I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

I move: That this bill be now read a second time.

It is a privilege to introduce the National Health Amendment (Cheaper Medicines) Bill.

This Bill delivers on the Government's promise to deliver cheaper medicines for all Australians.

Delivering cheaper medicines is one of the key pillars supporting our promise to Strengthen Medicare, alongside more bulk billing, more doctors and nurses and more urgent care clinics.

Making medicines cheaper is not just good for the hip pocket, as important as that is; it's also good for your health.

This Bill builds on the actions taken by the Government to deliver cheaper medicines during the 47th Parliament.

In July 2022, we slashed the safety net for pensioners with more free and cheaper medicines, sooner, with a 25 per cent reduction in the number of scripts a concessional patient must fill before the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) Safety Net kicks in.

That change has already delivered 73 million additional free scripts, saving pensioners over half a billion dollars.

Then in January 2023, the largest cut to the cost of medicines in the history of the PBS, with the maximum cost of a general script falling to $30, from $42.50.

Already that has saved general patients $770 million in their hip pockets.

Beginning in September 2023, we introduced 60-day prescriptions for common saving time and money for millions of Australians with an ongoing health condition.

That has saved Australian patients around $250 million and allowed them to avoid 35 million unnecessary trips to the pharmacist.

In January this year we froze the cost of PBS medicines, with co-payments not rising with inflation for all Australians for the first time in 25 years.

Together these four measures the Government has already implemented have saved patients saved patients $1½ billion in the cost of medicines.

But we are determined to do more to make medicines even cheaper.

This Bill represents the fifth wave of reform to deliver cheaper medicines.

As a result of the changes made by this Bill, the maximum Australians will pay for PBS medicines drops from $31.60 down to $25.00, which is a saving of nearly 21 per cent.

The last time a general patient's PBS co-payment was below $25.00 was in 2004, over 20 years ago.

The amendments made by this Bill will ensure that all Australians who don't hold a concession card will have access to more affordable medicines.

The PBS is the primary mechanism through which the Government subsidises access to prescription medicines and is a key component of Medicare, providing significant direct assistance—$18.0 billion in 2023-24—to make medicines affordable for Australians.

The PBS represents a significant component of the Commonwealth's investment in Australia's health system.

To assist in achieving sustainability of the PBS, patients contribute a co-payment towards the cost of their PBS subsidised medicine and the Commonwealth pays the remaining cost.

While many PBS medicines cost significantly more than the patient contribution, the patient co-payment for the 2025 calendar year is $31.60 for general patients (that being, patients who are not concessional card holders) plus any applicable brand premiums.

This Bill amends the National Health Act 1953 to reduce the general patient co-payment to $25.

This allows Australians to continue to access affordable medicines which in turn will reduce the cost of living by providing a significant reduction to the general patient PBS co-payment.

From 1 January 2026, over 5.1 million Australians will pay less for their Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) prescriptions.

This commitment will provide savings to general patients of over $200 million each year, continuing to give more savings to general patients once the 2025 one-year general patient co-payment freeze finishes on 31 December 2025.

The reduction to $25.00 provides immediate cost of living relief to patients without a concession card, while also ensuring the PBS remains a sustainable investment for government. This level of investment was selected to ensure it does not come at the expense of priorities such as:

investment in other essential health services, such as bulk billing; and

The general patient co-payment will continue to be indexed on 1 January each year in line with existing indexation arrangements.

Indexing from 1 January 2027 will be calculated off the new general co-payment amount—$25, thereby saving patients' out-of-pocket costs well into the future.

This Bill delivers on a significant commitment made prior to the election; it builds on earlier actions undertaken by the Albanese Government to deliver cheaper medicines and it helps Strengthen Medicare and improve the health of all Australians.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

I believe Senator Paterson was in continuation; I'm not quite sure if he had concluded his remarks.

I rise to speak on the Pacific Banking Guarantee Bill 2025. While this bill may look like a simple technical banking measure, really it's about something much larger. It's about keeping the Pacific connected to the world, safeguarding prosperity and reaffirming our role as a strong partner in the region.

Across the Pacific, access to banking services is under real pressure. Over the past decade, around 80 per cent of correspondent banking links have disappeared. This means it has become harder for people to send money home, harder for businesses to trade, harder for locals to access banking and harder for governments to deliver aid programs and financial flows.

ANZ has already closed 10 branches in the region in just five years. Westpac has limited their services. Bendigo and Adelaide Bank has withdrawn from Nauru and smaller institutions have exited the region altogether. These withdrawals affect families, small businesses and entire communities that rely on banking services. They are changes really felt by Pacific towns and villages when the only bank branch shuts in doors. Pacific leaders have told us time and time again that banking access is one of their top priorities. They know that without it cross-border payments dry up, trade dries up and economic security weakens. In the Pacific, in countries like Tonga, Samoa and Fiji, remittances are a vital source of national income.

This bill establishes a Pacific banking guarantee, giving eligible Australian banks the certainty they need to remain active in the region. It creates a special appropriation from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, ensuring that, in the unlikely event of a claim, the Commonwealth can step in immediately and in full. Guarantees are confined to low-risk exposures. Banks will pay a fee for the protection. Independent assessments show the likelihood of a payout is very low. This is a balanced and carefully designed mechanism to keep financial services in place.

The urgency on this is clear. The Commonwealth has already reached a landmark agreement with ANZ, the bank with the largest Pacific footprint, covering nine nations: the Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, Tonga and Vanuatu. This 10-year, $2 billion guarantee secures ANZ's presence in those countries.

ANZ has made strong commitments in return: investing a further $50 million in modernising its Pacific banking systems, continuing to facilitate around a quarter of all transactions into the region, sustaining the correspondent banking limits that allow funds to flow through the region reliably and transparently, and maintaining fee-free remittance services through its retail digital channels for the full life of the guarantee—meaning it won't cost a cent to send money where it's needed. These commitments go directly to the needs of people in the region, lowering costs, improving access and keeping the financial system open, honest and connected. Keeping Australian institutions engaged means keeping Pacific nations connected to banks that are regulated to the highest of standards, accountable to independent authorities and embedded in the values of openness and fairness.

This message was echoed just last week in Nauru when my colleague Assistant Minister Nita Green opened the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. She underlined that losing banking access has serious consequences for families, communities and governments alike. This was a milestone in our shared journey of partnership, resilience and regional cooperation, as well as a significant achievement under the Nauru-Australia Treaty. That's why Australia is working with banks and Pacific governments to maintain these services. For our Pacific friends, it is about building a safer, more stable and more prosperous region. It's about ensuring that Pacific workers in Australia can send money home to support their families. It's about enabling governments and businesses to trade, invest and grow. It's about protecting our region from economic volatility.

Foreign Minister Wong has often said that Australia's role in the Pacific is to listen and to respond to the priorities of our neighbours. Access to banking is one of their priorities. By supporting this guarantee, we are acting on what Pacific leaders have asked for. It's practical, targeted support to keep their economies resilient. The banking guarantee is just one part of our government's wider engagement with the Pacific. It complements the new Nakamal Agreement with Vanuatu, which responds to Pacific priorities such as climate change and mobility. It sits alongside the $125 million REnew Pacific program, which is delivering renewable energy projects, improving energy security and creating jobs. It is consistent with our defence cooperation, including the exercise Pacific Partnership 2025 and joint work on disaster relief and humanitarian support.

All of these initiatives reinforce the same objective—strengthening the resilience, stability and prosperity of the Pacific region. The Pacific Banking Guarantee Bill 2025 is a careful and practical measure. It underpins the financial stability of the region, supports continued access to banking services and strengthens our role as a reliable partner of Pacific nations. For families and businesses in the Pacific, access to banking is essential. It means being able to save for education, send money to relatives or secure credit to keep a business running. This bill ensures that Australian banks can keep providing those services in a way that is sustainable and consistent with our national interest.

The Greens will be supporting the Pacific Banking Guarantee Bill 2025. We'll be doing so as we do recognise that there is a need to ensure access to adequate banking and financial services in the Pacific, including for Australians visiting the Pacific and Australian businesses operating in the region but also for local folks in the Pacific region. But we do have some reservations about this bill, and I want to place on the record some of our concerns.

Firstly, we are concerned that the guarantees in this bill only apply to banks headquartered in Australia. This, of course, gives banks headquartered in Australia an unfair competitive advantage over local banks operating in Pacific countries. We've already got a major bank oligopoly in this country, and the last thing that Australia should be doing is seeking to export our oligopoly to other countries. The oligopoly in the banking sector in this country does not serve Australians well. It reflects an economy-wide concentration of market power that has been underway in this country for many decades. That's the first concern we've got.

Secondly, we're concerned that the bill doesn't cap the amount of money that can be made available under any guarantees. Treasury has provided an assurance that there is a low risk of a guarantee being utilised, but it remains the fact that it is simply not good practice for the public to have to bear the risk for a potentially unlimited liability in the private sector. The neoliberal brainworms have consumed this country for the last 50 years, and they are showing no signs of slowing down in terms of our policy development process.

Another concern we have is the lack of requirements in the legislation for transparency in relation to the terms and conditions of any guarantee made under this legislation. The term 'commercial-in-confidence' has been deliberately used to stymy the public's right to know in a range of circumstances and contexts over many decades in this country—and here we go again. Commercial-in-confidence is often claimed by corporations in a way that they are not required to justify, and in a way that is simply slavishly accepted by the major parties in this place, who are so cosy with those big corporations for two major reasons. Firstly, those big corporations donate so massively to the Labor Party and to the Liberal Party and to the National Party; and, secondly, many people, even those who currently sit in this place, know that they'll be able to roll out of a career in politics, into a post-politics career in the boardrooms of those very same corporations. It's the old, 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.' You scratch their back while you're in this place by accepting their commercial-in-confidence claims, and they will scratch your back once you get out by whacking you onto a couple of corporate boards.

A diverse variety of stakeholders have called for more information in relation to the guarantees to be released publicly, including Bank South Pacific, the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat and the Director of the ANU Development Policy Centre, Professor Stephen Howes. I asked the minister, in her summing up, if she could specifically address why the government has decided not to provide for a framework to allow for the provision of more information in relation to guarantees to be released publicly, particularly in light of the calls of people like the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. We're supposed to be good Pacific neighbours. I'll talk a little bit more about some of the things that we're doing to our Pacific island neighbours a bit later in my speech, but, given that we are basically sinking a lot of their countries by approving new coal and gas mines hand over fist, I would have thought the very least we could do was heed their calls for more transparency in relation to this legislation.

To be clear, the Greens are calling on Labor to legislate to ensure that the terms and conditions of each guarantee are made public, including the value of the guarantee; what the guarantee specifically covers; fees, if any, paid by the recipient; and whether the recipient meets or has met their obligations under the guarantee. That is a basic minimum transparency standard, and there is precisely no reason why legislation to frame those measures should not have been included in this bill. You can't blame the Greens and, for that matter, the wider Australian public for having reservations about the Albanese Labor government's relationship with big Australian banks. Labor has shown time and time again that they will do whatever it takes to support their corporate donors, including the big four banks, even when the interests of the big four banks run counter to the interests of the Australian people.

Let's take one example from the last parliamentary term. The Greens came to an agreement with the then assistant treasurer, Mr Jones, to impose million-dollar fines on dodgy bankers who failed to uphold their obligations around probity within the banking sector. As soon as the bank executives got wind of what was going on, the calls started coming in, right up to and including the Prime Minister's office, from no less than the head of the Australian Banking Association, Anna Bligh. By the way, Ms Bligh is a former Queensland Labor premier—a living, breathing example of the rolling door that I was just talking about, the revolving door, whereby senior, major party officials, MPs and, in the case of Ms Bligh, a premier in this country roll more or less straight out of the parliament and straight out of the Premier's suite in Queensland into a job like heading up the Australian Banking Association. What happened? Labor backflipped and reneged on their agreement with the Greens. That was a naked display of power. The Australian Banking Association didn't care who saw them pulling the Labor Party strings, and the Labor Party, the shameless Labor Party, didn't care who saw them acquiescing to those tugs on their strings from the Australian Banking Association. It was a naked display of power, and it revealed who actually run this joint: vested corporate interests.

Late last term we also saw the former assistant treasurer introduce the Scams Prevention Framework Bill, supposedly to combat scams. But, of course, after heavy lobbying from—guess who?—the major banks in this country, the final result was a bill that let those very same big banking corporations off the hook and did next to nothing to stop people from being scammed. To make the scams framework even slightly more useful, the new assistant treasurer, Mr Mulino, needs to designate different sectors of the economy, including banks, telcos and social media platforms, and develop codes and rules for each sector. To date, we've heard radio silence from the Assistant Treasurer, and I politely suggest to him that he get active in this space.

The major banks in this country operate in a sweet, sweet oligopoly. Their massive market power and their huge sway over the old political parties in this place give them free rein to squeeze their customers for every last dollar, and as a result they are some of the most profitable banks in the world. They rake in billions in profits every year, they award their executives multimillion dollar salary and bonus packages, and the long-suffering Australian consumer loses out. It's a story we've heard time after time after time.

We're in the midst of the profit reporting season at the moment. CommBank are the first of the big four banks to report their profit for the last financial year—over $10 billion of profit. That's CommBank's highest profit in over a decade, and their executives are going to get handsomely rewarded for that profit. That profit is, in significant part, recorded off the back of an escalating housing crisis in this country.

Remember, when COVID first hit, the Reserve Bank panicked, printed about $400 billion and handed it over to the banks on extremely favourable terms. Because the RBA did not direct the flow of that credit, which they have the power to do under the Banking Act—and that power remains, I might add, thanks to the Greens, in the face of Labor's attempt to get rid of that power in the last term—so the banks, of course, turned around and lent it into their highest margin products, home loans. And what happened? We saw yet another housing price bubble, pricing even more young Australians out of the housing market.

The RBA has admitted on the record, and I've got to give Mr Lowe credit here—the former governor of the RBA has admitted on the record that they printed too much money. By the way, CommBank is the same bank that, just weeks ago, refused to refund low-income customers after ASIC found the bank pocketed hundreds of millions of dollars by charging low-income customers excessive account fees. The reason the major banks operate with utter disregard for ethics is that they know they're protected from adverse consequences by the political oligopoly in this place—the Labor, Liberal and National parties.

I now want to briefly talk about climate change. It is of course expensive and financially risky to establish banking infrastructure in the Pacific. The risk is only increasing as the region is battered by more frequent and severe extreme weather events that are driven by the climate crisis. In the Pacific region, cyclones, flooding, storm surges and sea-level rises are making life more precarious for business communities and, in the context of this legislation, the economy of the Pacific. But let's be clear. These extreme weather events are not natural. They are delivered by human-induced climate change, and what is the Labor Party's response to this—including right up to the level of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong? Their response is that we should be good neighbours to the Pacific region. What is the Labor Party doing? They are continuing to log our native forests, emitting massive amounts of carbon. They are continuing to permit unrestrained land clearing, particularly in Queensland, which releases massive amounts of carbon. And they are continuing to approve new coal and gas projects hand over fist.

The Labor Party is culpable for the extreme weather events that are destabilising the economy and societies, and that are putting lives at risk in the Pacific region. If Labor wants to be a good neighbour to the Pacific, the most important thing they could do and the way they could demonstrate that to the greatest degree possible is to stop approving new coal and gas projects, stop publicly funding the burning of fossil fuels and stop publicly funding the logging of our precious native forests. (Time expired)

I rise to speak on the Pacific Banking Guarantee Bill 2025. I do so in support of its broad objectives, but also with some concerns about its transparency and the adequacy of its guarantees. The purpose of this bill is to ensure that Australian banks or authorised deposit-taking institutions continue to have operations in the Pacific region. I note the Treasurer's statement that the aim of the bill is 'to help ensure Pacific nations have access to correspondent banking relationships, CBRs, which provide important connections to the global financial system'. These CBRs are vital to both Australia and Pacific nations. They facilitate international trade and allow Pacific island countries to receive aid money and remittances, attract investment and grow their economies.

I liken CBRs to the plumbing of banks. They let money flow from one country to another. Without CBRs, Pacific island countries are completely financially cut off from the rest of the world. They'd have no stores of foreign currency and wouldn't be able to trade, for example. Remittances, especially, are a lifeline for household incomes of Pacific countries. Remittances are defined as 'cross-border transfers of funds'. Put simply, people remit earnings to their family and friends back home. Small businesses remit frequently across borders too. As well as providing essential income, remittances put more food on the table. They alleviate poverty, improve nutritional outcomes and are associated with higher school enrolment rates for children in disadvantaged households. The decline of CBRs is not just a financial issue but a socioeconomic one. Australian banks are the critical conduit through which the remittances of Pacific island workers are processed. Their sustained presence in the homelands of these workers is a must.

Over the past decade, financial institutions have dropped a significant proportion of their CBRs in the Pacific. For every five banks exiting the Pacific, four are Western—that is, providing services in US dollars. So 80 per cent of the CBRs withdrawing are carrying the currencies that Pacific island countries need. The process is known is as derisking, and banks are withdrawing CBRs from the region because of small and shallow markets, low profits, high cost of compliance and increasing risk. These all contribute to banks deciding that the business case of operating in the Pacific does not stack up. Smaller Pacific nations with little capacity to combat financial crime are particularly impacted by this alarming loss of banking relationships. Moreover, increasingly stringent regulations on anti-money-laundering and combatting the financing of terrorism have driven the derisking of Western banks further.

Pacific island nations are close friends of Australia, and now is the time for our government to step up and ensure the provision of adequate banking services in the region. Our banks must remain the trusted go-to for our Pacific family. If Australian and American banks continue their retreat from the Pacific, they will leave a wider vacuum for banks of other nations to fill. Banks with lower standards on financial crime taking the place of Australian banks will only increase the risk of doing business there, pushing more good banks out of the region.

I welcome the objective of this bill to counter the risk of Australian banks leaving the Pacific, by making conditions more favourable for Australian banks to operate in the region. The bill seeks to do this through two key measures—firstly, by allowing the Commonwealth to enter legally binding guarantees with banks that could act as a safety net for their operations in the Pacific; and, secondly, by ensuring that the money from the consolidated revenue fund can be used to pay out funds to Australians banks under the terms of a Pacific banking guarantee.

The bill sees these two measures as allowing Australian banks to mitigate the expected risks and constraints of operating in the smaller markets typical of Pacific island economies. Remember this: risky markets make it hard for banks to sell the business case to shareholders. The ANZ banking group announced it would be the first recipient of a Pacific banking guarantee, a maximum $2 billion, 10-year bank guarantee to support its regional operations. This is the first such guarantee, and it is contingent on the passage of this legislation.

I am fully on board with the intention of this bill to support Australian banks in the Pacific and to counter the risks of banking withdrawals. These are worthy goals. I do, however, have concerns about the lack of clarity with some of the bill's provisions. First, I am concerned about the transparency on how taxpayers are made aware of when a guarantee is triggered. There is also no specificity on how much gets paid out, on what the red line will be. The bill in its present form provides for an uncapped appropriation with no dollar limit and no end date. I'm not convinced taxpayers will be informed well, if at all. There also needs to be transparency on why this guarantee is needed, when the risk of needing the guarantee is deemed by Treasury to be low.

I'm also concerned about the locking in of fee-free remittances for 10 years without assurances from ANZ that the markup on the foreign transfer for Pacific Islanders won't be exorbitant. Will the government scrutinise this commitment to fee-free remittances under its annual review and get assurances that Pacific workers aren't getting ripped off? I recognise that this is a commercial venture, but we still need to protect workers from excessive mark-ups on the foreign exchange. The absolute lack of transparency on the total cost of remittances, not just the fee, and the lack of competition makes the Australian-Pacific remittance corridor one of the most expensive in the world.

As I wrote in a 2023 policy brief for the Lowy Institute, the Australian government should better support Pacific workers who remit significant earnings home by reducing transaction costs. The government must get assurances from our banks that their markups on international money transfers for Pacific workers will be made transparent so they can choose if that is the right transfer provider for them. Transparency is key to competition and fairness. Keeping foreign exchange markups down will mean Pacific island workers can pocket more of their hard-earned cash.

My other concern is that the bill provides limited specificity about the nature of any future banking guarantees. As my colleagues in the other place have argued, there is limited detail about how these guarantees will be managed by the Commonwealth. The bill offers no explicit mechanisms for parliamentary oversight or regulatory reviews of the guarantees and their impacts. Again taxpayers are left in the dark, this time about what is actually being guaranteed.

To provide the public with the clarity they need, I agree with the recommendation of the great ANU economist in the Development Policy Centre, Professor Stephen Howes. In his submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Economics inquiry on the Pacific banking guarantee, he recommended:

The Bill should have transparency requirements written into it, similar to those associated with community service obligations. These would stipulate at a minimum that the terms and conditions of any guarantee made under this Bill would be made public, and that the recipient of the guarantee would be required to report on its compliance with the obligations it has entered into.

Adopting this recommendation would give taxpayers assurance that their money is being handled with transparency and accountability by the Commonwealth. As Professor Howes rightly pointed out:

Any corporation receiving a benefit from the taxpayer should be required to disclose the terms and conditions on which such benefits are provided and should be obliged to report on what it is doing in return.

I welcome the thoughtful submission of Professor Howes to the public consideration of this bill. I appreciate the longstanding contributions he has made to Australia's foreign aid policy through the Development Policy Centre, AusAID and the many other bodies on which he has served as chair or adviser. Like Professor Howes, I believe this bill not only lacks transparency but awards too much discretion to government and business officials. It requires more rigorous accountability on the part of these players to ensure that the interests of taxpayers are properly served.

In short, I fully support legislation that maintains Australia's banking presence in the Pacific yet does so in a way that is fiscally responsible, transparent and fair to Australian taxpayers. Beyond this bill, there are other ways by which the government could support and sustain the presence of Australian banks in the Pacific. Professor Howes has proposed an interesting measure that this government could consider, which reflects one I made in my 2023 policy brief on remittance costs—that the government explore a more direct role for the Reserve Bank of Australia to facilitate international transactions involving Pacific island workers employed in Australia under the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility Scheme. There are many ways to support cheaper remittances into the region, and we need all options on the table. We need to think outside the square as to how we can best serve the banking needs of our Pacific family.

We also need to help the Pacific islands region build a self-sustaining banking system. In this vein, we need to create an environment that enables its own banking system to flourish and prosper in the long term. In so doing, we can build on the previous coalition government's proud record of empowering our Pacific family. As I said in my maiden speech on 30 July, we must help our Pacific family develop a harmonised banking regulation framework that will integrate with Australia's. This will reduce the cost of compliance, lower the risk profile and encourage more Australian and American banks to do business there.

Looking forward, we will continue to work with the government to help sustain healthy correspondent banking relationships in the Pacific, yet we will ensure that all Pacific banking policy is transparent and fiscally responsible, with accountability to the Australian taxpayer. Importantly, the coalition will ensure that all such future legislation is directed towards the financial autonomy, security and wellbeing of Pacific island workers in Australia. When they prosper, their home countries will also prosper. A thriving Pacific region connected to the global financial system through our banks is absolutely something we should strive for.

I rise today in firm support of the Pacific Banking Guarantee Bill 2025. It's a critical piece of legislation that not only underpins Australia's economic and diplomatic presence in the Pacific but also echoes the Albanese Labor government's enduring commitment to equitable access to financial services both at home and across our region.

For those of us in this chamber who represent regional communities, as I proudly do, this bill should resonate deeply. The decline of banking services is not just a local issue in rural and regional Australia; it's also being felt in our Pacific family, in places like Tonga, Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands, where everyday people are increasingly cut off from the global financial system. Whether it's a sugar cane grower in Mackay or a market vendor in Suva, people need a functioning banking system to build a life. This bill addresses that challenge head on. The Pacific banking guarantee enables the Commonwealth to step in where risk aversion from major financial institutions threatens to leave whole communities behind. Under this legislation, the government can issue guarantees to Australia based, authorised deposit-taking institutions operating in the Pacific, allowing them to maintain services that are commercially marginal but socially and strategically essential.

The Pacific is our neighbourhood. Since coming to office, the Albanese Labor government has been working hard to restore trust, rebuild relationships and be the partner of choice in the Pacific region. Within our first 12 months in office, ministers from the Albanese government visited every Pacific Islands Forum member country to renew our Pacific partnerships, to listen to Pacific priorities and to deliver on our collective interests. Indeed, we are the region's largest development partner. But let's be clear. This bill is not about benevolence; it's about sovereignty, it is about stability, and it is about keeping Australia present, visible and trusted in our immediate region. Just as we wouldn't tolerate rural towns in our own backyard being financially abandoned, nor should we allow friendly Pacific nations to be left to the whims of foreign-state backed lenders and opaque financial actors.

In recent years, we've seen correspondent banking relationships, the backbone of cross-border financial activity, evaporate across the Pacific. According to the IMF, the Pacific region has experienced one of the sharpest declines in such relationships globally. In fact, the Pacific is losing correspondent banking services at twice the rate of the global average. This is not just a banking problem; it's a national security issue, an economic sovereignty issue and a long-term diplomatic risk for Australia. With this bill, we are making it clear that Australia is in the Pacific to stay, through our banks, our institutions and our principles.

To illustrate the practical application of this bill, I want to draw attention to the arrangement struck with ANZ, Australia's largest financial institution in the Pacific. The Commonwealth and the ANZ have entered into a 10-year guarantee agreement underpinned by this very legislation. The guarantee, up to $2 billion, will allow ANZ to remain operational in key Pacific markets where economics might not justify a continued presence but the national interest certainly does. This is not a free handout though. ANZ will pay a commercial fee to the government for the guarantee, and, in return, it will continue providing services that no other institution is willing or able to offer. Significantly, ANZ will invest a further $50 million into improving digital infrastructure and expanding fee-free remittance options into the Pacific, putting money back into the pockets of Pacific workers and their families. This is exactly the kind of outcome we want from public/private collaboration—government backed stability while the private sector delivers the service.

Some on the other side of this chamber might argue that this kind of intervention distorts the market—that it's too risky, that it's government overreach. To that I say look at our track record. We already backed the Australian banks through the Financial Claims Scheme. We guaranteed deposits, and we provided wholesale funding support. During the global financial crisis, we underwrote interbank lending. During the pandemic, we coordinated liquidity to the Reserve Bank. This legislation is a continuation of that tradition—limited, targeted and in the national interest. Crucially, it's not open-ended. Each guarantee will be assessed individually under section 60 of the Public Governance Performance and Accountability Act. The government will remain discretion and force transparency and collect commercial fees. So let's not pretend it's a blank cheque. It's a smart investment in resilience and influence.

What we're doing here is also an investment in regional economic stability. When banks exit fragile markets, what fills the vacuum? Informal lenders, unregulated remittance operators, foreign state owned institutions with opaque mandates—in short, instability. Financial exclusion fuels corruption, tax avoidance and crime. It breaks down the trust between people and institutions. It limits the ability of governments to collect revenue to fund schools, hospitals and infrastructure. We cannot allow that dynamic to fester on our doorstep. That's why this legislation matters. That's why it complements the almost $3.3 billion commitment we've made to the Indo-Pacific in development assistance, supporting financial literacy, digital identity systems and anti-money-laundering capabilities. You can't have development without banking, and you can't have banking without a system to support it. That's what this bill provides.

I will also touch briefly on what this means for working people, especially those of Pacific heritage living here in Australia. Every year, hundreds of millions of dollars are sent in remittances from workers in our country to families across the Pacific. These are not luxury transfers. These are school fees, medical bills and housing support. They are acts of love of solidarity. When banks pull out of the Pacific, these families are the first to feel the pain. Transaction costs skyrocket; fraud becomes a greater risk; and, too often, the money simply can't get through. By ensuring that established regulated banks remain present and functional, we're not just backing institutions; we're backing people. This is a win for Pacific families, a win for multicultural Australia and a win for every worker trying to support loved ones across borders.

Colleagues, this bill is part of a larger story. Since coming to government, the Albanese Labor government has tackled head on the challenges facing Australia's financial system, particularly in the regions. We've pushed back against branch closures. We've stood up to customers hit by junk fees. We've restored trust in financial regulators. We're levelling the playing field for smaller banks, making sure competition remains alive and well. This legislation sits comfortably within that agenda. It's about fairness, security and doing what works. It reflects Labor values—practical, not ideological; cooperative, not combative; regional, not just metropolitan; internationalist but grounded in the national interest. It's the kind of policy that only a Labor government can deliver, and I'm proud to support it.

In conclusion, I encourage all senators across parties to support this legislation because the truth is the Pacific is not just a peripheral concern. It is central to who we are and how we live. In banking, it's not just a commercial service; it's a social utility—essential, foundational and transformative. Within this bill we affirm that Australia is a reliable partner, that we take our obligations seriously and that no-one, whether in Fiji, Tonga or Samoa, should be left behind by the forces of financial retreat. Let us pass this bill with conviction and clarity. Let us build a banking system that works for people, not the other way around. Let us do so with certainty that this is what good government looks like.

I commend this bill to the Senate.

(Quorum formed)

I thank my colleagues for making quorum; I appreciate that. Australia's interests in the Pacific are vital, and this is something I know personally. In my earlier career, before coming to this place, I was an Australian diplomat, and in fact my first overseas posting was in Bougainville, a province of Papua New Guinea, where we maintained a peace monitoring group, a regional peacekeeping force, to help put an end to the Bougainville civil war of the 1990s. My second diplomatic posting was in Port Moresby in Papua New Guinea, and I was very heavily involved in our regional assistance mission to the Solomon Islands, which deployed there to, again, quell civil unrest and the risk of a civil war in the early 2000s. Making sure that Australia retains strong links to the Pacific and making sure that the Pacific becomes more stable, prosperous and secure over time are not only important national interest objectives, I think, but important objectives that I'm personally committed to.

As a coalition, when last in government, we were the authors of what we called the Pacific Step-up, and I'm proud of the record that our government was able to achieve. We became the first country, and I think we're still the only one, to establish diplomatic posts in every member nation of the Pacific Islands Forum, every PIF nation, which had not been the case previously. We expanded regional security through the $2 billion Pacific Maritime Security Program, which included the delivery of Guardian class patrol boats, allowing Pacific Islanders and Pacific island nations to better protect their fisheries and to better enforce maritime security. We significantly expanded the Pacific labour mobility scheme and the Seasonal Worker Program, which, importantly, addressed labour market shortfalls in Australia and also gave important skills to Pacific Islanders, allowing them to upgrade their level of skill, and provided a valuable flow of remittances to Pacific island countries. Those links between our nations, the Seasonal Worker Program and the labour mobility scheme, remain important elements of our bilateral ties. We also established the Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific, the AIFFP, which has provided and unlocked billions of dollars in loan and grant financing for key infrastructure projects in the Pacific, whether they be telecommunications, ports, airports or roads. They're all things that will help improve the economic prospects of this region. Of course, we were intimately involved in the COVID response in the Pacific, helping Pacific Island nations secure masks and protective gear at the initial stages of the outbreak of COVID and then also vaccines down the track. I think both sides of the House, to their credit, have taken a close interest in the affairs of the Pacific, and it's important we continue to do so.

I appreciate that the Pacific Banking Guarantee Bill 2025 is formulated very much with that in mind. The intent is to help maintain an Australian banking presence in the Pacific and to make sure that Pacific Islanders continue to have access to sophisticated financial services, especially from financial sources that have high transparency and high regulatory standards, like the Australian banking system does. But we, the coalition, do have some concerns about elements of this bill, which were well canvassed in additional comments to the Senate committee report into this, as authored by my colleague Senator Hume. First of all, I think we have some concerns that the bill provides for an uncapped appropriation with no maximum dollar limit and no end date. It was argued by the government, the proponents of the bill, that flexibility is needed, but an uncapped appropriation inevitably reduces parliamentary oversight of future spending and increases the potential liability—the exposure of the taxpayer for future guarantees.

Earlier this year, ANZ announced it would be the first recipient of the Pacific banking guarantee, which would be a maximum $2 billion, 10-year bank guarantee to support its operation in the region. Obviously, that guarantee is contingent on the passage of this legislation, and no other guarantees have been announced to date. But there is the potential—because, as I said, the appropriation is uncapped—for that dollar limit to grow considerably, with there being no end date. That is a concern to us. ANZ has reportedly paid an undisclosed annual fee to the government for the guarantee, but the exact details have not been made public due to commercial confidentiality.

Obviously, I accept at face value the utility of this mechanism in allowing ANZ and other banks to continue to maintain the commercial viability of their presence and operations in the Pacific. The presence of Australian banks in the Pacific is an important national asset for Australia and one we should seek to protect and preserve. But one concern in particular I have about this bill, and I know it's shared about my colleagues, is about some of the unintended consequences that might flow from it onto Pacific banking institutions themselves, notably the Bank South Pacific, BSP. BSP executives and leadership did come to meet with me a few weeks ago. BSP, as some of you might know, is the largest and most widespread bank in the South Pacific. It provides banking and financial services both retail and commercial to large numbers of Pacific Island citizens and also Pacific Island businesses. BSP had a number of concerns about the lack of consultation that they had experienced with respect to this bill, the lack of publicly available information about what is being provided to ANZ and, naturally enough, what it will mean for their own competitiveness in the region. If the result of this Pacific banking guarantee is that we render or make BSP or other Pacific banking institutions commercially unviable, then the net result of this intervention will be worse for the Pacific and worse for our interest in the Pacific.

In that vein, and as my colleague Senator Hume put in her additional comments, we would encourage the Treasury in particular to reconsider whether there is more information about the guarantee that could be made publicly available. We would encourage Treasury and relevant Treasury ministers in the government to consult and meet with executives from Bank South Pacific to provide as much information and detail as they can, importantly, to provide reassurance—because I don't believe this is the intent—that this guarantee is not intended to commercially undercut BSP or render them unviable. We think it's important, particularly going forward, that some of those reassurances are provided.

As I said, we do have some concerns about the risk to Australian taxpayers from an uncapped liability with no maximum dollar amount and no end date, but we did hear evidence from Treasury during the committee inquiry that the risk to Australian taxpayers for these guarantees is low. For those reasons, we do not propose to oppose this bill. But, in not opposing the bill and in engaging constructively with the government on it, we would urge the government, as I said earlier, to make sure there are no unintended consequences of this bill, that Bank South Pacific and other Pacific banks are better briefed and provided and furnished with as much information as possible. Particularly, provided this bill passes, once it is passed and enacted and becomes operational, the commercial and competitive impacts on the banking industry in the South Pacific should be closely monitored to make sure that we are not rendering sovereign Pacific banking and financial institutions unviable as a result of this well-meaning intervention.

I will keep this brief, as many of the previous government speakers have said, I think, what needs to be said on the Pacific Banking Guarantee Bill 2025. With the Albanese government, we are making it clear. You can bank on Australia to keep the Pacific connected to the global financial system. We are serious about maintaining banking services in the Pacific because we are serious about the safety, security and economic development of our region. Without this action, large parts of the Pacific risk being cut off from the global financial system.

This bill will assist eligible Australian banks to maintain their Pacific operations by providing a guarantee which transfers risks of default on low-risk exposures to the Commonwealth. Essentially what it does is provide the foundations so that Australian banks can stay engaged in the Pacific. We know that Australian banks play an extremely vital role, providing critical services across the region. It amounts to a guarantee that transfers the risk of default on certain and specific low-risk exposures to the Commonwealth. It is worth remembering that Australian banks operate under strict prudential standards as set out by APRA, including requirements to hold substantial capital reserves. These high regulatory obligations mean that, without a government guarantee in place, banks would be far less willing to continue providing services in the Pacific. The bill provides for special appropriation on the Consolidated Revenue Fund, allowing the Commonwealth to pay any valid claims for the full amount of any guarantee in a timely manner and in the very unlikely event of any default. To be clear, this guarantee is not a subsidy, and banks will pay a fee for the guarantee. This bill is also not about any one country; it's about strengthening cooperation with our Pacific neighbours.

Having chaired the inquiry into this bill, I want to take the opportunity to thank the submitters and the witnesses who contributed to the inquiry. In examining the risks during the committee inquiry into this bill, Treasury officials made clear that a broad range of options was considered, including direct subsidies and even the Australian government itself providing banking services. The evidence was clear that this guarantee is the lowest-cost, lowest-risk way to achieve the objective. The inquiry also heard that the risks were assessed using commercial advice and consultation with the Department of Finance, arriving at a very low overall assessment with regard to risk. Importantly, the Commonwealth does not bear the full risk of the guarantee. The scheme has been carefully designed to be non-distortionary. As we heard from Senator Sharma just a moment ago, the banking landscape in the Pacific will not be impacted in the way that some correspondence in the inquiry raised concerns about.

This legislation is just one part of the substantial progress that we have made to secure the future of banking services in the Pacific. The government has worked with the Commonwealth Bank, and with the ANZ and Westpac, to establish operations in Nauru this year to secure their continued presence in the region. Through the multi-year Pacific partnership with New Zealand and the International Finance Corporation, we've also helped to roll out national payment systems infrastructure across Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu. This means that these countries now have access to electronic payment systems that connect commercial banks with central banks and each other, enabling transfers and the settlement of government bonds.

Alongside this bill, the Albanese government is also investing in practical measures to address the root causes of debanking and to strengthen financial systems across the Pacific, including $2.9 million to the World Bank to support inclusive and secure digital identity infrastructure across Pacific island countries, $1.7 million to the Asian Development Bank to enhance regional compliance with anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing standards, and $1.7 million for the Attorney-General's Department to assist with criminal justice and law enforcement capacity in the region. We are also investing in developing the digital economies of our neighbours, supporting cheaper remittances and building safe and secure digital payment systems that lower costs for governments, businesses and bank customers alike. At the Pacific Banking Forum in Brisbane just last month, Treasurer Jim Chalmers announced a further $6.3 million to build better banking infrastructure across the region.

Taken together, this is a clear demonstration that Australia is committed to helping our Pacific neighbours build stronger, more resilient financial systems. The Pacific Banking Guarantee Bill is a practical, low-risk step that gives banks the certainty that they need to stay in the region. Most importantly, it ensures families and communities can continue to access their money and banking services with confidence. It supports Pacific communities here in Australia and across the Pacific itself, and it strengthens the deep partnerships that underpin our shared stability and prosperity.

I rise to contribute to this debate, particularly given my new portfolio as Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and my most recent engagement in the Pacific around this issue. I begin by thanking the committee and the chair for the good work on the report and that engagement with stakeholders.

The Pacific Banking Guarantee Bill 2025 is an important bill for Australia and for the Pacific. Three years ago, when the Albanese Labor government was elected, we made a promise to our Pacific family that we would listen, that we would learn and that we would act to ensure that we work hand in hand. Together we are working to foster a safe and stable global financial system. We are doing this by supporting the services that underpin economic growth, whether that be critical infrastructure, aviation or the banking measures that we will discuss today.

The Albanese government is dedicated to revitalising our Pacific partnership after the decade of neglect that we saw from those opposite. We are ambitious in our support for the Pacific because that is what good neighbours do. We share an ocean. We are a region that shares a future. Together we have shared interests and priorities that make us collectively stronger when we work side by side. It's important for the prosperity of our region now more than ever that we are economically and financially connected. That is why I am so proud to support the Pacific Banking Guarantee Bill 2025.

Last week I had the honour of visiting Nauru. I was there with President David Adeang to launch the opening of operations of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. During this visit, it was clear that the launch of the Commonwealth Bank agency in Nauru was so much more than the opening of a bank branch. The event marked an important milestone for the Nauru-Australia Treaty, a treaty which speaks to securing Nauru's long-term economic resilience and security. It was significant because it was a significant milestone towards our shared journey of partnership and regional cooperation.

Nauru, like many other nations in the Pacific, faces the possibility of being left without a bank and, with that, losing access to the global economy. Think about what that would mean for you or your community—to be cut off overnight, to sleep with cash under your pillow because there's nowhere else to store it. This was the reality for the nation of Nauru, and it should never be again.

This could have been the story going forward. The Pacific has been disproportionately affected by the global trend of financial institutions reducing and withdrawing banking services. This decline, occurring at twice the rate of the global average, impacts whole countries' access to, importantly, cross-border payment services, and their connection to the global financial system and the ability for Pacific communities—particularly Pacific workers in Australia—to send remittances home. These banking services are crucial for economic growth, inclusion and stability. Nationally, they ensure that government and businesses can engage with international trade, grow local infrastructure, protect essential services and grow their communities.

At a local level, banking services allow people to start and maintain businesses to ensure that workers can send money home to support their communities and their families. It was a real source of pride for every single person who had their new CommBank card issued. It's a real source of pride for the leadership of His Excellency and the cabinet in Nauru that we've reached this important step.

Australia and our Pacific partners want to avoid the situation where Pacific nations are debanked and lose access to crucial cross-border payments and banking services. We know that, right now, the Pacific's ability to engage with the world remains at stake if we do not enact legislation such as this. This bill will enable the Commonwealth to guarantee an Australian bank's business in the Pacific against the unlikely possibility of a default in the region which may force them to shut their operations. Though it is unlikely to be needed, Australian banks who are eligible will pay a fee to the Commonwealth for the guarantee.

The bill allows for a special appropriation from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purpose of meeting any liabilities that the Commonwealth may incur under the Pacific Banking Guarantee. This will aim to incentivise banks to continue their operation in the Pacific by reducing risk and guarantees. This legislation goes hand in hand with the Australian government's commitment to enable Pacific governments, businesses and communities to trade, invest and grow.

The Albanese government has proudly signed landmark treaties with countries such as Nauru and Vanuatu. These treaties create a safer region and advance our position as a security partner of choice in the Pacific. We've strengthened cooperation with Papua New Guinea through our bilateral security agreement and our landmark National Rugby League deal. These are both underpinned by strategic trust. We're also getting our relationship with the Solomon Islands on better footing by building its police force. We've committed to listening to and working together with our Pacific neighbours on issues that matter to both of us.

The Pacific and Australia have had more than 40 years of tariff-free access, to ensure the smooth flow of goods and services across the Pacific. Australia's trade with Pacific island countries in 2024 was 23 per cent higher than in 2019, with the rate of increase even higher in countries that are partners in the PACER Plus treaty. Families, businesses and tourists are connected thanks to new and upgraded airports, seaports and roads as well as more flight routes, including the Palau Paradise Express and the Australia-North Pacific Connector.

In 2023, over 600,000 Australians visited Pacific island countries. Pacific islanders have better pathways to live, work and study in Australia—and, across the region, through Australian scholarships and skills training, the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme. These pathways have seen more than 20,000 Pacific people graduate with full Australian qualifications. They have seen 13,000 Pacific students with Australian award scholarships and more than 30,000 Pacific workers employed under the PALM scheme.

Under our government, digital services are also expanding in the Pacific, with every country being connected to undersea cables by the end of 2025 to ensure faster and more reliable access in the Pacific. And, of course, as we discussed today here in this chamber, essential banking services are available through the guaranteed presence of Australian banks in nine countries. These are services that people rely on every single day. They are services that the Albanese government want to protect within our Pacific region. As a Queensland senator who lives in Cairns and whose home is closer to Port Moresby than to Brisbane, I cannot express how important it is that we protect Pacific communities' access to the global financial system. Our region is stronger when we work together and when we face regional challenges as partners. The Pacific Banking Guarantee Bill 2025 ensures that we are fostering a stable and safe region with our Pacific family. I commend this work and the bill and wholeheartedly support it.

I'd like to thank the senators who have contributed to this debate. Australia is responding to the concerns of Pacific and Timor-Leste governments by introducing the ability for the Commonwealth to provide guarantees to eligible Australian banks to maintain their Pacific operations and their enduring presence in the region, because we know secure access to the global financial system and banking services is critical for economic growth, financial inclusion and overall stability.

The Pacific Banking Guarantee Bill 2025 allows the Commonwealth to offer support to eligible Australian banks—a guarantee which transfers risk of default on low-risk exposures to the Commonwealth. It provides for a special appropriation on the Consolidated Revenue Fund, allowing the Commonwealth to pay any valid claims for the full amount of any guarantee in a timely manner in the unlikely event of any default. Provision of this guarantee is not about any individual country. It is about our commitment to working to maintain access to enduring banking services and is about our connection to the global financial system in the Pacific. I commend this bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills requested a justification for why this bill includes a standing appropriation rather than being included in the annual appropriation bill, which would give the Senate oversight. Please explain why a standing appropriation is required.

Thanks, Senator Roberts, for the question. A special appropriation is more suitable for meeting possible liabilities than annual appropriations. While the likelihood the Commonwealth will need to make a payment is very low, we may be urgently required at any time to meet liabilities arising under a guarantee, which may fall outside the usual budget cycle. This means the annual appropriation process may not be available within the timeframe any liability falls due.

Without a special appropriation, it is possible parliament will be recalled to pass an urgent appropriation or the Commonwealth can risk defaulting on its liabilities. The special appropriation is not proposed to have a direct dollar limit, as this provides the Commonwealth with flexibility to ensure it achieves a significant national interest objective, securing an Australian banking presence in the Pacific over the long term.

The Commonwealth would not provide an unlimited guarantee, however there may be circumstances where the maximum amount guaranteed under the appropriation could change. This includes if the Commonwealth entered into a new agreement with another Australian bank and the legislation limits on the types of guarantees the government can provide to guarantees—only from an ADI banking business in the Pacific region. Specifically, the legislation limits the guarantee to only the ADI's Pacific operations.

So it's an open-ended budget allocation. The guarantees being provided by this government are commercial-in-confidence. This means the Senate will not have oversight on what the government is agreeing to. Is that correct?

In terms of reporting obligations, any Pacific banking guarantee, including the ANZ agreement, will contain mechanisms to ensure a bank's compliance with its obligations. This includes regular reporting on the total amount of guaranteed liabilities and the compliance with bank commitments as well.

The duration of the ANZ guarantee is 10 years, meaning this government is binding future governments. Can the federal government withdraw from a guarantee at any time in those 10 years? If so, is there any sunset clause or time limit to the guarantees?

It's a commercial agreement that's been entered into with the Commonwealth. There is no sunsetting clause.

I am told the World Bank is also working on a plan to assist correspondent banking intermediaries in the Pacific. Why didn't you join that international effort, and will you use what they come up with as a way of sunsetting this arrangement?

Any Pacific banking guarantee is expected to complement the World Bank's Pacific Strengthening Correspondent Banking Relationships Project, the CBR project. The government strongly supports the World Bank's work on this in terms of the work they are doing in the Pacific.

If you have strong confidence in the World Bank, why not let the World Bank do it?

Phase 1 of the World Bank project will establish a correspondent banking relationship provider of last resorts, which countries can call upon should they lose their financial correspondent banking relationship in a particular currency. It is intended to be a fallback for when there is no other commercially viable option.

This bill does not specify what is being guaranteed, so let me ask. Does the guarantee extend to the Australian government guaranteeing loans by Australian banks to the governments of Pacific nations?

Senator Roberts, we've just had a small changeover. I'm just trying to ensure that I can give you accurate information. The Commonwealth provides a limited guarantee to ANZ, under this legislation, in connection with banking operations in nine markets across the Pacific and Timor-Leste. Those markets are Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, Tonga and Vanuatu. The guarantee only covers certain eligible liabilities, and it is only triggered if certain trigger events occur and result in a loss to ANZ. The Commonwealth has only provided the guarantee for certain eligible liabilities in order to minimise the risks and potential costs of any Pacific banking guarantee to the Commonwealth and to mitigate any potential competition or market distortion risks in Pacific financial markets and the Pacific banking sector. To preserve the non-distortionary mechanisms in the guarantee, the government will not be disclosing the specific terms of the guarantee, including the types of exposures that are covered. If it assists Senator Roberts, the government was, of course, provided with extensive commercial advice on the guarantee, including around the risks, and commercial risk assessments found the likelihood of a default to be very low.

I appreciate your statement that you'd like to give me accurate information, but you didn't answer the question. I take it that you can't answer the question of whether or not the Australian government is guaranteeing loans by Australian banks to the governments of Pacific nations.

I'll try and answer a little bit more directly, if it assists. The reason that I answer it in the way that I do, Senator Roberts, is that the advice that is provided and the terms of the guarantee are, of course, commercial in confidence, for policy reasons, in particular so that they don't distort the banking and financial services markets in the Pacific.

I'll get the team behind me to correct me if I answer this incorrectly. The question about the support that the Australian government provides to Pacific island countries is quite different to this set of arrangements, which is about ensuring that banking services are provided and that there is trade, the free movements of goods, investment and all of the things that go with having banking services provided with the facilitation and support of the Australian government. I hope that assists; I'm not sure that it will. If you've got further questions, I'll endeavour to answer them.

It doesn't answer the question, but I'll come back to it later. Minister, Australian banks like the ANZ raise money to lend in the market, issuing bonds and debt securities. If the intended use of that capital is to issue government-guaranteed loans to Pacific nations, which this bill would allow, does that not give banks like the ANZ a competitive advantage in the capital market? And is any oversight intended of the capital raising of Australian banks to make sure they are honest in their representations to the capital market?

Any banking guarantee in the Pacific, including this agreement, will contain mechanisms to ensure a bank's compliance with its obligations, which include regular reporting on the total amount of guaranteed liabilities, and to ensure compliance with bank commitments. There are measures undertaken in order to deal with that concern, which is at present, I would argue, theoretical. I hope that the financial markets in this area lift to a point that is consistent with the kind of development, growth, investment and trade that the Australian government is working with our Pacific partners to facilitate. That is in their interest and in our interest for that to occur. The kinds of measures that you're talking about—I'll put that backwards—do not have a distortionary effect on capital markets or on financial markets. There is extensive work that sits behind this that has been directed towards achieving that outcome.

ANZ has made a number of commitments to its Pacific operations in the Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Samoa, the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu in exchange for this guarantee that includes maintaining face-to-face banking services and enhancing the ANZ Bank's services, including digital services. That is important for people and businesses and economic growth and investment in each of those states. It supports ongoing access to correspondent banking services in the Pacific and international money transfers, including the Australian dollar but also the New Zealand dollar and the US dollar. It will also maintain fee-free remittances for ANZ customers. That is important for facilitating more trade and more transactions. It will involve investing an additional $50 million to enhance the ANZ's digital banking offering in the Pacific, excluding in Papua New Guinea, again, mobilised by some of the issues about making sure that the effect here is to support providing banking services where they are at risk.

The uplift that is engaged there will impact the ANZ's retail banking operations everywhere, except for Papua New Guinea, where ANZ today currently only offers institutional banking services that play an important role for the mining sector and other parts of the Papua New Guinea economy. Alongside this, there are efforts to continue to support and promote financial inclusion and literacy, and ANZ will continue to support Pacific countries in terms of their infrastructure financing, in line with the bank's credit risk policies. That is the nature of the impact of the guarantee, in terms of capital markets. It should not be conflated, of course, with the efforts that the Australian government engages in through EFA and various efforts to support infrastructure development and economic development more broadly in the Pacific. This is about supporting the banking infrastructure—maybe I shouldn't say 'infrastructure', because it's confusing—the banking retail network and digital services that sit alongside that throughout the Pacific states.

I noticed that, in starting that answer, you used the words, 'I hope that the financial markets lift'—I hope—to the trade, yet, in Australia, we had severe breaches of the law by senior banking and financial institution officials and no-one went to jail—no-one! You also said that you'd like to maintain face-to-face banking services in the Pacific islands, yet we can't get that here in Australia. Minister, is this bill just putting more money in the pockets of the big four banks by lowering their borrowing costs relative to other banks?

The short answer to that question, Senator Roberts, is no. It does not achieve that objective in any practical way. It's not one of the principles that's engaged here. Australia does have a very well-regulated banking sector, and that is a national asset for Australia. That is important for our capacity to deliver investment and growth and financial transactions and security for borrowers and lenders and projects. In times of financial stress, our well-regulated banking sector is a fundamental part of Australia's economic resilience in what is a pretty challenging world that we live in. That is not related to what is being provided for here.

There will always be, as you've alluded to, bad actors, bad things happening, malfeasance, errors, omissions or whatever in any system. I have no argument with that. That is what the regulatory sector is designed to deal with. This situation is about extending banking services that might not otherwise be extended to a part of the world that needs banking services, and it is in Australia's interest for those to be provided. This ensures that, through arrangements supported by this legislation and also by the commercial and non-distortionary measures, it's provided in a way in which there is no disadvantage to the Australian banking sector—and, when I say 'banking sector', what I mean is the kind of services that customers and businesses would need and expect from the Australian banking sector.

Quite the contrary to the final suggestion in your question, this is not a matter of the government paying an amount to the ANZ; in fact, it's quite the reverse. The ANZ pays an annual fee with respect to the guarantee, and the Department of Finance and the Commonwealth's commercial advisor have provided advice on the annual fee. That fee amount, for some of the reasons that you've alluded to in some of your previous questions and in order to ensure that it doesn't have a distortionary effect, is commercial in confidence and cannot be disclosed publicly. The guarantee isn't a subsidy. It's not a bailout. The government will not be providing any direct funding to Australian banks for their Pacific operations.

That sounds like a protection fee. Let's get this straight. Banks have no risk—they have a guarantee if they have any losses—so banks cannot lose, so that sounds like a protection fee. Minister, who drafted your bill for you? The banks?

Certainly not. That is certainly not the case. This bill is drafted, this arrangement has been struck, in order to support regional communities in Australia and Pacific nations to access banking services. That is in Australia's national interest. That is fundamentally what is engaged here. For Pacific nations, remaining connected to global finance is one of their highest priorities because it supports their own economic development and their economic resilience. Investment in capability; investment in new businesses; microfinance for small businesses; and making sure that project finance can be accessed for the kinds of mining, development, manufacturing and other projects that deliver good jobs, stable investment, national economic growth, regional interdependence and economic resilience in the region—all of that is in Australia's national interest.

Those are the questions that are being engaged here. In terms of regional Australia, this government has secured commitments from the banks that previous governments have failed to secure—a moratorium on regional bank closures from the four major banks, as well as an agreement to increase their commitment to, and their investment in, Bank@Post. I grew up in a little country town. I know how important those services are. And I know you would not be so mischievous as to suggest that there is a relationship between the services provided to regional Australians through their banks and the government's determination to protect that—

Minister, I hate to interrupt you, but it's 1.30.

Progress reported.

I am a proud Australian and I stand here as a proud Australian senator, and I would not be in this chamber without the promise of Australia—a promise extended to my family and to me as a first-generation Australian. That same promise belongs to every Australian from first-, second-, third- and fourth-generation families, right through to the three-quarters of a million Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians who are the first custodians of our national story. We should never be ashamed to call ourselves Australians. We should be proud of it, proud of a country that has welcomed people from every walk of life and proud of a nation built not on exclusion but on opportunity.

We should not remain silent when some seek to distort the immigration debate and use it to divide our country. True patriotism unites; it does not divide. We should never entertain a debate on immigration when it strays into racism and becomes an excuse for hate or when it turns neighbour against neighbour. That line should never be crossed. Migrants have helped build this country. Migrants have worked on our farms, staffed our hospitals, opened small businesses and served in uniform, raising families, paying taxes and shaping the social, cultural and economic fabric of our country.

This kind of division has no place here in Australia. This kind of division weakens us, distracts us and pulls us apart. More importantly, it undermines the values that make Australia strong. Division is not patriotism, and we should not accept that kind of division in our country.

As the new Assistant Minister for Resources, it was fantastic to visit Moranbah earlier this month alongside mayor Kelly Vea Vea and the Queensland shadow minister for resources, Linus Power. Moranbah is a proud mining community in the heart of Queensland's Bowen Basin, renowned worldwide for its rich deposits of premium metallurgical coal.

As a Queenslander, I'm proud to say that roughly 40 per cent of global steelmaking coal exports comes from the great state of Queensland. It's not hard to see why. When I toured the region, I visited coalmines at BMA Broadmeadow, Pembroke Olive Downs and Vitrinite's Vulcan facility. The enthusiasm and passion from the workers, the industry and the community were evident to see across the different sites I was able to visit. Intergenerational coalmining families are proud of the work they do and their contributions to the local economy and the Australian economy as well.

At the BMA Broadmeadow mine, I had the privilege of going underground and touring their longwall mine. It was incredible to see the scale of the machinery involved to develop longwall tunnels for shearing and transporting of coal for processing. I especially thank the team and workers for providing us with the access to see this firsthand. The skill and expertise of the workforce was evident, as were the stringent safety requirements.

At Pembroke Olive Downs mine, it was great to see one of the newest metallurgical coalmines in the region, and the work they have put into environmental leadership speaks volumes for what the industry can achieve—as well as the biodiversity land offset, co-located at the mine site campus. Vitrinite are also using some new techniques to ensure they are able to mine coal seams that were previously untouchable.

Steel is the backbone of renewable infrastructure, and metallurgical coal has a strong future in Queensland for its export potential.

International Day of the Victims of Enforced Disappearances is on 30 August, and today I'm honoured to host a round table with people from around the world who have experienced this horror. Many are here in the gallery as I speak. There could not be a more important time to be this protective work. We'll hear from Palestinian, Chilean, Tamil, Bangladeshi, Iranian, Filipino, Kurdish, Myanmar, Indian, Western Saharan and Pakistani communities, and there are common threads that link how oppressive governments work—similarities in their domestic cruelty and in how they try to silence diaspora voices. Whether it's Sikh human rights activist, Jaswant Singh Khalra, who was abducted 30 years ago, the systemic disappearances brutally delivered by the Rapid Action Battalion in Bangladesh, political violence in Pakistan or the prisons bulging with Palestinian political prisoners, the architecture of violence and fear is common. These mass disappearances—watching your mum, dad, children, siblings and friends disappear—are a nightmare.

Listening to the Chilean community is especially hard as they recount the horrors of Pinochet, where there was clear Australian involvement. The Chilean community demand the full release of documents showing Australia's role in the overthrow of the Allende government in 1973. They call for Adriana Rivas to finally face extradition. This is the least we could do for justice. Sri Lanka has one of the highest numbers of enforced disappearances in the world, and that grief echoes through generations. Finding the disappeared also often brings new grief, and we saw this recently in the uncovering of the mass graves in Chemmani, where remains have been recovered, including those of kids and infants.

So often, justice remains elusive, with the perpetrators yet to be held accountable. We must act in solidarity with all those who face repression and discrimination. For those who have lost loved ones to forced disappearances: please know that you're not alone—that we are with you in your struggle for justice.

I rise to pay tribute to Mark McArdle. Mark was the long-term LNP member for Caloundra between 2004 and 2020. Mark was a dedicated and passionate servant for the people of Caloundra, the Sunshine Coast and Queensland. I first met Mark and his wife, Judy, in the late 1990s, when his Liberals were campaigning across the Sunshine Coast for state and federal elections.

Over the course of his career, Mark held a variety of senior positions and portfolios, including Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the last leader of the Liberal Party. Mark took his responsibilities seriously and always put his community, the electorate and the state of Queensland first, without fear or favour. This was well illustrated when, during his time as Minister for Energy and Water Supply, he developed a forward-thinking plan to secure Queensland's water supply and develop a cost-effective energy system, to the benefit of future generations.

Mark, sadly, faced a battle with cancer that took him too soon, but this was a battle he fought with courage and determination—because Mark, in his professional life, as in his personal life, was always future focused and determined to create a better Queensland. But Mark's contribution to the LNP cannot be understated. The merger of the Liberal Party and National Party would not have happened without his bravery and foresight. As leader of the Liberal Party, he saw that it was better for the Liberals and the Nationals to be united to take on the forces of the left. His foresight, and that of Lawrence Springborg, was shown in our win of 2012 and our win of last year.

To Judy, your family and all those friends and supporters of Mark—my condolences. Queensland has lost a true public servant.

As many in this chamber should well know by now, I come to this place with an immense amount of state pride. West is best. But, sadly, I'm not always sure the same can be said of some of my fellow Western Australians on the opposition benches. While the coalition are busy fighting each other, they cannot fight for the interests of our state. At every turn we see disunity and division, and nowhere is that more obvious than in their WA ranks. They can't get their story straight on housing, and they're fighting about net zero or our national security. Even the WA Liberal leader has admitted that their party has failed to connect with women, young people and metropolitan voters. They've had two crushing election defeats just this year. But, instead of uniting around modern policies and climate action, the Liberal Party is at war with itself. That same pattern is one we are seeing playing out nationally—grassroots members lurching backwards while moderates and conservatives squabble over the party's future. This is dysfunction, not leadership. The contrast could not be clearer. While the Australian Labor Party is building our nation's future, focused on the issues that matter to Australians, tackling costs of living, building more houses, taking action on climate, standing up for everyday Australians, the Liberals and Nationals are instead fighting each other. It must stop.

Usman Khawaja has come to Parliament House to talk to elected representatives about the need to act on gambling advertising. I was just at a roundtable hosted by the member for Curtin, Kate Chaney, where Usman spoke, where Professor Samantha Thomas from Deakin University spoke and where Dr Kerry Aust from the AMA ACT spoke to colleagues from across the political spectrum about just what is happening due to our inaction as a parliament to act on the evidence when it comes to gambling advertising. We have a whole generation of young Australians growing up now who think that gambling is just a normal part of being Australian, that it's a normal part of watching sport. That's shame on us and that is shame on the Labor government, to have a report that had multipartisan backing and to not act, to bow to the vested interests of the gambling companies who are leaning on the media companies, the AFL and the NRL. We have to put our communities, we have to put young people, ahead of vested interests, ahead of profits, when it comes to gambling advertising in this country. There is no excuse.

We heard from those with the lived experience of facing gambling addiction and finding a way to deal with it, with just the joy of now being able to enjoy community sport once again, without having to think about the odds and what that might mean. Then we heard from someone who, tragically, lost a brother to gambling addiction who took his own life. They were talking about how hard it is to actually get a meeting with the Prime Minister or the minister, who say that they're acting but will not meet with the people who this is affecting. (Time expired)

Over the past three years, net overseas migration has added approximately 1½ million people to Australia's population. There were 171,000 in 2021-22, a record 536,000 in the year 2022-23 and 446,000 in 2023-24. Based on the average household size of 2.5, that represents a demand of around 450,000 additional homes on top of normal requirements. But housing supply isn't keeping pace. As Ross Gittins put it:

… our housing industry has been too slow to respond to the increased demand for housing. This comes from our rising population which, thanks to continuing high levels of immigration, has grown faster than most of the other rich countries.

Then comes the warning from Gittins:

… housing is becoming hereditary. Young people can afford to buy a home only with help from their parents, but parents can help only if they're well-established home owners. Without so much help from parents, home prices would have to fall to make homes affordable.

The impact on affordability has been devastating. Alan Kohler notes that, if the house-price-to-income ratio had stayed where it was in 2000, four instead of the current eight families would be paying about half of what they are now. Twenty years ago, the typical household devoted 36 per cent of their income to a mortgage, and today it is over 50. That is simply not sustainable. This is not an argument against immigration itself; it's a simple matter of mathematics and capacity. When population growth exceeds housing construction, young Australians pay the price, locked out of homeownership, facing record rents and losing faith in the system, putting off having a family and putting down roots. (Time expired)

When fellow Tasmanian and former World Health Organization scientist Harley Stanton was diagnosed with Parkinson's in 2019, his life changed overnight. He joined more than 200,000 Australians living with the disease, a figure expected to double by 2040. In fact, Parkinson's disease is now the fastest growing neurological disorder in the world. There is no cure and no treatment to slow it down.

For Harley, the hardest thing after diagnosis wasn't just the shock; it was the silence. Information was patchy. Support was scattered. National coordination was completely lacking. In rural Tasmania, it was even harder to find your way around the system, but Harley is not someone who sits still. He quickly founded Wings for Parkinson's, an advocacy group dedicated to awareness, research and early diagnosis. From there, his work grew. He built connections with people across the country, working to bring Parkinson's organisations together under one group. That effort culminated in 2024, when the National Parkinson's Alliance was launched at the Summit to End Parkinson's Disease right here at Parliament House. I thank Senator Wendy Askew and former senator Catryna Bilyk, co-chairs of the parliamentary friendship group for Parkinson's for making that possible.

When I met Harley recently, one thing he told me was how immensely grateful he said he was thankful for the support and passion of former senator Catryna Bilyk in driving change for Parkinson's patients. It wasn't just Harley. Many other advocates, carers and clinicians alike have told me the same. Catryna Bilyk's advocacy has been practical as well as personal—pressing for investment in services, for investment in research and for greater recognition of the burden that Parkinson's places on families. I thank Catryna Bilyk and I thank Harley and every advocate, clinician and researcher who is working to improve lives today and to one day consign Parkinson's to the pages of history.

I rise in outrage at this government's decision to allow PwC, the firm at the centre of one of the most shocking breaches of public trust in recent memory, to rebid for government contracts. Let's be clear. PwC monetised confidential Treasury information. They betrayed the people of this country for profit. It wasn't a mistake. It was a deliberate, systemic breach of trust, and what's the punishment? A slap on the wrist, a PR clean-up and now another shot at government contracts—back to the trough.

This decision is not only tone deaf; it is morally bankrupt. Senators across this chamber who did the hard forensic work to chase down at the miscreants in PwC share my outrage. The internal changes within PwC are not reform; they are reputational management. PwC have proven themselves to be untrustworthy. They have continuously refused to cooperate with government inquiries, and they have not supplied key documents.

The Greens have called for a ban on PwC from government work for five years, certainly until all investigations into their behaviour are complete—not a pause, not a mutual agreement to step aside for a short time, but a ban. The reason is simple. The public deserves better than a government that rewards bad behaviour. I will not stand by while this government greenlights PwC. This decision tells Australians that power and cosy relationships matter more than ethics, that you can rip off the system and face no real consequence under a Labor Government. We reject that. We demand integrity. We will not stop fighting until PwC is held to account and until this government puts public interest before private profit.

This decision should trouble every member of this chamber. It's an insult to the senators and MPs who worked on two parliamentary inquiries examining what went wrong in PwC. It's an insult to our work, and we should do better. (Time expired)

The Labor Government's closed eyes and deaf ears have added to the algal bloom catastrophe, but our great state of South Australia remains open for business. State and federal governments could have acted earlier on so many things. They did not. They should have provided the information necessary to protect businesses from consumers not buying their products though their products are completely safe. They should have got the emergency funding criteria, which finally came, right the first time. Labor's response was too little too late and is contributing to making a bad situation worse, with uncertainty, crippling businesses, workers and families.

The Tourism Industry Council of South Australia reports 99 per cent of businesses have lost income. The average downturn is 40 per cent and the average financial loss is $52,000. Seafood producers and processors, fishing tackle shops, fish-and-chips shops, tourism businesses and retailers in the areas both impacted and not impacted directly have been let down.

This morning I met with a delegation of mayors from South Australia in Canberra for urgent coordinated action to protect livelihoods, restore ecosystems and strengthen long-term resilience. They want a national legislative and policy framework to instil market confidence and a plan that delivers community wellbeing and resilience during largescale marine mortality events, and they are united on the need for permanent monitoring. Consider this timeline. Scientists alerted Labor back in October last year. Ocean goers have known of it since March. In May this year, the minister's office refused to meet with those affected and rejected calls for emergency funding. When opposition leader Sussan Ley suggested it be declared a natural disaster, Minister Watt labelled it 'semantics'. South Australians know that if it was Broadbeach or Bondi— (Time expired)

Australian values pronounce a spirit. They're not tangible, but they're there. They're very strong. They run through every Australian's heart. Let's have a look at some of these. Mateship—what's mateship? It's giving people a fair go, you having a fair go yourself, and you supporting mates, as well as loyalty. Then it's being fair dinkum—I hope the Greens take notice of this. That's telling the truth and being open to science. Science is about objectivity and integrity, not opinion. Being fair dinkum means telling the truth on the science. Family is very important to Australians. It's a fundamental building block and the organisation and structure of human existence. The flag—our wonderful flag—is the spirit of Australia. It's not just a cloth; it conveys the spirit of the country. Fairness is another value that Australians hold dear.

Then there's freedom—freedom in many forms. Freedom of life and freedom to live is fundamental. Without that, there is nothing else that's worth living for. There's no other freedom. There is also freedom of belief; freedom of thought; freedom of faith; freedom of speech, which has been sadly trampled by both Labor and Liberal parties in the last five years; freedom of association, who I can be friends and mix with; freedom of exchange; freedom of movement and travel; and freedom to live free from government interference. Democracy is another value, as are care for each other, dependability, respect for people—not misinform people—respect for community, respect for the law, respect for environment. Australians value when governments stick to their three core responsibilities—protecting life, protecting property and protecting freedom—and getting the hell out of everything else. Our Constitution is another value that Australians hold dear, competitive federalism. The last one is that human progress and Western civilisation are to be cherished, admired and appreciated.

In the dying hours of the last parliament, the Albanese government joined forces with Peter Dutton to ram through some of the most extreme antimigrant, antirefugee laws this country has ever seen—laws that pave the way for Trump-style travel bans; laws that gave the government power to deport refugees who had already survived years in offshore detention and who are now living lawfully in our communities; and laws that stripped people in migration detention of their most basic right, the right to a phone and communication. They were cruel, unnecessary and inhumane. This week, the Albanese government has doubled down. It has sneakily tabled new legislation that allows people to be forcibly removed to Nauru without ever seeing the application the government is making. People will lose the right to explain why their removal would be unsafe or to argue their case against being deported. This is a breath-taking assault on the rule of law. Once again Labor is scrambling to legislate its way out of accountability to the courts, and shame on them.

At its core, this bill is about stripping people of natural justice. For centuries natural justice has been the bedrock of our legal system—the principle that every person has the right to be heard before lifechanging decisions are made about them. This isn't fairness. This isn't justice. This is cruelty dressed up as policy. That the Prime Minister and his government are seeking to dismantle such basic rights shows just how toxic and how far-right Labor's immigration policy has become. Shame on you, Prime Minister, and shame on every member who just voted against sending this bill to inquiry, denying parliament the chance to scrutinise such barbaric legislation.

While Labor and the coalition conspire to drag this country towards ever more extreme immigration policies, the Greens will not be silent. We will keep fighting for fairness, justice and the rights of refugees and people seeking asylum.

Imagine a bakery owner in Tasmania, like that of Scottsdale Cottage Bakery or of the internationally renowned Ross Village Bakery. They've worked hard their whole lives to get where they are, to be able to buy a shop or to start their own. Then along comes another shop owner who says, 'You can only bake this many scallop pies, you can only serve this many customers and you can only employ so many bakers.' Coming from a government that constantly tells Australians that it is about creating jobs and growing the economy, that would be absurd and a little bit rich.

If the Prime Minister walked into a bakery in Camperdown or even in Darlinghurst, or in his own electorate, and told them how to run their shop, there would be outrage. They would tell him to get stuffed. And yet that is precisely what happens here in this parliament. Right now, the total number of staff senators can employ is not determined independently or through fair and open processes but at the direct discretion of the Prime Minister himself. The Prime Minister is not just the biggest baker in town; he is the one telling his competition how to run their business, how many scallop pies to bake and how many staff they're allowed to employ.

Senators, like bakery owners, work hard to represent their communities. They should not have their staffing levels decided by one person's decision. The Prime Minister must finally relinquish his pastry-crushing grasp on the scallop pie of staffing allocations, and instead hand this decision to the independent umpire, the Remuneration Tribunal, where it belongs. Aussies deserve representatives who are properly supported, and senators deserve a workplace where the number of hands in the kitchen is not decided by one man at the top of the table.

I don't normally read things in here too often, but I'm going to break that habit today; I'm going to change it. I want to proudly read from a media release from Monday 18 August from the Transport Workers Union. It said:

The TWU welcomed today's Federal Court ruling that Qantas will be penalised $90 million—the largest employer penalty in Australian corporate history—for illegally sacking and outsourcing over 1800 workers, signalling the decision as a moment of justice for loyal workers who'd loved their jobs at the airline.

The judgment, marking the end of a David and Goliath five-year battle is, according to the TWU, the final vindication for workers whose decision to fight the case was derided and mocked by Qantas management from day one.

The penalty on Qantas follows an earlier Federal Court decision on compensation to affected workers, which led to the establishment of a $120 million fund—

on top of the $90 million penalty—

to compensate them for economic loss and hurt and suffering. Many suffered financial stress, family breakdowns and mental illness as a result of the outsourcing, and have endured a further 5 years of distress at being discredited by Qantas which argued throughout that they were wrong to challenge it.

Before I wrap up, I want to send my sincere congratulations to those members of the TWU who fought tooth and nail when facing adversity, when everyone was against them, and who put up the millions of dollars to fight this disgraceful case from that Mr Joyce led enterprise. I'm being really tame at the moment, but I'm going to seek five minutes next week to tell the Senate what I really think about Mr Joyce. Strap in; it's going to be a beauty.

The Albanese Labor government promised five per cent deposits for first home buyers, and we are delivering early. We've brought forward the expanded five per cent deposit scheme to 1 October 2025, ahead of schedule, so we can help more first home buyers into a home. We understand that the fundamental challenge facing our community at the moment is a lack of supply in the housing market. Those on the other side have never met a housing policy that they like, never met a bill that they want to support to get more young Australians into a house, and for years teamed up with this lot over here to block a housing agenda which would have seen more South Australians and Australians across the country with homeownership. They've blocked it every single step of the way, but we have a high ambition for Australians. They think young Australians should rip money out of their super to buy a home. We believe they should have both. Young Australians deserve both a great, secure retirement and homeownership. We are the only party in this place putting our money where our mouth is to get young Australians into homes. It's time that those on the other side support it.

We are going to move to question time.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Yesterday you could not confirm whether the 2,000 homes which the housing minister said were completed by the Housing Australia Future Fund were built or acquired. Do you know today if those 2,000 homes were built or acquired?

I'm very pleased that you like me so much that you keep asking me the question rather than the representing minister. I also am pleased that you give me the opportunity to again remind everybody that you are standing in the way of 80,000 homes.

The young people up in the gallery.

I remind all the young people in the galleries that this gentleman here is standing in the way of more homes being built.

This is a point of order on relevance. The question was whether the 2,000 homes had been built or acquired by the government.

The minister has just got to her feet and begun to answer the question. I will listen carefully and, if the minister is not being relevant, I will draw her to the question.

The advice I have is that more than half a million homes have been built nationwide since Labor was elected, more than 4,000 homes have been completed with Commonwealth investment and 28,000 are in planning and construction stages. In their decade in office, the coalition built 373 social and affordable homes. Congratulations, Senator Bragg! That really is quite an achievement, isn't it—373 homes in a decade? I again remind Senator Bragg that his first housing policy of this parliamentary term is the opposition to 80,000 homes—

This is a point of order on relevance. The question was quite clear about the split between how many houses had been built by the Commonwealth and how many had been acquired by the Commonwealth government.

Thank you, Senator Bragg. I will draw the minister back to the question.

The advice I have is more than 4,000 homes have been completed with Commonwealth investment and 28,000 are in planning and construction stages. I would make the point, Senator Bragg, as you would know, you delayed and opposed the Housing Australia Future Fund. Therefore the fund only announced its first round of funding in September 2024 and, obviously, this has delayed the construction of many homes for Australians.

Senator Bragg, first supplementary?

Obviously buying houses rather than building them would make the housing crisis worse. So I ask you again, for the second time, can you please clarify if the HAFF is still purchasing homes in competition with Australians?

Sorry, I just missed the first part of the question.

So—

Order! Senator Bragg, I'm not asking you to go into commentary. Simply repeat the first part of the question.

My apologies. I was distracted and I just missed the first part of your question, Senator Bragg.

Yes, and I've asked Senator Bragg to repeat just the first couple of sentences, please.

As you know, if the government is competing with Australians in the market and buying houses against Australians in a hot market, it's going to make the problem worse, so the question is—

You're not really repeating the question, Senator Bragg; you're adding commentary.

Well, you've asked me to repeat it. You get the gist.

I think I get the gist of it. The senator is making the very good point that housing supply does affect prices, which is why it is passing strange that he, along with his colleagues, has been so opposed to adding to Australia's housing supply. On the one hand he says government shouldn't compete in the market, making the point that supply does affect affordability, but on the other hand he opposes the government's attempts to put more supply into the market.

A point of order on relevance. The question was quite clear. We want to seek clarification as to whether the HAFF is still purchasing homes in direct competition with Australians. It was quite clear.

Senator Bragg, you will recall that I asked you to repeat the first part of your question, and you chose to add commentary. The minister is now being relevant to all of the comments you made, including your question.

Can I again make this point. The coalition complains about housing affordability, but the coalition wanted to abolish the Housing Australia Future Fund, which would have added more supply, thereby making houses more affordable. The coalition also, in this term, opposed the build-to-rent policy, standing in the way of 80,000 homes. Now the coalition want to pretend they care about housing— (Time expired)

Senator Bragg, second supplementary?

As we didn't get an answer to that question, the question again is: can you please clarify if the Housing Australia Future Fund is still purchasing homes in direct competition with Australians?

I take the point about direct competition, because that really goes to the issue of supply. The problem, Senator, is that your position is utterly illogical. What you are saying to all of these young people is you oppose adding to supply. You oppose the government engaging in the housing market to try and add to supply. These are facts you do not like to hear, aren't they, Senator?

Opposition senators interjecting—

Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Order!

Senator Ruston, 'order' applies to you.

A point of order on relevance. The question was quite clear. We are seeking clarification as to whether the Housing Australia Future Fund is purchasing homes in competition with Australians. It's a very clear question.

And the minister is being relevant to the question, Senator Bragg.

Senator, can I tell you what we want to do? We want to deliver—

Opposition senators interjecting—

President, may I answer the question?

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order! I want there to be silence for the next 23 seconds.

These are the Housing Australia Future Fund projects in your state, Senator Bragg, which you don't want to see delivered: 580 in Merrylands and Regents Park, 144 in Maroubra, 221 in Macquarie Park and Lane Cove, 16 in Coonabarabran, and 10 in Casino and South Grafton. These are what you are standing in the way of.

My question is to the Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher. Since coming to government in May 2022, advancing women's economic equality has been a core priority of the Albanese government. We want women to have more opportunity and more choices. We want women to earn more and keep more of what they earn. This commitment has driven groundbreaking workplace relations reforms, significant investment in skills and education, and greater recognition and valuing of paid and unpaid care. What is the impact of the government's investments and reforms on women's economic equality and women's daily lives?

I thank Senator Stewart for the work she does in advancing women's economic equality and for being part of a very big team of women in the Albanese Labor government, the second majority female federal government in history, and for putting all of these issues firmly at the centre of our policymaking.

The ABS data released on 14 August shows that the gender pay gap is at its lowest level ever since records began. It's still at 11½ per cent, but that's down from 14.1 per cent in 2022, when we came to government. That means women workers are over $500 a fortnight better off, with the work that we've done to drive up women's wages and close the gender pay gap. We also got a record high of women's workforce participation, at 63.5 per cent, showing that more women are finding extra hours to work. This is also something we've been focused on. This isn't by accident that we're seeing these results. This is the result of intentional, sustained work from many, if not all, of my colleagues on this side of the chamber to make sure that women workers get a better deal and take home more in their weekly pay packets. This has included the work we've done around pay increases for aged-care workers and early childhood care and education workers.

The Workplace Gender Equality Agency has found that pay increases for low-paid workers, like aged-care workers, are driving the progress to close the gender pay gap, but obviously there is more work to do. We've made the changes to the Fair Work Act. We've got the gender undervaluation work underway in five key awards. We've introduced gender pay gap reporting at the employer level. There is more work to do, but we are seeing signs of progress. (Time expired)

Senator Stewart, first supplementary?

Closing the gender pay gap is essential to ensuring women are paid properly, that their work is valued and that women are retiring with decent retirement savings. What role is the Workplace Gender Equality Agency playing in helping to accelerate closing the gender pay gap?

():  I thank Senator Stewart for the supplementary. Senators will know that WGEA's latest progress report was tabled this week. In the 10 years since WGEA's first report, an additional 1.6 million employees are covered by workplace gender equality reporting, and, during that time, the gender pay gap has reduced from 28.6 per cent to 21.1 per cent. Employers who've done a gender pay gap analysis have increased from 24 per cent to 68 per cent, and there has been a significant increase in employers with family and domestic violence policies in place. The report also shows there are areas where progress is too slow. Patterns of industry gender segregation have barely changed in the last 10 years. Women continue to work part time at much higher rates than men, and, in the private sector, women are still underrepresented on governing bodies. But WGEA has done an amazing job. I thank all of the staff who have contributed over the last 10 years in driving down the gender pay gap.

Senator Stewart, second supplementary?

WGEA's progress report shows that progress in addressing industry gender segregation has been slow. Research also shows that industry gender segregation is one of the key drivers of the gender pay gap. What is the extent of industry gender segregation in Australia, and why do we need to challenge this segregation in interest of our economy?

I thank Senator Stewart for that supplementary as well. Recently, Jobs and Skills Australia confirmed that only 21 per cent of occupations in Australia could be considered gender balanced. Industry gender segregation is a driver of the gender wage gap. We know that. There's also a clear correlation between segregated industries and the worker shortages that we're currently facing. For more than half of the occupations in the national shortage, women make up less than 20 per cent of the total workforce. These occupations include metal fitters and machinists; motor mechanics; electricians, where only two per cent of the workforce are women; mining engineers; construction managers; and software and application programmers. For 14 per cent of occupations in the national shortage, men make up less than 20 per cent of the total workforce. This is something we are going to continue to focus on. We want to make sure that we are dealing with gender segregation and that we're getting much more balance across those industries because it's good for pay and good for addressing workforce shortage.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Can the minister confirm that the government is working on developing a range of tariffs in the form of a carbon border adjustment mechanism?

I'm wondering if this is the next iteration of a scare campaign. I'm asked about tariffs. It's a useful question, and I hope that Senator Farrell will be able to contribute more to the chamber later today on this issue, because, of course, what the government is doing is seeking to reduce tariffs. This was one of the issues, I recollect, that the economic roundtable did discuss. We on this side of the chamber have a view—and I would've hoped it was a similar view—that tariffs are an impost upon consumers. We have a very clear view—

President, a point of order on direct relevance—I've asked specifically about a particular tariff, not other things the government may or may not be doing. I ask you to draw the minister to the question.

I believe the minister is being relevant, but I'll continue to listen carefully, Senator Duniam.

I think this is fundamentally a net zero question, and you might recall—

Well, of course it is.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Okay, perhaps we should just go back to basics. When you try to reduce emissions in your country, you also have to look at what is happening elsewhere, and, when you have emissions-intensive industries, you obviously have to look at their competitiveness and consider that in terms of your domestic mechanisms. That's the basic economics of it. That has been taken into account in the safeguard mechanism. You might recall that previously the government has consulted with those industries for whom these are issues, and we'll continue, I'm sure, in the context of the setting of the next target, to consult with industries that are affected.

Senator Duniam, first supplementary?

I think there is a tariff on the way. Minister, will your government categorically rule out imposing any form of tariff on imports like building materials, fertiliser and fuels, which will only drive up the cost of essentials for all Australians?

I would make the point to those opposite—and I'm conscious that people are interested in this issue—that we on this side think that climate change is real. We on this side think that net zero is an important commitment for our economy. We on this side understand that the global economy is moving to net zero, and we have to compete in such a world.

President, I raise a point of order in relation to direct relevance. There were a number of words that the minister could have referred to—'will', 'your', 'out', 'any', 'of' or 'on'. 'Climate change', though, wasn't one of them, so I would ask you to draw the minister to the question.

Thank you, Senator Cash. Minister Ayres?

Even a casual listening to—

Senator Ayres, why are you on your feet?

Apart from stretching—on the point of order, she's clearly being relevant. The question was about carbon border adjustments, and she was directly referring to it.

Thank you, Senator Cash and Senator Ayres. The minister is being relevant, and I will continue to listen to her answers.

Perhaps I should start with this proposition: carbon is relevant to climate. If you actually want a policy in relation to climate change and you want to try and reduce the emissions in your economy to net zero, it turns out you actually have to think about carbon emissions. This is part of the sensible economic approach that we are taking to the issue of climate change, and it stands in stark contrast to that of those opposite. (Time expired)

Senator Duniam, second supplementary?

The Prime Minister has said:

Tariffs … are a form of economic self-harm and a recipe for slower growth and higher inflation.

Given that and given you've also confirmed that the government is pursuing such a tariff, why would Labor seek to impose a carbon border tariff that would ultimately be paid for by all Australian families and businesses?

First, again, the senator has misrepresented what I said. Second, unlike you, Senator, we actually believe that it is our responsibility and our mandate from the Australian people to act on climate change. I know that you are still split on the issue of net zero. I know that Senator Cash, as leader in the Senate, defied her own leader to press for an abolition of net zero in their party room. It is quite an extraordinary thing that a member of the leadership group of the alternative government doesn't back her leader.

But we on this side believe that ensuring that we have a sensible economic approach to getting to net zero is the right thing for our economy now and the right thing for our economy in decades to come, and it is a mandate that we have from the Australian people.

My question is to Minister Wong. Overnight, all members of the UN Security Council except Trump's America backed the IPC's declaration that the famine in Gaza is man made, with half a million people at risk of starvation. By blocking food and aid, Israel has engineered a famine of a scale, pace and severity not seen before, to kill Palestinians. More than 2,000 Palestinians have been killed in Israel's deathtraps while seeking food. More than 300 have been starved to death. Starvation is designed to maximise suffering and is a most barbaric way to kill. Minister, all your words, outrage, statements and letters have done nothing to stop Israel's genocide and starvation. When will you impose meaningful sanctions on Israel to force them to end this starvation and open up all borders for aid?

We condemn Israel's denial of aid. We have done so with partners. We condemn the killing of civilians seeking to access water and food. We have issued statements with multiple other countries to place pressure on Israel. You may have seen Prime Minister Netanyahu's response. Aid should be delivered. We are all horrified by what is occurring, and I think you can see what this government is seeking to do with other countries to try to find a pathway to peace.

Senator Faruqi, first supplementary.

The Israeli ambassador to Australia says there is no starvation in Gaza as he spruiks Israel's lies and propaganda. The Israeli ambassador represents a rogue genocidal state that is committing war crime after war crime. Why is he still here? Minister, you yourself have said that you condemn Israel's denial of starvation. When will you expel the Israeli ambassador from Australia?

Well, we disagree with the Israeli ambassador's comments. I think the findings of the UN body that you reference confirm what we have been saying with others for some time—

Do something, Minister.

If I may, Senator—and what the Prime Minister has called out, where he said very clearly that failing to provide aid is a breach of international law. International law requires that humanitarian assistance be provided.

In relation to the diplomatic relationship, we have diplomatic relationships with many countries.

Genocidal countries?

Order!

We have diplomatic relationships with countries with whom we do not agree. We have those relationships because they are a way in which we can communicate, we can have dialogue, we can express our views and we can assert our interests. That is called diplomacy, and that is what governments do.

Senator Faruqi, second supplementary.

Hundreds of thousands of people have been marching in the streets across this country to demand that you sanction Israel and end the two-way arms trade. Cricket hero Usman Khawaja has today asked the Prime Minister to take the opportunity to show leadership on Gaza. Will you listen to the people of this country and finally choose leadership over cowardice? Will you finally choose humanity over politics?

I hope that, in this country, we can express our views on these issues without seeking to personally diminish others; certainly, that's the approach I seek to take. Yes, the Prime Minister did meet with Mr Khawaja. I also hope to meet with him.

In relation to sanctions, you would be aware we have sanctioned Israel; we have sanctioned two Israeli ministers and a number of entities and individuals in relation to their activities in abrogating the human rights of Palestinians. You would also know that this government has made the decision that we will recognise Palestine at a high level. We've done that in concert with others because we are seeking to find and build a pathway to peace in circumstances where we see a horrific war continuing. We will continue to do that work with other countries because we are doing what we can internationally. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Trade and Tourism, Senator Farrell. The Albanese Labor government has been working to make Australia's economy more resilient and our exports more diverse. In improving our relationship with Australia's biggest trading partners, we've seen the removal of over $20 billion in trade impediments with China. What else is the government doing to open new export opportunities and create more well-paying local jobs through trade?

I thank Senator Brown for that question that I know is so important to her home state of Tasmania. Australia's economic prosperity is directly linked to open and stable international markets. One in four Australian jobs relate to trade. Jobs in export industries pay nine per cent more on average, and 32 per cent of Australia's economic output is supported by trade.

I'm proud of what the Albanese Labor government has achieved in the past three years, with solid foundations laid for continuing the work of building stronger and deeper trading relationships with international partners. I recently delivered a keynote speech at the Lowy Institute outlining the Albanese Labor government's second-term trade agenda. Market diversification will continue to be central to the government's trade agenda.

The government will work hard to bring priority agreements into force and progress ongoing negotiations. This includes progressing trade negotiations with the European Union, which would open a market of over 450 million consumers. We're keen to build on the existing trade deal with India to create a new market access for Aussie exporters, particularly for our farmers. We remain committed to strengthening economic ties with our neighbours by implementing a range of initiatives under the Southeast Asia Economic Strategy. The Albanese government is successfully delivering on our commitment of creating new trade opportunities, because more trade means more national income and more well-paying local jobs.

Senator Brown, first supplementary?

Thank you, Minister, for that response. One of the many achievements during the Albanese Labor government's first term was signing a new trade agreement with the United Arab Emirates, the gateway to the markets of the Middle East. As Australia's first trade agreement in the Middle East, it unlocks incredible potential in the region. What does this new trade agreement mean for Australian businesses, local jobs and Australian consumers?

I thank Senator Brown for her first supplementary question. I know how significant this agreement is going to be for her constituents in Tasmania.

On 31 July the Albanese Labor government passed the necessary legislation to incorporate the United Arab Emirates comprehensive economic partnership agreement into law. It's a great deal for Australian exporters, with over 99 per cent of all Australian products soon to enter the UAE tariff free, including meat, dairy, grains and minerals. The agreement will also deliver cheaper prices at the checkout, with Australian households and businesses saving about $40 million a year. The UAE has some of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world, which, through this agreement, will help accelerate Australia's energy transition. The Albanese Labor government will continue to pursue trade agreements just like this one.

Senator Brown, second supplementary?

Earlier this year, the Trump administration applied tariffs against every nation in the world. What is the Albanese Labor government's approach to removing these tariffs, and what actions have we taken to ensure that Australians are insulated from the effects?

Thank you, Senator Brown, for that very insightful second supplementary question. The Australia-US economic partnership has delivered mutual benefits for over 70 years. We are vital to one another's prosperity. In 2024, two-way investment increased to just over $2.9 trillion, with a 23.8 per cent increase from 2023. While we were disappointed by the decision to impose tariffs on Australia, no country has reciprocal tariffs lower than those of Australia.

Tariffs drive up prices for consumers, including ordinary working families, who will pay more at the checkout for the goods impacted by them. In response to the global uncertainty these tariffs have caused, the Albanese Labor government is implementing a $50 million initiative to support affected sectors and has already completed five new business missions to secure and grow new markets. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, Senator McAllister. During the 2022 election campaign, the Labor Party went to great lengths to talk about how serious you are about NDIS co-design. You said that the difference between yourselves and the Liberal-National coalition was that you would only make changes to the NDIS in consultation and partnership with the disability community. I've since heard that the National Disability Insurance Agency only learnt about your Thriving Kids announcement through the media. The states tasked with actually implementing the announcement didn't know the details either. Nobody has seen any modelling on the impact of this. My question is: which of your so-called partners in the disability community actually knew the details before you announced your 'co-designed' $2 billion Thriving Kids announcement?

Thank you, Senator Tyrrell, for the opportunity to speak about the announcement. We have been working with our partners, the states and territories, communities and service providers on foundational supports for a very long time now. In fact, the idea of foundational supports for children, which Thriving Kids responds to, was recommended to us by Professor Bonyhady and Lisa Paul who undertook an extensive review and spoke to many thousands of people about what needed to happen to the scheme. The answer that came back to them and the recommendation that came to government from that inquiry was that we needed to rebuild the system of supports outside of the scheme.

The government then engaged with our state and territory partners, and all parties agreed that the place that we would start would be with children. There are plenty of opportunities to do better for our kids. We don't need parents spending much time, much money, much energy chasing diagnoses when what they're looking for is support. Thriving Kids is all about establishing opportunities for parents to find support when they need it. There will always be the need for children with high support needs to access the NDIS, and Minister Butler made that very clear in the remarks that he made to the National Press Club. But we can do better for the families and the children affected by developmental delay. We intend to do so, and we do intend to do so in partnership with experts, with parents, with families and, of course, with people with disability.

Senator Tyrrell, first supplementary?

The minister has publicly dismissed critics of the Labor Party's NDIS cuts as extremists, spreading 'misinformation'. These are people who have legitimate fears about a government that campaigns on consultation and governs in cuts. They are saying people currently on the NDIS will be booted off and that people will be receiving less tomorrow than what they're receiving today. Isn't that what your own minister is saying will happen, and, if so, who's the one spreading misinformation?

This is an important opportunity to clear up some of those statements, Senator Tyrrell, because they are simply not correct. Again, in the speech given by Minister Butler about this matter, he could not have been clearer. For children that are presently on the scheme and for children that join the scheme between now and 2027, when we expect to make changes to the access rules, nothing will change. They will be subject from time to time to the usual assessments that take place for children who come onto the scheme, particularly through the early intervention pathway, because early intervention is intended to provide sufficient support for children, and some of those children won't need support on an ongoing basis. But Minister Butler couldn't have been clearer. We don't intend to leave what he calls a gap between two stools. We wish to make sure that children now and in the future have the supports that they require. (Time expired)

Senator Tyrrell, second supplementary?

Minister, your government has made new state hospital funding conditional on the states signing up to these new NDIS cuts, which the states seem to be against. If no agreement is reached, will Labor really hold firm and cut hospital beds while it's cutting the NDIS?

Senator Tyrrell, since 2023, we've been in a discussion with the states and the territories about a set of interrelated reforms and funding arrangements. It is the case that states and territories have a keen stake in making sure that they have the resources necessary to run the hospital systems for which they are responsible. It's also the case that they have a keen interest in ensuring that the NDIS is on a sustainable footing, and, back in 2023, first ministers and the Prime Minister agreed that these matters would be dealt with together. At that time, our government placed our offer on the table that we were willing to contribute $5 billion that we expected would be matched by states and territories to establish foundational supports. As I indicated in my answer to your primary question, we said we would begin with children; that is precisely what we are seeking to do.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Ayres. Minister, labour productivity in the electricity, gas, water and waste sector has fallen by six per cent since you came to office. Lower productivity in energy production increases costs and therefore increases energy prices, yet, in the government's productivity paper prepared for its economic roundtable, energy productivity or energy prices were not even mentioned. How many jobs have been lost because of rising electricity costs on business?

There's some of this territory, I think, that Senator Canavan and I agree upon, and some that we don't. It's certainly the case that electricity prices, electricity supply, gas supply and gas prices are fundamental questions for Australian industry. Australian industry needs affordable electricity, and it needs affordable gas. That is why this government and the announcements that have been made in relation to the reviews of the national electricity market, reviews in terms of the gas market—those reviews have been undertaken. And, as you would imagine, I'm very engaged with industry about that important work because it is important work.

One message that is really clear coming back from Australian industry—heavy industry, blue-collar industry, manufacturing sector, future industrial investors who want to invest in, for example iron production or critical minerals production in Australia and the current industrial production sector—is that what they want is policy certainty. What they want is a policy framework that delivers more investment in electricity.

I have a point of order in relation to relevance. The question was about the impact of higher electricity prices on this government and how many jobs have been lost as a result.

On the point of order, I submit that Senator Ayres was entirely relevant to a question that deals with the impact of electricity on the economy and industries.

Senator Ayres, I will draw you to the first part of Senator Canavan's question, which went to gas and electricity prices.

It certainly did, and the one thing that would guarantee a bin fire, in terms of gas and electricity prices, would be the approach urged by those opposite, and the contest—if only we could provide energy in Australia from the hot waffle that's been emerging from the bitter contest for control of the Liberal and National parties over there. We saw the outcome of that—less electricity, less gas.

Senator Canavan, first supplementary?

Under the Albanese Labor government, electricity prices have skyrocketed by 39 per cent, and yesterday's inflation figures show that electricity prices have gone up by another 13 per cent over the past year. Even after taking out the impacts of the rebates that have ended, electricity prices went up by five per cent. The government continues to insist that its investments in wind and solar are the cheapest forms of energy. Why are electricity prices going up by so much, then?

I mean, honestly! The last time this show was in government, you promised gas prices between $4 and $6, and, when you left office, gas prices were north of $31. Of course, if we are serious about the future of Australian industry, the big challenge in front of Australia is building our modern electricity system as our industries electrify and as new industry comes onstream which will have an increasing demand for electricity, particularly data centres. That is why it is a mystery to all of us why your side of politics went to the last election with a plan to put prices up and to deliver less industrial electricity.

Senator Canavan, second supplementary?

Australian families and businesses can't keep absorbing higher power bills. On what date will the average annual bill be lower than it was on 23 May 2022 and by how many dollars?

Electricity prices will be lower when there is more supply. There is more supply now than there ever was when you were in government. We are building electricity generation hand over fist here, and the big obstacle to electricity generation programs and transmission projects in the regions—of course we have to work with regional communities and work these issues through. But it's the silly billies wandering around, stoking fear, stoking resentment—Senator Cadell, Senator Canavan and all these characters—and who are wandering around in a campaign against Australian industry and a campaign against blue-collar jobs, doing everything that they can to close down Australian industry.

My question is for the Minister representing the Treasurer, Minister Gallagher. Does Labor accept that record immigration has outpaced investment in Australia and is driving declining productivity rates?

Could I ask that the question be repeated? I missed the second part of it, sorry.

Absolutely. Senator Whitten, just repeat the whole question, because it was pretty short.

Does Labor accept that record immigration has outpaced investment in Australia and is driving declining productivity rates?

I thank Senator Whitten for the question. For as long as I can remember, we've been a country that has welcomed—and, in fact, supported—overseas migration and immigration into Australia, and that has had very positive benefits for our community and our economy.

I think if Senator Whitten is linking investment in infrastructure or investment in housing—I'm not quite sure what element of investment Senator Whitten is concerned about—but I certainly accept that, for state and territory governments, investment in infrastructure for growing cities is a challenge. I wouldn't link it to overseas migration numbers. We have seen a big, significant pull forward, Senator Whitten, in response to the borders being closed, and some of that has been people who have been staying here, not leaving.

Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator Roberts?

Point of order: the question was really simple, as Senator Gallagher said in the first place. We want to know the link between immigration and productivity—that's it.

It was me who, indeed, said the question was simple; I meant it was short. You also linked it to investment, so I think the minister is being directly relevant to the question.

The productivity challenge across Australia has been a challenge for some time. In fact, as we've said in this place, the worst decade was actually under the coalition government.

Senator Ruston interjecting—

Yes, I do understand—thank you, Senator Ruston—I understand completely. The productivity challenge is broader. There are broad reasons underpinning the productivity challenge, and indeed productivity challenges in Australia are comparable and similar to the challenges that are being experienced by like-minded economies around the world. Thank you for your help, Senator Ruston.

Senator Whitten, first supplementary?

In the past 10 years, the only time the productivity rates increased were the COVID years. These were the only years to have net overseas migration of less than 200,000 people in the last decade. Why does Labor deny the direct correlation between immigration and poor productivity?

As I said, the issues around productivity—which are issues that we discussed at length at the roundtable last week—are not linked to the numbers coming through our immigration system, so I don't think it's correct to link the two. There has been slow productivity growth for decades in this country. It is multifaceted—why that is the case—and that is why this government is working across community, industry, business, unions and others to look at how we can all work together to improve productivity in this country. That includes doing things around skills and training. It includes things like finishing the NBN, abolishing tariffs, ensuring we have good jobs growth in the future made in Australia and a whole range of other things that we are undertaking. But we are not looking at changes to net overseas migration. (Time expired)

There is a glaringly obvious connection between mass immigration and collapsing productivity. Our infrastructure and housing are buckling under the pressure of Labor's mass-migration program. What are you going to tell Australians who are living in tents, in cars, in the street, while housing is given to immigrants and refugees? What do you say to the people of Western Australia, who have seen the biggest jumps in housing prices in the whole country? The people deserve answers; they deserve better.

I certainly—and those over this side—don't associate with the imputations contained in your question, Senator Whitten. We don't believe that you advance anything in this country by pitting one group against another. This government has a very different approach, which is to work across the community, to work with industry and to work with the states and territories where we can to find areas where we can continue to progress improvements in productivity but also support areas of shared consensus. So we are looking at things like the single national market, simplified trade and reform tariffs—and this goes to your question about what we are doing—better regulation and how to speed up approvals. Of course, there's all the work we're doing in housing. We need to build more housing. There was not enough housing built. We had 10 years of those opposite doing nothing in housing. We are fixing that.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Ayres. The Albanese government was re-elected with a renewed mandate to lower emissions and deliver affordable and cleaner energy systems. The election was an endorsement of the government's practical policies to reduce emissions. What progress is being made on meeting Australia's climate targets, and how is the government lowering emissions while strengthening our economy?

Senator Ghosh, thank you for that question. The truth is that Australia is tracking well in terms of meeting our 2030 climate target. In the year to March, 440 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent were recorded. That is 6.5 million tonnes lower than the year before and 28 per cent below 2005 levels. Preliminary data from the year to June is lower again, at 436 million tonnes. Emissions are lower than at any point under the previous government, and the government is meeting the electorate's call to address climate change with policies that also strengthen the economy. For example, under the Capacity Investment Scheme, we will deliver 40 gigawatts of competitive generation and storage, and it has unlocked tens of billions of dollars in new investment in industrial energy and home energy capacity. So far, developers who've won Capacity Investment Scheme contracts have committed to more than $14 billion in spending on local content, local jobs, local fabrication, local electrical contracting and, in regional communities, 10,000 jobs during construction.

Under the cheaper home batteries scheme, as of today, there are 41,000 batteries in 41,000 Australian homes that will have lower home power bills because they all use cheap electricity from their roof all day and store it during the day—that is, 41,000 households who would be paying more but for the scheme that this government introduced on the back of the election, where people spoke very clearly about the direction forward in terms of energy policy.

Senator Ghosh, first supplementary?

Since the Albanese government's first term, there has been strong investment in renewable energy and storage infrastructure. At the same time, the ongoing reforms to Australia's gas market are the most significant in a decade. Why is it in Australia's national interest to meet our climate targets and to have an internationally competitive energy system?

The first thing you must have, of course, is policy certainty. Under the last government, four gigawatts left the system; one gigawatt went in. The truth was what should have happened was tens of gigawatts of new electricity generation should have gone into the system, new transmissions should have gone into the system over that decade, and we are working our way through the legacy of capital flight, which is what happened under the previous government. Investment in onshore wind and offshore wind and solar, gas and storage that should have happened over the last decade and should have supplied more electricity generation for Australian industry didn't happen. We had capital flight, disinvestment, industrial challenges, all because this lot opposite could not bring themselves, over the course of 22 failed energy policy frameworks—I mean, if you get it wrong once— (Time expired)

Senator Ghosh, second supplementary?

The economy will be strengthened by the significant investment needed to meet our climate targets and by building an internationally competitive energy system. What are the barriers to this investment? What parts of the community will be affected if it does not occur?

This is, of course, nation-building work. This work, the work of new wind, new solar and new transmission, is nation-building work. It is blue-collar industry building work. It is the kind of work that is going to set our regions up for future jobs, future factories, future industries and more economic resilience. The chief barrier to that, of course, is policy uncertainty. We saw the outcome of policy dysfunction while this lot were in government. We saw the behaviour last year in the lead-up to the election which saw them proposing a policy framework which would have delivered less electricity and been more expensive. Now we can see they haven't learnt their lesson. They are doing the same thing again. They are going back to the well. What there will be— (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Minister Wong. The devastating South Australian algal bloom now covers 4,500 square kilometres across the coastline and the Great Australian Bight. International scientist and Director of the US National Office for Harmful Algal Blooms Dr Donald Anderson has labelled this bloom as one of the worst recorded algal blooms in the world. Eighteen months ago, scientists called for federal government support to monitor the bloom. Five months ago, scientists and local businesses called for support when marine life washed up dead on our beaches. Minister, when did the South Australian government first officially raise the issue of the algal bloom with the federal government?

I thank Senator McLachlan for this question. He might recall that I made a contribution to the Senate in the last sitting week in some detail on the developments regarding the algal bloom in my home state of South Australia.

In relation to the first date for government, I will see whether I can provide further information to you. I can say to you that I certainly reached out to the South Australian Deputy Premier and Minister for Climate, Environment and Water in early July in relation to this issue. Obviously I—and I'm sure you, Senator, and all South Australians—have been very deeply distressed by the loss of marine life, by the state of our coastline and by the dreadful ecological event that we have seen. I understand that Minister Watt and the Prime Minister have met with a delegation of mayors and local industry members—I believe today; I'll just check.

Yes.

A number of South Australian senators and MPs were in attendance, too. I understand that there was an update from the ministers in relation to the government's response to the bloom. I know that Minister Watt went to South Australia on 21 July and announced some funding. The Prime Minister also visited, on 20 August, to announce further federal support and to inspect the bloom. Obviously this is an event which, as the Deputy Premier has explained publicly, is not unknown in terms of natural causes, but you would have to say, given what many scientists are saying, that the contribution of climate change to this dreadful event is self-evident.

Senator McLachlan, first supplementary?

The South Australian algal bloom is causing great harm. Fisher Paul Germain hasn't caught a fish, and Steve Bowley has not sold an oyster, for more than 100 days. Stansbury publican Rob Rankine's revenue is down. Christies Beach surfer Zoe Brooks has said surfers are getting sick. Minister, noting that a delegation of local government officials, as you've mentioned in your answer, visited the Prime Minister today, when will the Prime Minister provide the level of support that they have requested?

Senator, I understand from Senator Watt that he first engaged with Deputy Premier Close in late May or early June, and I'm advised that there has been regular contact since then between the South Australian minister, the federal minister and also the Prime Minister and the Premier. That's in relation to your first question.

In relation to industry support, the $14 million contributed to a package which included industry support. Like you, Senator, I know personally small businesses and coastal communities who have been very economically affected by the state of our coastline and by the scale of marine life loss. We'll continue to engage with the South Australian government about this, and we hope that we can see this resolved in the near future. (Time expired)

Senator McLachlan, second supplementary?

Last week the Prime Minister visited South Australia and committed an additional $6.25 million in immediate support for South Australians in need. Millions have been appropriately provided to support Whyalla, another coastal town, for its challenges. Why isn't the same level of support being afforded to South Australians—in particular, our coastal communities?

Senator, as a South Australian, you would know, first, that we have provided assistance, and we'll continue to engage with the South Australian government about what is required. In relation to Whyalla, that is a very important part of the state economy. You would know that successive governments, in relation to that steel facility, have recognised the importance of it to the state and national economy and also the struggles that many in the steel or iron sectors face at this time, given global circumstances. We make no apology for seeking to invest.

Well, I'm surprised that a South Australian senator is complaining about investment in Whyalla. I am very surprised that a South Australian senator—not you, Senator McLachlan, but Senator Ruston—is complaining about investment in South Australia.

On a point of order, I'd ask you to ask the minister not to verbal me incorrectly.

Senator Ruston, that is not a point of order. Don't interject.

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

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the 2025-26 supplementary budget estimates hearings, as circulated.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in the name of Senator Cash, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the 2025-26 supplementary budget estimates hearings.

The reason I do that is, today, Labor and the Greens did what we have been predicting for some time that they would—another dodgy deal. Today that deal dropped to an absolutely new low, and that low was, of course, the removal of scrutiny, which is incredibly important, in two areas. The motion we want to move today is one that relates to the cross-portfolio estimates hearings of, firstly, the Indigenous matters and, secondly, the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

It is astounding that a Labor government that holds itself up as the champion of Indigenous Australians—in partnership with the Greens, who claim the same thing—would go and scrap a full day of hearings in the Senate estimates process relating to Indigenous matters when we consider that many of the key indicators around closing the gap are going backwards when it comes to Indigenous wellbeing in this country. This government, who promised us new levels of transparency, who promised us that they would ensure that Australians knew more about what was happening here under this government and who promised that they would provide accountability to the Australian people about things that mattered, have gone and slammed the door on accountability and have shut down scrutiny of what they should be offering to this parliament. But the worst part is that, for those who signed up to this terrible arrangement, it's the Greens who have backed this in. I do not know how it's the Australian Greens, who for so long have stood in here and told us that governments of either persuasion don't do enough for Indigenous Australians and that we need to do more. Former Greens, like Senator Cox, would probably have championed a different position inside the Greens but instead are now part of the Labor Party and signed up to this terrible arrangement. It is not good for democracy, it is not good for accountability, and it's certainly not good for Indigenous Australians.

Let's go through some of the key indicators we need to consider when this government has gone through a decision-making process as part of their sneaky deal earlier on in the chamber today to quash estimates for a whole day to consider cross-portfolio Indigenous matters. Youth detention under this government is up 11 per cent. But let's not have a day of Senate estimates; let's shut it down. Youth suicide, of course, is up by 9.4 per cent.

Government senators interjecting—

But, hey, you know what? There's no scrutiny. There's no accountability. If we talk about adult incarceration, it's up under this government by 3.5 per cent. Let's not have a day of hearing to examine what is actually going on and see where the policies of this government are failing Indigenous Australians. We've got colleagues who actually want to ask questions. Did anyone want to give a reason for that? No. They slipped it through the Senate, with the Greens, and just rammed it through. It's appalling. Preschool attendance in Indigenous Australians is down by 2.6 per cent. Again, let's not have a day of hearings to actually examine what's going wrong, why this government's policies are failing and why things need to change.

Government senators interjecting—

Order! Senator Ciccone!

Then, finally, 1.2 per cent fewer children are commencing school developmentally on track. Again, this is something critically important to consider for this parliament. Senate estimates is an important tool for us to be able to examine what governments are doing. You've got numbers like this—four indicators going backward on the KPIs for Closing the Gap—and this government, in partnership with their coalition bedfellows, the Greens, say: 'We are not going to allow you to examine these matters. We will not have a day of scrutiny on these important matters.' I think that's shameful. So I'm glad that today we've been able to shed some light on this appalling arrangement we have between Labor and the Greens, where they would shut down scrutiny of matters on Indigenous affairs in this country. You've got shameful numbers like this. You spend half-a-billion dollars on a referendum but refuse to allow senators who have an interest, like Senator Liddle and Senator Nampijinpa Price, to ask questions of this government and its ministers to ensure that we get some accountability. Anyone who says they stand up for Indigenous Australians and then supports what happened here should hang their heads in shame. How can you look at these numbers and say that what you've done today is good? It's not good for accountability. It's not good for democracy. It's not good for Indigenous Australians. But this is the brave new world under a Labor-Green government.

I'd make three points very briefly, and then I will move that the motion be put. The first—which I'm sure you anticipated, Senator Duniam—is that those questions will still be able to be asked and answered in estimates. The second is that the coalition didn't oppose this change earlier in the day but now is feigning outrage. The third point is this, to the leadership of the coalition in this chamber: for many years I was the Senate leader in opposition. I remember it very clearly. And I consistently supported the government of the day in their parliamentary sitting pattern because that was the convention.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Sorry—may I? May I finish?

Senator McGrath! Senator Wong, do you want to resume your seat?

Sure.

Those on my left, I cannot hear Senator Wong.

I appreciate that, Deputy President. It is unfortunate that the coalition want to work with Senator Pocock to change the parliamentary sitting, but that's a matter for them. On that note, I move:

That the question be now put.

The question is that the closure motion, as moved by Senator Wong, be agreed to.

The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders, as moved by Senator Duniam, be agreed to.

Before I read this statement on behalf of the Minister for the Public Service, I'd just like to briefly inform the Senate that Senator Gallagher is not able to make this explanation because she has had to leave the Senate this afternoon for personal reasons. She was able to deliver this explanation at the original time allotted on the daily program. I understand that Senator Gallagher has personally explained this to Senator Pocock. If me delivering this statement is not adequate, we'll work with Senator Pocock to find an agreeable time next week.

In relation to the ministerial attendance, consistent with our position on all motions related to this request, as Minister Gallagher has already made very clear, the report referenced in this motion is being used to inform government decisions at a cabinet level. Actual deliberations of the Executive Council or the 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 yet on the deliberations. The release prior to the finalisation of cabinet process would negatively impact those deliberations. I understand that Minister Gallagher has personally spoken to Senator Pocock and conveyed this in order to be up-front about the government's reasons for opposing this motion. As she said on a number of occasions, when the government has completed relevant deliberations, the report will be released.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

I thank Minister Ayres and Minister Gallagher for that explanation and her time on this issue. I'm still disappointed that the government continues to resist the Senate's orders on this one. It has been two years since the government delivered this report, and it feels like we're supposed to accept that it has been under active consideration by the cabinet for two years. I don't accept that.

But I really want to spend my time now talking about the claim of cabinet confidentiality in detail and the worrying trend of increasing secrecy that I believe is stopping the Senate from undertaking its role as the house of review, the house of scrutiny. During the Morrison government, Senator Gallagher chaired the Select Committee on COVID-19. I've had a read of the second interim report recently and saw that the committee, during its time, was continually stonewalled by claims from the former government of cabinet confidentiality, so much so that the committee dedicated a whole chapter of their report to this issue, and I think it would be useful to actually quote from that report. To quote, regarding claims of cabinet confidentiality:

… claims must be accompanied by sufficient detail to enable the committee to determine the specific merits of each claim on a case-by-case basis. Each claim must establish that disclosing the particular information requested would reveal Cabinet deliberations and cause harm to the public interest. It is not adequate to refuse to provide information merely on the basis that the information has a connection to Cabinet.

It then goes on to say:

Minister Cash's claims make broad, general statements that it is 'longstanding practice' not to provide information relating to Cabinet and that Cabinet's deliberations should be 'conducted in secrecy'. Minister Cash's claims also rely on a general statement that disclosure is not in the public interest as it may impair the government's ability to obtain confidential information and make related decisions.

To cut a long story short, the committee chaired by the now Minister for Finance and Minister for the Public Service urged the Senate to reject claims of cabinet confidentiality being advanced by the then government on the basis that (1) they were vague in nature, (2) they did not provide enough detail to determine whether cabinet deliberations would be revealed and (3) they did not provide information to determine the harm that would be caused if the documents were released. And we're confronted with the exact same circumstances today. The minister's letter to me says: 'The tabling of the document would reveal cabinet deliberations. In other cases, previous documents that had been classified as cabinet-in-confidence were subsequently tabled as they were either public or decisions had been made by cabinet. In this case the report is central to the consideration by cabinet and it remains under consideration.'

That seems pretty vague to me and doesn't actually address the three things that the now government demanded of the former government when Labor were in opposition, and I find this really concerning in the Senate. This report could not possibly contain the deliberations of cabinet. It was a report independently done and provided to cabinet, presumably with the intention that it would be made public. In fact, on the APSC website it says it would be made public, and there's no caveat. It doesn't say 'after cabinet processes'. It just says that this will be made public by this date.

I think that as a Senate we really have to call this out because, if you look at the last parliament, once you crunch all the numbers the Albanese Labor government was the second most secretive in the past 30 years. If you compare their compliance with OPDs and with FOIs, they were sitting at 32½ per cent. For the Keating government it was 92½ per cent. And we're seeing this really worrying trend of the claim of PII, when I think it simply isn't warranted, and I urge the Senate to stand up against this.

I rise in support of Senator Pocock and congratulate and thank him for pursuing this OPD and continuing to pursue the government's noncompliance with the Senate's orders. This is an issue of gross hypocrisy by those opposite, who, as Senator Pocock correctly pointed out, when they were on this side of the chamber were incredibly vocal about the importance of transparency, and not just that, but they promised to do better. They promised to be the most transparent government ever, promised to uphold the standards of the chamber and important integrity and transparency measures like FOIs and orders for the production of documents.

It has led independent respected institutions like the Centre for Public Integrity to conclude that this government is objectively, measurably far worse when it comes to transparency than the government that they replaced, the Morrison government, of which they were so critical. That's a comparison that I know the Prime Minister would be particularly sensitive to, because he was highly critical of former prime minister Morrison when it came to transparency. But, as the Centre for Public Integrity has shown in their recent report, the Morrison government complied with 48.7 per cent of Senate OPDs in its final term, whereas the Albanese government complied with only 32.8 per cent of OPDs in its first term. I confidently predict that in this term they will do even worse, if these first few months are any guide.

As the Centre for Public Integrity warned, these actions suggested a 'deliberate effort to avoid scrutiny'. The Centre said:

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

That's right. And it is not just hypocrisy on the part of the government in general but, I'm sorry to say, by Senator Gallagher, the Minister for Finance, in particular. Again, as Senator Pocock pointed out, when Senator Gallagher was in opposition, when she was in a different position, she had a very different view when it came to the question of whether cabinet documents were, carte blanche, exempt from being provided under OPDs or whether indeed governments were required to specify when a document could not be provided. Senator Pocock already quoted, and I want to add to the record as well, that as chair of the Senate Select Committee on COVID-19, on which I served with Senator Gallagher, she made the following remarks in the second interim report of the committee:

The disclosure of the deliberations of Cabinet has achieved a measure of acceptance as a basis for claiming public interest immunity. However, such claims must be accompanied by sufficient detail to enable the committee to determine the specific merits of each claim on a case-by-case basis.

Each claim must establish that disclosing the particular information requested would reveal Cabinet deliberations and cause harm to the public interest. It is not adequate to refuse to provide information merely on the basis that the information has a connection to Cabinet.

That is what the government is attempting to do in this case.

Senator Wong has been vocal about this issue in the past. In fact, on something that is in some ways more sensitive, when a matter went to cabinet and was considered by cabinet she objected to it being withheld, in 2005 at a Senate estimates hearing:

… questions about the timing of cabinet discussions have been routinely asked and answered in estimates hearings and elsewhere and that it is difficult to see how the claim for immunity in this case could reasonably be made. In light of the advice, I ask again for the occasions on which the Welfare to Work package has gone to cabinet between February and these hearings.

Odgers ' is clear on this, precedent is clear on this and those opposite were clear on this when they were on this side of the chamber, but they are not now.

It is particularly odd that they are so reluctant to release the Briggs report, given that, in the State of theservice report 2022-23, provided by the Australian Public Service Commissioner, Dr de Brouwer said, on page 91 of that report:

The review's final report to the Government is expected to be published in late 2023.

That is almost two years ago now that the government committed to the release of the Briggs review.

We are left to wonder, we are invited to speculate: what is the reason they are refusing to release this document? Perhaps it is because one of their recent Public Service appointments made no attempt whatsoever to comply with best practice when it comes to Public Service appointments—one that is so outside the bounds of normal Public Service appointments and recruitments that this government would be very reluctant for it to be compared to their own report recommending best practice. I suspect this is an issue which we are all going to continue to have to pursue for some time.

I rise to take note of the minister's explanation. I am in agreement with a lot of the comments that have already been made by Senator David Pocock and Senator Paterson.

Two years ago, the government commissioned the Briggs review to clean up public sector board appointments. It was meant to shine a light on a system riddled with cronyism. Minister Gallagher said it was:

… all about putting an end to the jobs for mates culture that defined the previous Morrison Government's public sector appointments.

Importantly, the review was conducted to improve transparency over appointments, and to be open with the public and to restore public trust in public institutions.

The review was handed to the minister in August 2023, and, rather than release it, the government has locked it away under cabinet confidentiality. Think about that for a moment: a report about transparency, meant to shine a light on how powerful appointments are made, has been buried in the shadows of cabinet. It's absurd. It is the very definition of 'irony'. It's a textbook example of the old politics that the Prime Minister once proposed to leave behind.

We know what's at stake here. These boards oversee billions in public money and they carry enormous responsibility. The people who sit on them should be appointed because of their skills, their expertise and their commitment to the public good, not because of their political connections. The Briggs review was meant to lay out a pathway to achieve this, but without public scrutiny how can we know whether the government is serious about reform? Worse still, every high-profile appointment since the review was delivered is now tainted by speculation.

It begs the question: what is Labor hiding? The Labor government promised Australians a new era of integrity, transparency and accountability in public life. That promise was central to their election campaign. It's a promise they repeatedly claimed as the bedrock of their Public Service reform agenda. Yet, when faced with the opportunity to prove their commitment to openness, the government has chosen secrecy. Labor cannot have it both ways. They cannot lecture about rebuilding trust in democracy while withholding a report designed to do exactly that. They cannot decry the culture of a jobs-for-mates culture while refusing to let Australians see the recommendations for ending it. The public has a right to know, and we believe integrity must be more than a slogan.

If the government truly believe in merit based, transparent and fair appointments, they should release the Briggs review today. Until they do, every word they say about integrity in public life and every appointment they make at the senior level that breaks their own rules, or where it is unclear on how it was made, will ring hollow.

Question agreed to.

I move:

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

Sitting here day after day, during question time, we listen to Labor insult the Australian people—going on about how proud they are of what they're doing in housing, their economic management; the list goes on and on. The fact is that hard-working Australians are doing it tough right now. Living standards are falling, housing budgets are under strain, and businesses are going bust or moving offshore.

Labor have built 17 homes. Let's think about that for a moment—17. We have a housing crisis in Australia, and Labor have caused a housing nightmare for the Australian people. In just three years, this government has presided over the biggest boom in Australia's population growth since the fifties. We've got a significant housing construction collapse. This government seems more interested in looking after its union buddies than it is in looking after hard-working Australians who just want to get into the housing market.

Today during question time—we won't call it 'answer time', because Labor like to sit here and tell us about all the things that they're doing—we got the revelation that Labor have actually been going into the housing market and buying or acquiring homes. They've been going in, competing against first home buyers, competing against everyday Australians and causing an even bigger issue in what is a difficult market to get into.

Senator Ananda-Rajah, you're going to an opportunity in a few moments to have your contribution.

This Labor government has a $43 billion agenda. They are focused on building, building, building. We'll go back to that number again because those opposite refuse to say it. They're building, building, building 17 homes for the Australian people. The results speak for themselves. Senator Wong, in question time today, said that net zero is good for the economy. Let that sink in just a little bit. We've already gone over the fact that Australians are doing it tough, that living standards are down, that cost-of-living pressures are up. We've got the minister in this place talking about how what they're doing is good for the economy.

I don't know who those opposite are speaking to, but, when I'm out there in the community, people are telling me that it is tough. They can't afford their electricity bills, which are up 39 per cent—up another 13 per cent, we've just found out just this year. These are everyday Australian people who are struggling. They are choosing now between heating their homes in winter and eating. They are choosing between allowing their kids to play sport and sending them to school with lunch. Forgive me when those opposite sit in here and try and lecture us on how good their economic management is, because I think that everyday Australians out there would disagree with them.

The funny thing is that the government—when they run out of money, when their big-spending, big budgets run out of money—are coming after the Australian taxpayer. They are coming after everyday Australians' dollars. We heard today that they won't rule out a tariff. We're talking about a carbon border adjustment mechanism. They will not rule out a tariff on sectors like building materials, fertiliser, fuel, cement, chemicals, steel and aluminium. These tariffs would make these industries uncompetitive. It would mean closing down these industries and sending them offshore, meaning that Australians will need to import cement, chemicals, and steel and aluminium from other countries that don't have a price on carbon.

This government is bad for manufacturing. It's bad for jobs. Think about those communities that rely on these industries. With Labor's big spending, they're running out of money, and now they're going to come after all of us with tariffs. Let's not forget the $275 that they promised we would all save on our electricity bills. Like all Australians out there, I'm still waiting for a $275 reduction in my electricity bill. All I've got so far is a 40 per cent increase, with another 13 per cent just this year. This government has got to do better. (Time expired)

Australian industry and households do need affordable and reliable power. They do. We've heard that loud and clear. They also know that renewable energy is the cheapest form of power. It's the cheapest form of power. Don't take it from me and don't take it from the CSIRO, our peak scientific body; take it from the 4.1 million Australian households that have taken up rooftop solar—4.1 million households can't be wrong. This, paired with our most recent announcement on 1 July, making home batteries more affordable by cutting the cost of these batteries and installation by around 30 per cent, has led to an absolute surge of uptake of home batteries. Those 4.1 million households that now have rooftop solar are slapping on batteries at a rate that we have never seen. A few weeks ago, it was sitting at 30,000 households that have taken up this offer. It is now actually 41,000 households, 1,000 households a day.

And still the coalition are clinging on to coal and gas. I am surprised they haven't brought a piece of coal into this chamber. I am surprised, because they're still debating about the science of climate change. Meanwhile, the Australian people have moved on. They have left them in the dust in the rear-view mirror. A great emphasis that that has happened was at the May 2025 election and also at the 2022 election, when I took one of their Liberal seats.

That's not all we are doing to help Australians save money. We also cut the taxes on electric vehicles in our first term of office. When we first came to office, electric vehicle sales were flat, moribund, stuck at around two per cent. We introduced tax breaks and saw uptake increase, increase, increase. Electric vehicle sales are currently sitting at 13 per cent of new car sales, and we have around 300,000 pure battery electric vehicles on the road today. Australians have electric vehicles, rooftop solar and now home batteries. You can see how the dots are all lining up and joining up to save Australians money and to reduce our emissions.

Those opposite use the phrase, 'Net zero is good for the economy,' as a statement of derision. We see it as absolutely central to the liveability of this planet but also central to our future prosperity. I speak to those children up there, rather than those opposite, who have absolutely abandoned those children, the future generations of this country by still fighting over the concept of climate science in their party room. To those children I say: your prosperity will depend on Australia becoming a renewable energy superpower. It is within grasp.

When we first came to government, we set a target of 82 per cent renewable energy by 2030. We are within striking distance. We came in to clean up the Liberal legacy, the mess of our energy system. Where four gigawatts went in, one gigawatt went out. Do you know how many gigawatts we have ushered in since we came to power in 2022? Has it been three, four, five, 10? Does anyone know? It is 18 gigawatts into our grid, enough to power six million households. By the way, children up in the gallery, that is Victoria and New South Wales combined.

But that's not all. We've also introduced what is called the Capacity Investment Scheme. It's designed to attract investment into Australia for large-scale solar and wind, backed by large-scale batteries. We have pledged 40 gigawatts to enter the system. We recently upped that ceiling to 40 by 2027. That is attracting overwhelming interest from overseas companies. (Time expired)

I rise today to take note of the minister's answer to Senator Bragg's questions on the government's performance on housing. My colleague Senator Bragg asked three questions about housing—questions that he has asked multiple times in the past five sitting weeks—yet we still do not have any answers. You hear from my colleagues time and time again that the accountability and transparency of our government is slipping away every single day. Senator Bragg asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister if 2,000 homes under the Housing Australia Future Fund were built or acquired. Built and acquired are very different concepts. One is a supply side measure. One puts more homes into Australian society for young families to buy. The other is totally and absolutely anticompetitive. We are in direct competition with the Australian people when we are acquiring homes instead of building them. We could get no answer on that from our minister.

Previously, Minister Gallagher confirmed that the Housing Australia Future Fund was acquiring and converting existing homes. Senator Bragg asked for clarification on whether the HAFF, the Housing Australia Future Fund, is still purchasing homes in direct competition with Australians. Instead, we heard from Minister Wong. We heard what they'd like to do—not what they're doing, not what they've done; no numbers on houses that are built for the Australian people. We know that here in Canberra there are only 17 houses—we will also let that figure sink in for a little bit—from the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund. It is simply not enough. And yet we don't know if more have been built, because we're not getting the numbers.

Senator Bragg's final question was whether it was reasonable to have asked the minister four times in five weeks how many houses have been built and completed under the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund and why we have never been provided an actual figure. It's a very important question to ask. It comes down to accountability and transparency, and we know that those things are under pressure under this government. What we have seen over the past several years is not a plan and not a strategy but a spectacular failure to meet even its own targets—and, worse, a refusal to admit it.

As a new member to this chamber, I have sat here and listened to my colleagues ask very specific questions on how many houses have been built, and yet Senator Wong continues to deflect and speak about projections, none of which are even close to being met. The government promised 1.2 million homes over five years to Australians. It was sold as a bold target to the Australian people, a benchmark that would ease the pressure on Australian families, on young people and on renters right across the nation, and yet here we are with construction rates collapsing to barely 170,000 homes. A year under Labor, this just keeps collapsing, and even the government's own Treasury department doesn't believe in this policy—doesn't believe it's going to work. Instead of fronting up and being honest with the Australian people about this total failure of a policy, it's chosen to tinker at the edges.

Home construction has collapsed and targets are being missed, yet the minister still refuses to admit that the Housing Australia Future Fund is purchasing homes in competition with Australians. (Time expired)

I rise to take note of government answers to questions. I have sat here not for five weeks, Senator Collins, but for three weeks. There have only been three sitting weeks in this term of government of the 48th Parliament. I'm not sure where we got five weeks from; it might feel like five for some people, but we've only been here three.

All week I sat across the chamber and watched Senator Bragg ask some of these questions. His hyperfixation on wording was so evident this afternoon towards the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister Wong, in relation to housing. I admire his persistence, if you'd like to call it that, in him wanting to get a particular answer. In fact, I think the word 'laserlike' fits the way he approaches his questioning during question time.

To see the reality of it, let's share some statistics. Labor is delivering 55,000 social and affordable rental homes, and 28,000 of those are in construction and planning stages. Over 4,000 have already been completed. As at 30 June 2025, contracts have been signed to support 18,650 dwellings under the first rounds of the $10 billion HAFF. This build is quite significant in investments across the $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator payment, and the $1 billion National Housing Infrastructure Facility, and a range of other programs, by which together we will boost the supply. Supply is the key word here. It is the word of the day, so take note: that's the supply of social and affordable housing in Australia.

I note the interjection of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Cash, and the rabble in what's going on across the coalition here. Don't forget there's a tinge of teal in that, because we also saw in the 47th Parliament the Greens gang up with the 'no-alition' around blocking the housing bill. So there's no shame from that end of the chamber either.

This housing mess has been 40 years in the making. It's nearly as old as I am. Last Friday, I took the opportunity to go down Pier Street, and I invite Senator Cash to go down there and have a look. I was on the 11th storey of a wonderful apartment building that is being built under this very fund that the federal government, the Albanese Labor government, is delivering alongside the WA state government. I was joined by my wonderful colleague and friend the member for Perth, Patrick Gorman, and also our WA state housing minister, John Carey, to talk about what we're going to do. That building alone will be 29 stories of apartments in central Perth, close to services and close to transport for Western Australians. We are delivering on our housing commitments.

But it's not just that apartment building in the electorate of Perth. There are 14 others that we are delivering just in Western Australia, Deputy President—and I know that, just like me, you're a proud Western Australian and that you know the housing crisis is a life-defining challenge for lots of Australians, millions of Australians, in fact.

We hear. We are listening to the challenges that young people are having. Young people tell me, when I speak to them, that they feel they will never be able to afford a home. Our investment is the most ambitious and the boldest of an Australian government ever. Because, before, we've always left this to the states and territories to basically do the work, and now we are doing that in the postwar period. We are making sure that's the investment that the Albanese Labor government are going to deliver on in this term.

Our $43 billion that Senator Collins mentioned—our agenda is part of three things, which are building more homes, making it better to rent and making it easier to buy. That's why just this week we implemented our Help to Buy scheme—our first national shared equity scheme—to deliver on the five per cent deposit guarantee for every first home buyer. I know that, if that were the conversation happening in this chamber during question time, the faces of the young people in this chamber would've lit up—instead of that stuff. (Time expired)

During question time, I asked the government to explain why electricity prices have gone up by, now, 40 per cent under their watch, despite coming to power promising to lower them. It was pretty clear there was no answer from the government to explain this dichotomy that somehow the government could promise for years that, by investing in solar and wind power, they'd reduce power prices. Before the 2022 election, infamously, the Prime Minister said almost 100 times that he would lower the power bills of Australians by $275. That has not come to fruition.

Everybody that gets a power bill understands that, over the past three-and-a-bit years, they've continued to go up and up. This week we've had additional data confirming that. Yesterday the Australian Bureau of Statistics released their consumer price index data, which is effectively the measure of inflation on a monthly basis, and that showed that, despite the government's repeated claims in recent years—less repeated these days—electricity prices went up another 13 per cent over the past year. In just three years of this government, the increase is now at 39 per cent, rounding up to 40 per cent. It's quite an achievement to have power prices go up by 40 per cent in just three years. It's a sad indictment. It's a terrible tragedy for many families that are doing it tough and for businesses that cannot afford these crushing, skyrocketing increases in energy prices.

It's still quite an achievement to have such a surge in power prices over just a three-year period—fast outpacing inflation and fast outpacing any explanation or excuse the government previously had about the Ukraine war. For the first couple of years when power prices were going up, the government would come in here and constantly tell us: 'It's not our fault that your power bills have gone up. It's Vladimir Putin's fault. It's because he has invaded Ukraine, and gas and coal prices have gone up. That's why your power bills are high.' Well, gas and coal prices are back down to levels they were at well before the Ukraine war, yet your power bills have stayed high. What is the explanation for that? And that's the direct question I asked.

They say and promise that renewable energy is the cheapest form of power—I constantly hear that. It's a constant refrain, almost a mantra, from the government to say that renewable energy is the cheapest form of power. We just heard in this debate that the government has installed massive amounts of renewable energy. I think I heard 18 gigawatts—anyway, a lot of renewable energy, a lot of solar and wind, has been installed by this government. So, if solar and wind power are cheaper than the coal and gas they're replacing, wouldn't that lower power prices? You'd think so. I mean, I don't know. I am an economist, but I don't think you need to be an economist to understand that. If they're saying this thing is cheaper than that thing, and they're going to do more of this thing, that should lower prices. Why haven't they come down? I think the Australian people deserve an explanation for why their government promised them this massive bounty from their election. The government haven't delivered on those promises.

The Australian people deserve an explanation for why things have gone so wrong. This is not just an academic exercise. This is a big contributor to why Australian families have been suffering. They've suffered the biggest drop in their standard of living in the developed world. A big reason for that is the surging power bills, which don't just affect what you get every quarter from your power company; they also affect pretty much the cost of everything—in the supermarket, at the petrol pump. Pretty much everything is affected by the cost of energy. Australian businesses use four times the amount of power that households use. It is now affecting our manufacturing sector. There are 17,000 jobs in North Queensland at risk if our copper industry falls over, which is on the brink. Our aluminium industry is asking for significant assistance. Our steel industry has already got a multibillion-dollar bailout, as have the lead and zinc industries as well. We can't keep going on like this. We need a solution. Today I asked the government, 'What is your plan now to lower power prices?' and there was nothing. There was no plan. The government has waved the white flag on lower energy prices for the Australian people. I don't think we should do that. We've got the world's best energy resources in the world. We should use them. We should not give up.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to the question without notice asked by Senator Faruqi today about the man-made famine in Gaza.

I'm disappointed by the minister's response to these important questions asked by my colleague. Yet again, we are hearing more empty words about condemning, and issuing statements with no meaningful action. Every day we learn more about the horrific crisis in Gaza and how it's worsening. The minister claims that the government has imposed sanctions, yet these target only two individual Israeli ministers. They fall far short of the Magnitsky-style targeted sanctions on the entire Israeli security cabinet that the Greens have been calling for and that are surely warranted, with half a million people at risk of starvation and more than 2,000 already killed in death traps while trying to access food.

The minister also diminishes the Israeli government's refutation of man-made famine in Gaza as a diplomatic difference of opinion. Come on! If this genocide and this famine don't meet the threshold to expel the Israeli ambassador, then what on earth will? For a growing number of Australians, the hollow words from the minister are drowned out by the cries of hungry children. Words are not enough. While this government deals in words, thousands of Palestinian children are facing starvation. Their parents are holding their dying bodies as the world looks away. Last week's double-tap air strike on Nasser Hospital killed at least 20 people, including five journalists, striking both the wounded and those who rushed to save them. Among the dead was Mariam Dagga, a 33-year-old freelance journalist who dedicated her life to documenting the suffering of displaced children. Her camera was her only weapon. Her death and the deaths of so many health workers and reporters are brutal reminders that words mean little without action.

This morning I heard from Scarlet Wong, a former psychologist working in Gaza and now a board member of Medecins Sans Frontieres. Scarlet spoke of what she had seen during her time in the West Bank in Gaza—collective punishment, settler violence and communities stripped of rights and dignity. Scarlett told us:

The cruelty and impunity of the Israeli Defence Force against Palestinians shocked me

I will never see the world the same again.

Unprovoked, and yet protected by the Israeli Defence Force, settlers terrorised and tortured Palestinian children in their villages.

If children defended themselves, they were incarcerated or shot.

We have no other option but to tell the world the truth.

As a mother, as a human being, how could anyone hear these words and not feel compelled to do more? I just cannot comprehend how you cannot do more.

We also heard from Mohamed Duar, Amnesty International Australia's spokesperson for the Occupied Palestinian Territories. He described the deliberate targeting of journalists and medical workers. He said:

Israel isn't just assassinating journalists; it is assassinating journalism itself.

Mohamed reminded us of what should shake every conscience in this chamber—starvation being used as a weapon of war. He said:

Palestinians are facing an impossible choice, to either die of starvation, or die of courage while trying to access food.

These testimonies are an unbearable weight on humanitarian workers, left to pick up the pieces of a genocide. How can they heal? How can they protect when bombs fall and violence surrounds them—violence that this country can and must do more to stop?

The Prime Minister speaks of stability while doubling down on AUKUS—a surrender to militarism and to Washington—at the very moment Israel tightens its siege of Gaza and blocks aid. Australian-made parts for F-35 fighter jets—the planes levelling Gaza schools, hospitals and refugee camps—are exported from Australian shores. Without those parts, over time, those bombers would be grounded. Every day those exports continue, Australia is complicit.

As we remember Mariam Dagga and all the journalists, doctors and aid workers killed in Gaza—murdered in Gaza—we must remember them not only as victims but as witnesses. Their cameras and stethoscopes were tools of humanity, destroyed by weapons that Australia still helps to supply. Their testimony demands more than empty words; it demands action.

Question agreed to.

I present the government response to the report of the Community Affairs References Committee on its inquiry into equitable access to diagnosis and treatment for rare and less common cancers and seek leave to have the document incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows—

Australian Government response to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee report:

Equitable access to diagnosis and treatment for individuals with rare and less common cancers, including neuroendocrine cancer

MARCH 2025   

Acknowledgment of Country

The Australian Government acknowledges and pays respects to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people across Australia, who are the custodians of the land and of the oldest continuous living culture on Earth. We honour Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' ongoing connection to sea, waterways and Country. We pay respects to Elders past and present.

Overview

On 14 June 2023, the Senate referred the issue of equitable access to diagnosis and treatment for individuals with rare and less common cancers, including neuroendocrine cancer, to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee (Committee) for inquiry and report. The Australian Government welcomes the final report and thanks the Committee for its work.

The Government acknowledges the challenges experienced by individuals with rare and less common cancers and thanks all the patients, families, advocates, health care providers and researchers who shared their experiences with the Committee.

Cancer is responsible for Australia's largest disease burden and is a leading cause of death.[1] The Government acknowledges that while only a small number of people are diagnosed with rare and less common cancer every year, rare and less common cancers account for approximately 33 per cent of all cancer deaths.[] Improving outcomes for people with the poorest cancer experiences and developing measures that achieve equity for all Australians with cancer is critical to the Government.

It is with this ambition that the Government released the first national Australian Cancer Plan (ACP) in November 2023 following an extensive consultation period with state and territory governments, First Nations communities, clinicians, researchers, people affected by cancer and support organisations. The ACP represents a once in a generation reform opportunity that aims to deliver world-class cancer outcomes and experiences for all Australians affected by cancer, irrespective of their tumour type, background or location.

While the Government provides national leadership on cancer policy and research, improving outcomes for Australians affected by cancer is a shared responsibility. To achieve this, coordinated action is needed across the cancer control system, including at all levels of government, non-government organisations, and the health and research sectors. Eight recommendations fall within areas of state and territory responsibility or require collaboration between the Australian and state and territory governments. The Government has written to the state and territory health ministers seeking their consideration and action on these recommendations. The Department of Health and Aged Care will also engage and collaborate with the jurisdictions through the Cancer and Population Screening (CAPS) Committee to respond to the recommendations.

Some of the recommendations are complex and require rolling implementation to address. While the Government response addresses work already underway, several recommendations will be considered when making future policy decisions. The Government also acknowledges the recommendations relate to a number of other key reviews and reforms, including the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Review and the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) Review.

In this context, the Government response supports (or supports in-principle) 28 of the 41 recommendations, while noting the remaining recommendations.

Recommendation 1

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government further develop clinical guidelines and local pathways for rare and less common cancers and ensure that they are accessible and available for general practitioners at the point-of-care.

The Australian Government supports in-principle this recommendation.

Optimal Care Pathways (OCPs) are embedded into the Australian Cancer Plan as national standards of consistent, safe, high-quality, and evidence-based care, including cancer-specific and population-specific OCPs.

32 OCPs have been developed to date, with 30 for specific cancer types and 2 for specific population groups. A number of the cancer type specific OCPs are for rare and less common cancers. These include cervical cancer, cancer with an unknown primary site, several types of blood and lymphatic system cancers, neuroendocrine cancer and head and neck cancer. OCPs are available online, ensuring they are easily accessible to health care providers, patients and their families.

Cancer Australia is developing a National Optimal Care Pathways Framework to standardise the development, evaluation, and integration of OCPs into cancer care, support health professionals and ensure accessibility for people affected by cancer.

Recommendation 2

The Committee recommends that the Department of Health and Aged Care investigate the feasibility of a two-week urgent referral system for suspected cancer, such as the model offered in the United Kingdom.

The Australian Government notes this recommendation.

In the Australian context, the Optimal Care Pathways (OCPs) outline each step of the patient journey, including the best practice timelines to referral processes between treating medical practitioners as patients progress through early detection, diagnosis and treatment. Referral processes and timelines may vary between cancer types, including for rare cancers, and is subject to the treating medical practitioner's clinical decision and an individual's preference.

The Government recognises the importance of timely referral processes in healthcare and is exploring how technology can support this. eRequesting provides an opportunity to establish repeatable patterns in digital health and policy making that can be replicated and leveraged for future digital health pathways, including eReferrals. In the 2023-24 Budget, the Government invested $5.8 million over two years for the Department of Health and Aged Care to collaborate with key sector stakeholders on the design of a national eRequesting capability. A further $5.9 million was provided in the 2024-25 Budget to continue the development of this capability.

Recommendations 3 and 4

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government undertake a review of Medicare reimbursement settings for diagnostic tests and services, with a view of ensuring patients with, or with suspected rare or less common cancer, receive prompt, appropriate and affordable diagnostic testing.

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government enable increased reimbursements for MRI, PET and CT services throughout the diagnosis, surveillance and restaging of rare cancers.

The Australian Government supports in-principle recommendation 3 and notes recommendation 4.

The Government recognises access to diagnostics tests and surveillance is crucial to improving outcomes for patients with rare and less common cancers. The Department of Health and Aged Care has been working closely with the Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) and expert working groups to explore ways to streamline health technology assessment for diagnostic services relating to rare cancers.

This has successfully resulted in the listing of several Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) items for rare cancers in recent years, including:

As part of the 2024-25 Budget, the Government committed $69.8 million to remove barriers to access Medicare eligible MRI machines over two stages. This will enable all MRI equipment to provide Medicare funded services, starting on 1 July 2025 at practices that have a current licence, followed by all remaining practices on 1 July 2027.

Also, $92.8 million has been committed to boost funding for nuclear medicine services through the reintroduction of annual indexation, which will include all PET services from 1 July 2027.

Under the MBS, the Government provides access to rebates for a broad range of services, including over 500 pathology tests. The Pathology Services Table of the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) lists the pathology tests for which Medicare benefits are available, their Schedule fees and conditions for use. From 1 July 2025, Medicare fees for MBS pathology groups Haematology, Immunology, Tissue Pathology, Cytology, and Infertility and Pregnancy will be indexed alongside other MBS categories. Indexation of these groups will support a high rate of bulk-billed diagnostic services to ensure that Australians continue to have access to high quality and affordable healthcare.

The Department continues to work with MSAC to develop reliable methodologies to assess diagnostic services for rare and less common cancers. The Health Technology Assessment Policy and Methods Review was published on 10 September 2024. It includes recommendations relevant to evidentiary requirements for health technology assessments. The Government has committed to the establishment of an Implementation Advisory Group to guide the development of a response to this review and health technology assessment reforms.

The Government relies on the advice of the independent expert MSAC and other groups of independent clinical experts, such as the MBS Review Advisory Committee, to inform its decisions about the appropriate rebates for health services on the MBS. This ensures that the Government achieves value for public money. The Government notes the Committee's recommendation that reimbursements for particular services should be increased, but will continue to seek independent expert advice when making decisions on these matters through Budget processes.

Since 1 July 2024, the Minister for Health has authority to approve recommendations for new and amended MBS services following a positive MSAC recommendation, when the services are under a certain expenditure threshold, without going through the full Budget process. This is assisting to reduce the time taken for Government approval to list eligible new and amended MBS items. Where an MSAC application relates to a diagnostic imaging service for a rare or uncommon cancer and the service meets the expenditure requirements, the Minister's delegation will support the MBS item being made available to patients sooner.

Recommendation 5

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, in partnership with state and territory governments, undertake a review of the distribution and availability of MRI, PET and CT services and infrastructure across jurisdictions, with a view of ensuring more equitable access to these services going forward.

The Australian Government supports in-principle this recommendation.

The Government recognises the importance of access to MRI, PET and CT services for many patients with rare and less common cancers throughout their cancer journey. As part of the feasibility assessment for a lung cancer screening program, an assessment of the existing CT infrastructure was conducted by Cancer Australia. This found the spread of CT machines across Australian states and territories closely reflects the distribution of the Australian population. To further supplement existing CT infrastructure, the National Lung Cancer Screening Program will partner with Heart of Australia to provide 5 mobile CT screening trucks to service rural and remote Australia.

The Government will explore additional opportunities to work with state and territory governments to review the distribution and availability of MRI, PET and CT services and infrastructure across jurisdictions to ensure equitable access.

The Government has written to the state and territory health ministers seeking their consideration and action on this recommendation.

Recommendation 6

The Committee recommends that, as a matter of priority, the Australian Government legislate a complete ban on genetic discrimination in life insurance.

The Australian Government supports the recommendation.

The Government recognises the importance of genetic and genomic health information and therapies. They are reshaping clinical practice and changing the way medical practitioners prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor a range of heritable conditions, cancer predisposition syndromes and cancers. Individuals should not be dissuaded from potentially life-saving testing, out of fear of discrimination when purchasing life insurance.

In September 2024, the Government announced its intention to legislate a total ban on the use of adverse genetic testing results in life insurance. This ban will restrict the ability of life insurers to request, or utilise, adverse predictive genetic testing results in their underwriting. Under the ban, applicants will still be required to disclose any confirmed diagnoses (regardless of whether these resulted directly or indirectly from genetic testing), as well as any relevant family medical history. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission will be assigned regulatory responsibility for overseeing the ban, and the regime will be subject to 5 yearly reviews.

Recommendation 7

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government investigate opportunities to increase equitable uptake and access to genomic screening and profiling for Australians.

The Australian Government supports this recommendation.

The Government is committed to increasing equitable uptake and access to genomics and is funding a number of activities to achieve this.

Cancer Australia has developed a National Framework for Genomics in Cancer Control (Framework) as one of the Australian Cancer Plan's five-year goals under the strategic objective Maximising Cancer Prevention and Early Detection. The Framework will span the care continuum including personalised prevention, risk-stratified screening, diagnosis and treatment, supportive care, and foundations for an agile system specific to cancer care.

In April 2023, the Health Technology and Genomics Collaboration (the Collaboration) was established as an intergovernmental forum to drive the development of a nationally consistent approach for implementing genomics into the Australian health system as one of its key functions. The Collaboration's current work plan includes a project to develop a new national health genomics policy framework, which will investigate factors that influence the uptake and access of genomic health technologies and what action may be needed at a national level to improve equity. The Government is committed to the establishment of Genomics Australia to support the integration of genomic health technologies into healthcare in Australia. Consultation with states and territories on the role and functions of Genomics Australia is progressing through the Collaboration, and with the sector through the Expert Advisory Group (EAG) on Genomics Australia. While this consultation is undertaken, the Government has provided $6.0 million over two years from 2023-24 to allow Australian Genomics to continue supporting researchers and the rollout of genomics technologies into Australia's health system.

The Government established the Genomic Health Futures Mission (GHFM) which will invest $500.1 million over 10 years in genomics research under the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF). It will improve testing, diagnosis and treatment for genetic diseases, guide prevention and help personalise treatment options to better target and improve health outcomes and reduce unnecessary interventions and associated health costs for all Australians. The GHFM will also advance precision medicine for all Australians while keeping a focus on improving overall healthcare for Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people. This will be accomplished in partnership with Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people to deliver genomics research that is scientifically sound, culturally safe and competent to address inequity in research participation and outcomes.

The Government has also provided $114 million in funding for infrastructure to support precision medicine research and manufacturing including:

The Government currently funds many Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) items which may be used in the diagnosis and management of cancer. This includes MBS pathology items for specific gene variants for cancer diagnosis and management and determining eligibility for funding cancer treatment under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. It also includes cascade testing of family members for identified genes predisposing them to cancer.

Additionally, the Government has invested almost $80 million in the ZERO Childhood Cancer (ZERO) Program, providing all children with cancer access to precision medicine. The Government has also invested $61.2 million towards Omico's Precision Oncology Screening Platform enabling Clinical Trials (PrOSPeCT), which provides free genomic profiling to Australians with advanced or incurable cancers.

Recommendation 8

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government closely monitor the outcomes of the DNA Screen study, and the implications of the study for the future development of population wide, preventive genomic screening programs.

The Australian Government supports in-principle this recommendation.

The Government is committed to monitoring the outcomes of the DNA Screen study and other relevant research and clinical trials.

Recommendation 9

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, through the Medical Research Future Fund, extend funding for the ZERO Childhood Cancer Program beyond June 2025.

The Australian Government notes this recommendation.

Since 2016, the Government has invested almost $80 million in the ZERO Childhood Cancer (ZERO) Program and acknowledges the important role the program plays in delivering genomic precision medicine to Australian children aged 0 to 18 years with cancer, ensuring every child in Australia can benefit from genomic screening to inform their treatment and care. The Government will consider funding for the ZERO Program in the context of Budget processes.

Recommendations 10 and 11

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government utilise the Health Technology Assessment Policy and Methods Review to provide Australian rare and less common cancer patients with timely and affordable access to novel medicines.

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government ensure that the Managed Access Program is more widely accessed where appropriate.

The Australian Government notes these two recommendations.

The Government is committed to seeking better outcomes for those affected by rare cancers. The Government is addressing rare diseases at a national level through the National Strategic Action Plan for Rare Diseases and provides direct support for health and medical research through the Medical Research Future Fund and the National Health and Medical Research Council, with several funding schemes available to support research into rare cancers.

The Health Technology Assessment Policy and Methods Review was published on 10 September 2024 and includes recommendations relevant to rare diseases and Managed Access Programs (also known as Managed Entry Agreements) as a mechanism to facilitate earlier access to innovative medicines.

The Government has committed to the establishment of an Implementation Advisory Group to guide health technology assessment reforms.

Recommendation 12

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government adjust regulatory processes to broaden indication coverage for medicines that treat rare and less common cancers, including neuroendocrine cancer.

The Australian Government notes this recommendation.

The Government notes that indication coverage is impacted by both Therapeutic Goods Administration approval and subsidy through its health technology funding programs.

When recommending medicines for listing, health technology funding programs accept that products have adequate safety and efficacy to allow marketing in Australia for the specific therapeutic indications for which they are registered with the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Generally, a health technology funding program will not recommend listing a product for indications beyond those approved by the TGA.

The Health Technology Assessment Policy and Methods Review was published on 10 September 2024 and includes recommendations relevant to broadening indication coverage, particularly for paediatric patients.

The Government has committed to the establishment of an Implementation Advisory Group to guide health technology assessment reforms.

Recommendation 13

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government work with state and territory governments to ensure the families of paediatric cancer patients are not financially disadvantaged for hospital stays.

The Australian Government supports in-principle this recommendation.

The Government recognises the impact of hospitals stays on paediatric cancer patients and their families.

The planning and delivery of Australian public hospital services is undertaken by states and territories in their role as system managers. The Government provides significant funding through the National Health Reform Agreement (NHRA) to assist states and territories with the costs of delivering public hospital services, including for paediatriccancer patients on an activity basis.

The Government considers this recommendation is already being met as facilitated by the Medicare Principles in the NHRA, under which the states and territories have agreed to provide all Medicare-eligible persons with the choice to receive public hospital services free-of-charge, on the basis of clinical need and within a clinically appropriate period. The NHRA also requires states and territories to ensure arrangements are in place to ensure equitable access to public hospital services, regardless of geographical location.

The Government has written to the state and territory health ministers seeking their consideration and action on this recommendation and the Department of Health and Aged Care will engage with health representatives from the states and territories through the Cancer and Population Screening (CAPS) Committee.

Recommendation 14

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government work with state and territory governments to identify the barriers faced by cancer patients requiring rehabilitation, prosthetics and implants as a result of their treatment, with a view to ensuring they have financial support for those services.

The Australian Government supports in-principle this recommendation.

The Government recognises the importance of access to rehabilitation, prosthetics and implants for many patients with rare and less common cancers.

The Government provides Medicare benefits (rebates) for privately provided services listed on the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS). There are a range of items listed on the MBS that provide a rebate for surgical facial reconstruction for patients, including for head and neck cancer surgery, when performed by a medical practitioner.

On 1 July 2023, following extensive consultation, changes to a range of plastic and reconstructive surgery items, including oral and maxillofacial surgery items, were implemented. These changes were a result of recommendations from the MBS Review Taskforce that considered how items on the MBS can be aligned with contemporary clinical evidence and practice and improve health outcomes for patients.

For a new medical service to be funded through the MBS, an assessment by the Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) is required. The MSAC is an independent, expert advisory group which provides advice to the Government based on an assessment of the comparative safety, clinical effectiveness, and cost effectiveness of procedures.

The MBS funds privately provided medical services, but does not fund products or devices such as prostheses.

The Prescribed List (PL) requires private health insurers to pay a minimum benefit to private hospitals for patients with private health insurance cover for surgical implants received as part of a MBS funded episode of hospital or hospital-substitute treatment. Currently there are a range of implant products listed on the PL under the Plastic and Reconstructive Category.

For patients being treated at a public hospital, the costs of their implants will be covered by the public hospital, funded under the NHRA arrangements discussed in the response to recommendation 13 above.

The Government will explore opportunities to work with state and territory governments to better financially support cancer patients and their families. The Government has written to the state and territory health ministers seeking their consideration and action on this recommendation and the Department of Health and Aged Care will engage with health representatives from the states and territories through the Cancer and Population Screening (CAPS) Committee.

Outside of hospital services, the Government funds external prostheses for people with breast cancer through the National External Breast Prostheses Reimbursement Program.

Recommendation 15

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government review the eligibility criteria of the Medical Treatment Overseas Program, with a particular focus on access to clinical trials and treatments for rare and less common cancer.

The Australian Government notes this recommendation.

The Medical Treatment Overseas Program (MTOP) provides financial assistance to approved Australians and permanent residents with life-threatening medical conditions to access medical treatment overseas where the proposed treatment is accepted by the Australian medical profession as a standard form of treatment, but it is not available in Australia.

The MTOP has Guidelines that outline the administrative and clinical criteria that must be met by each application. As outlined in the Guidelines, applications that are seeking financial assistance for participation in a clinical trial or experimental treatment cannot be assessed by the MTOP. Experimental treatments and clinical trials conducted internationally are not subject to Australian regulatory, legal and ethical frameworks, which exposes patients and the Australian Government to significant risk.

The MTOP Program Guidelines state that the MTOP must ensure that taxpayer funded financial assistance is being provided for life-extending, safe, effective treatment, supported by proven medical evidence. This means treatments being proposed for overseas delivery require evidence comparable to that assessed by Australian health services and funding bodies considering implementing a treatment in this country.

Recommendation 16

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government work with state and territory governments to implement the One Stop Shop and National Clinical Trials Front Door platform as a matter of priority.

The Australian Government supports this recommendation.

The Government is committed to implementing the National One Stop Shop to harmonise and streamline the regulatory and operating environment for health and medical research in Australia The Government announced funding of $18.8 million in the 2024-25 Budget to advance the National One Stop Shop ICT solution. On 16 September 2024, a Request for Expression of Interest (REI) for delivering the National One Stop Shop ICT Solution was published on AusTender.

The Government continues to work in collaboration with state and territory governments through the Inter-Governmental Policy Reform Group (IGPRG) to deliver the National One Stop Shop and related initiatives including but not limited to, implementation of the National Clinical Trials Governance Framework and development of a quality standard and accreditation scheme for Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs).

Recommendation 17

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government ensure the Clinical Trials Activity initiative has an appropriate focus on funding clinical trials and research for people with cancer, including children, young people, and patients diagnosed with rare and less common cancers.

The Australian Government supports this recommendation.

The Government is committed to ensuring research on rare cancers, rare diseases and unmet need remains a priority area for funding under the Clinical Trials Activity Initiative. The 2023 Clinical Trials Activity Initiative grant opportunity closed in May 2024, and seeks to award up to $65 million of funding across four research streams, which includes rare cancers, rare disease and unmet need. The 2024 Clinical Trials Activity grant opportunity also opened in September 2024 and seeks to award up to $63 million in funding across the same research streams. This funding is reflected in the $6.5 billion Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) 3rd 10-year Investment Plan, announced in the 2024-25 Budget. Additionally, the MRFF will provide $150 million for the Low Survival Cancers Mission into research to improve care and health outcomes for people with cancer with a survival rate of less than 50%, many of which are rare and less common cancers.

Recommendation 18

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government provide appropriate funding to key cancer advocacy organisations supporting patients with rare and less common cancers by providing informative resources and support services that:

increase health literacy;

empower patients to make informed decisions regarding their health; and

are culturally appropriate and accessible in a variety of languages.

The Australian Government supports this recommendation.

The Government recognises the important role non-government organisations (NGOs) play in supporting patients with rare and less common cancers. In November 2023, the Government announced $166 million for the establishment of a new Australian Cancer Nursing and Navigation Program (the Program). The Program is a national reform to deliver improved cancer outcomes, ensuring people effected by cancer have access to high quality and culturally safe care, irrespective of their cancer type, stage of diagnosis or where they live. The Program provides funding to a number of cancer NGOs, including Rare Cancers Australia, Head and Neck Cancer Australia and Neuroendocrine Cancer Australia, to deliver specialist support services (including telehealth)

The Government is also providing $16.5 million for a Cancer Patient Support Program. This Grant Program will fund initiatives that will build equity across the cancer control spectrum by providing opportunities to organisations that specifically focus on increasing equity across tumour types, and/or priority population groups. It will ensure a diverse range of evidence-based projects are funded that assist in addressing gaps in the system, ensuring that any investment through this opportunity is complementary, and not duplicative to existing Government funded programs. Six organisations will receive funding in the first round of grants, including:

Additionally, the Government has procured the Sax Institute, in partnership with the Sydney Health Literacy Lab, to develop a National Health Literacy Strategy (NHLS) to improve the health literacy environment in Australia as well as individuals' self-care capabilities. Public consultation on the draft NHLS is expected to commence in late-2024.

Recommendation 19

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government provide sufficient funding and resources to ensure that the supportive care aspirations of the Australian Cancer Plan are delivered on for all Australians, including for those affected by rare and less common cancers.

The Australian Government supports this recommendation.

The Australian Cancer Plan (Plan) is a 10-year reform agenda for the whole Australian cancer community. Implementation of the ACP requires leadership and collaboration across the entire cancer control sector. The Plan's launch was supported by a record investment of nearly $750 million in cancer care in the 2023-24 Budget, including the introduction of the National Lung Cancer Screening Program, the Australian Cancer Nursing and Navigation program, and initiatives to improve First Nations cancer outcomes. This was followed by an additional $71 million investment in the 2024-25 Budget, building on the Government's commitment to improve outcomes for all Australians affected by cancer.

The Plan identifies the five-year goal of building networked high-quality comprehensive cancer care systems to deliver optimal cancer care and better outcomes. This includes integrating Optimal Care Pathways into routine care, establishing the Australian Comprehensive Cancer Network and improving equitable access to evidence-based innovative models of care. These actions will support all Australians affected by cancer including people with rare and less common cancers.

Since 2005, the Government has contributed over $12 million towards 142 community grants through Cancer Australia's Supporting people with cancer grant initiative. The grant initiative provides funding to community organisations to develop evidence-based projects, which support people affected by cancer. Going forward, the initiative will be guided by the Plan's strategic objectives, with grants required to support at least one or more of the priority population groups identified in the Plan and/or demonstrate direct improvements for people whose cancer outcomes are inequitable. Grants awarded under this program in recent years have included projects which support people with rare and less common cancers.

Recommendation 20

The Committee recommends that the Department of Health and Aged Care monitor and report on progress for the delivery of the all-cancer nurse service.

The Australian Government supports this recommendation.

The Australian Government has committed $166 million to establish a new Australian Cancer Nursing and Navigation Program (ACNNP). The program will ensure all people with cancer have access to high quality and culturally safe care, irrespective of their cancer type or location. A key component of the ACNNP is the all-cancer nurse service led by the McGrath Foundation in partnership with the cancer sector to deliver around 250 Commonwealth-funded cancer nurses in health and hospital services across Australia to deliver support to Australians with all types of cancers.

. In consultation with the sector and an external evaluator, the Department of Health and Aged Care is planning a comprehensive evaluation to inform future program and policy decisions by evaluating the efficacy and sustainability of the ACNNP. The evaluation will include regular monitoring and mid-point progress reports.

Recommendation 21

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government explore the provision of at least one specialised neuroendocrine tumour nurse, and paediatric cancer nurse, in each Australian jurisdiction.

The Australian Government notes this recommendation.

Whilst the Australian Government provides funding for the Australian Cancer Nursing and Navigation Program (ACNNP), nurses are typically funded by the states and territories. Jurisdictions may choose to fund specialised neuroendocrine tumour or paediatric cancer nurses where there is a need.

The ACNNP adopts a tumour-inclusive approach with funding provided for an all-cancer nurse service that ensures all people with cancer are supported, irrespective of cancer type.

The tumour-inclusive approach aligns with the Australian Cancer Plan and will implement one of its key recommendations to develop and implement an integrated and multidisciplinary navigation model. The ACNNP will improve equitable access to high quality, culturally safe cancer nursing and navigation services for all people with cancer, including paediatric cancer patients and people with neuroendocrine cancer.

Additionally, the Specialist Support Service stream of the ACNNP will fund cancer Non-Government Organisations to ensure tailored support is available to meet the unique needs of people with specific cancer types, including people with neuroendocrine cancer. This includes $4.4 million over 4 years to Rare Cancers Australia and $2.4 million over 4 years to Neuroendocrine Cancer Australia to deliver specialist support services.

Paediatric cancer patients can access support through the Child and Youth Cancer Hub. Canteen, in collaboration with Camp Quality and Redkite, will receive $11.5 million to continue the delivery of the Child and Youth Cancer Hub, providing tailored cancer navigation services for young people with cancer aged 0 to 25 and their families. The Cancer Hub aims to help families impacted by cancer more easily access the practical and emotional support they need when they need it.

The Government will also provide $24.5 million over 4 years for Youth Cancer Services to continue to provide specialist, age-appropriate treatment and support for young cancer patients aged 15 to 25. Each hospital-based service has a multidisciplinary specialist team of health professionals, including nurses who are experienced in treating and caring for young people with a range of different cancers.

Recommendation 22

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government ensure that general practitioners are appropriately incentivised and remunerated for patient care coordination and longer-term management of complex and chronic diseases, including rare and less common cancers.

The Australian Government supports in-principle this recommendation.

The Government recognises the important role that multidisciplinary primary care health teams play in supporting patients with complex and chronic conditions.

The Government has commissioned several reviews following the report of the Strengthening Medicare Taskforce to examine reforms to ensure multidisciplinary teams are better supported to assist patients with complex and chronic conditions. This includes the Scope of Practice Review and the Review of Practice Incentive Payments.

MBS fee-for-service items are also reviewed by experts to ensure that they continue to support high-quality care. The MBS Review Advisory Committee (MRAC) has commenced a review of time-tiered items for primary care. This review process will include consultation with stakeholders. The review is expected to be finalised and advice provided to Government at the end of 2025.

From 1 March 2025, the Government will introduce two new MBS items, face to face and video, for consultation of at least 60 minutes with a nurse practitioner. Providing access to a long consultation will support nurse practitioners in managing the health of people with complex and chronic health conditions.

Announced in the 2023-24 Budget, MBS chronic conditions management items will be streamlined and simplified from 1 July 2025. The items will incentivise the regular review of chronic disease management plans and strengthen continuity of care. This is in addition to existing MBS items that are available for undertaking multidisciplinary case conferences, including items specific for cancer care.

The introduction of MyMedicare, a voluntary patient registration model, in 2023 will also assist patients with complex and chronic conditions by encouraging continuity of primary care.

Recommendation 23

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government consider further investment to ensure the timely and affordable provision of psychological services to support patients and their families acutely impacted by rare and less common cancers.

The Australian Government supports this recommendation.

The Government is committed to reforming the mental health and suicide prevention systems to ensure all Australians can access the care they need, regardless of where they live or how much they earn. The Government is investing in complementary models to more fairly and efficiently deliver better care to those who need it, including to those with rare cancers, and their families.

Mental health support is available under the Better Access to Psychiatrists, Psychologists and General Practitioners through the MBS (Better Access) initiative. Under Better Access, Medicare benefits are available to eligible patients for up to a maximum of 10 individual and 10 group psychological services per calendar year provided by appropriately trained general practitioners, psychologists (clinical and registered), eligible social workers and occupational therapists. People with relevant plans under the Chronic Disease Management framework may also be able to access Medicare benefits for five allied health services, such as dietetics and exercise physiology services, per calendar year in addition to the 10 individual and 10 group treatment sessions available under Better Access.

Through the 2024-25 Budget, the Government is investing $361 million in the mental health and suicide prevention system which will ensure Australians get the right care for their level of need. This investment shifts away from the one-size-fits-all approach and will relieve pressure on the Better Access initiative.

The Government is also rolling out a national network of 61 Medicare Mental Health Centres (building on the existing Head to Health centres) to provide free community-based services for people with moderate to complex needs. While not intended to provide ongoing care, the number of sessions provided to consumers are not capped. A further $29.9 million over four years from 2024-25 will be provided to strengthen the clinical capacity of centres to appropriately support consumers with severe and complex needs. Medicare Mental Health Centres will have strengthened clinical support through free telehealth access to psychologists and psychiatrists as part of a multidisciplinary team.

The Government has committed $164 million over four years for a new National Early Intervention Service providing low intensity mental health support. The national early intervention service will expand support for people at risk of, or experiencing, mild mental illness or transient distress. From 1 January 2026, the service will provide free low-intensity cognitive behavioural therapy, delivered by skilled and trained professionals, via phone or video. Services will be free and accessible without a diagnosis or referral from a GP. The service will also provide a curated set of free, evidence-based online tools and resources for people able and willing to try self-guided support.

The Australian Cancer Nursing and Navigation Program (ACNNP) will also provide access to psychosocial supports for cancer patients. Rare Cancers Australia, Head and Neck Cancer Australia and Neuroendocrine Cancer Australia will receive funding to deliver tele-psychosocial supports as part of the Specialist Support Services stream.

Young people with cancer aged 0 to 25 can access psychosocial supports through the Child and Youth Cancer Hub. The Cancer Hub provides practical and emotional support for young people with cancer and their families, including access to specialist counsellors and dedicated cancer navigators.

Additionally, the Support for Cancer Clinical Trials (SCCT) program provides funding to the Psycho-oncology Co-operative Research Group (PoCoG), among Australia's 14 Multisite Collaborative Cancer Clinical Trials Groups (CTGs) to develop investigator-initiated and industry-independent cancer clinical trial protocols. PoCoG develops and conducts clinical trials to test new treatments for cancer patients and their carers, to improve the psychological care of people affected by cancer.

Recommendation 24

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government work with state and territory governments, and palliative care services to support:

improved understanding amongst patients, families and clinicians of the potential benefits, and timely delivery of palliative care;

increased awareness that palliative care is not just an end-of-life service;

increased availability of tailored and appropriate palliative care services, for a range of population groups; and

where appropriate, greater dialogue upon diagnosis, or throughout treatment, between patients, families and clinicians on palliative care options.

The Australian Government supports this recommendation.

The Government currently funds a number of programs and projects that aim to improve the provision of high-quality palliative care in Australia through workforce development, quality improvement, data development and advance care planning. These programs focus on increasing access to palliative care for all people with a life-limiting illness including those diagnosed with a rare or less common cancer.

The National Palliative Care Strategy (2018) represents the commitment of the Australian Government and all state and territory governments to ensuring the highest possible quality of palliative care is available to all people. The Implementation Plan for the Strategy articulates a shared direction for the continual improvement of palliative care in Australia, including improving access to palliative care.

The Government has also invested in the development of the Paediatric Palliative Care National Action Plan that provides a roadmap for a national approach to common goals for paediatric palliative care.

The Government has invested approximately $174.7 million from 2023-24 to 2026-27 to strengthen access to quality palliative care, improve understanding and increase awareness of palliative care as beneficial from a diagnosis of a life-limiting illness, and increase education and training of the health and aged care workforces. The current reviews and reforms of the national funding and governance arrangements for the health and disability systems, that is the National Health Reform Agreement (NHRA) and the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), provide an opportunity for the Government to continue working at a national level to clarify supports people with a life limiting illness can expect to receive from the health and disability systems. The Independent Review of the NDIS identifies the interface between palliative care and the NDIS as a critical priority area when reviewing arrangements between the NDIS and other service systems. The Government is currently considering its response to the recommendations made by the NDIS Review.

Delivering high quality palliative care is an essential part of the Australian Cancer Plan, demonstrated by the two-year action to develop and refine integrated care models to maximise access to high-quality, timely and evidence-based palliative and end-of-life care. The Australian Cancer Nursing and Navigation Program (ACNNP) will ensure people are empowered with education, resources and the support to better navigate the health system, including palliative care.

The Government will identify opportunities to engage with state and territory governments to progress these initiatives where appropriate.

Recommendation 25

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government consider a review of the eligibility criteria and adequacy of the Carer Payment and Carer Allowance with a view of ensuring that people caring for cancer patients have access to appropriate support.

The Australian Government notes this recommendation.

Pensions, including the Carer Payment are generally paid at the highest legislated rate of income support payments in the Australian social security system. Base pensions are indexed in March and September each year. Payment rates will next be updated on 1 January 2025.

Qualification for the Carer Payment and Carer Allowance is not determined based on the medical condition or disability of the care receiver. Government policy is for each individual to be assessed based on the care provided to determine their eligibility. This does not mean the carer cannot qualify for the Carer Payment or Carer Allowance if the care receiver has cancer. Qualification is dependent on an appropriate assessment of the severity of the condition and the level of care provided. The assessment process for the Carer Payment and Carer Allowance considers the amount of help a person requires to undertake activities of daily living—such as communication, showering, toileting, grooming, dressing, feeding, mobility and a range of cognitive and behavioural activities.

In 2025, the Government is making changes to the 25 hour participation limit for Carer Payment, changing it to 100 hours over a 4 week period, to allow more flexibility in the hours carers work. In addition to the change to the 25 hour rule, this proposal seeks to deliver a range of other improvements for carers, by improving participation rules for Carer Payment recipients:

Recommendation 26

The Committee recommends that state and territory governments reform patient assisted travel schemes with a view to:

create more consistency in scheme offerings across all jurisdictions;

increase financial assistance; and

expand schemes to include travel and accommodation costs for clinical trial participants.

The Australian Government notes this recommendation, noting this is the responsibility of state and territory governments. The Government has written to the state and territory health ministers seeking their consideration and action on this recommendation and the Department of Health and Aged Care will engage with health representatives from the states and territories through the Cancer and Population Screening (CAPS) Committee.

Recommendation 27

The Committee recommends that Australian health services continue to invest in, and extend the use of telehealth and teletrial technology and infrastructure, to ensure adequate and timely delivery of diagnostic, treatment and support services, particularly for people living outside metropolitan areas.

The Australian Government supports this recommendation.

The Government is committed to ensuring equitable access to healthcare for people living outside metropolitan areas and recognises technology plays an important role in achieving this.

Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) telehealth services are available nationally as part of a consistent and demand-driven program which provides patient rebates in relation to their private healthcare costs. The final report from the independent clinician-led review of MBS Telehealth by the MBS Review Advisory Committee includes 10 principles and 10 recommendations intended to inform telehealth policy and relevant amendments to the MBS. The Government is currently considering the report.

All Australian governments are collaborating on a broad program of work to improve the operating environment for health and medical services in Australia. As part of this, the National Teletrials Compendium has been developed and agreed. It is designed to support a consistent national approach to implementation of teletrials in Australia and is reviewed regularly.

Specialist telehealth support services will also be provided as part of the Australian Cancer Nursing and Navigation Program (ACNNP). Funding will be provided to a number of cancer non-government organisations, including Rare Cancers Australia, Head and Neck Cancer Australia and Neuroendocrine Cancer Australia, to deliver the telehealth support services.

The Australian Comprehensive Cancer Network will aim to improve patient outcomes and address disparities by improving connectivity between cancer services. The integrated national network connects cancer services across Australia to enable cancer expertise to be accessed from more places, ensuring patients can receive care as close to home as possible, particularly in rural and regional areas.

Recommendation 28

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government prioritise and monitor the implementation of the recommendations from the National Medical Workforce Strategy 2021-2031, and ensure it addresses the needs of rare and less common cancer patients, including neuroendocrine cancer patients.

The Australian Government notes this recommendation.

The National Medical Workforce Strategy 2021-2031 (NMWS) has been agreed by all Australian Health Ministers and is guiding long-term collaborative medical workforce planning across Australia. It identifies achievable, practical actions to build a sustainable, highly trained medical workforce. The NMWS aims to rebalance the supply and distribution of the medical workforce, including improving the geographic distribution of the medical workforce and increasing generalist capability of the medical workforce, shifting the balance away from highly specialised medical practitioners. Implementation is underway with governments and sector stakeholders to facilitate successful delivery of the NMWS.

The Department of Health and Aged Care is leading work to implement a range of actions to forecast future supply needs in all medical specialties. Part of this work will occur through improved data collection, sharing and analysis for medical workforce planning, reforming medical training and accreditation which includes encouraging junior doctors to take up specialty training in areas of need, and improving the professional and geographic distribution of the medical workforce.

Recommendation 29

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, in partnership with state and territory governments and the higher education sector, review the emerging educational and workforce skill needs in relation to precision oncology, genomics, molecular curation and theranostics.

The Australian Government supports in-principle this recommendation.

The Government recognises that there are emerging educational and workforce skill needs relating to ongoing advancements in genomics, molecular curation and theranostics in cancer care.

In response to the Australian Universities Accord, the Government has committed to establish an Australian Tertiary Education Commission (ATEC) and to introduce a new Managed Growth Funding system. The ATEC will play a key role in ensuring our national skills needs are met, informed by analysis from Jobs and Skills Australia. It is proposed that the ATEC's function would include a potential role in implementing a new Managed Growth Funding System, which will support the long-term growth in enrolments to reach the Government's attainment targets as well as meet community expectations and industry skills needs.

Cancer Australia is developing a National Framework for Genomics in Cancer Control as one of the Australian Cancer Plan's five-year actions under the strategic objective Maximising Cancer Prevention and Early Detection. The Framework will span the care continuum including workforce, personalised prevention, risk-stratified screening, diagnosis and treatment, supportive care, and foundations for an agile system specific to cancer care (models of care, research and data, quality and safety and funding considerations).

The Government will explore opportunities to work with states and territories to review the emerging educational and workforce skill needs in relation to precision oncology, genomics, molecular curation and theranostics. A key focus of this work will be how to provide complex information to a range of generalist health professionals on a just in time basis through digital and AI driven tools, to assist with patient diagnosis and management. This will become an increasingly important education strategy, particularly if we are to achieve the goal of genomics becoming embedded in the health system. We will not be able to limit the use of these skills to specially trained health workers, or specific new health workforces.

Recommendation 30

The Committee recommends that state and territory governments provide sustained funding and participation incentives for staffing positions and training opportunities for medical professionals and researchers interested in specialising in rare and less common cancers, including neuroendocrine cancers.

The Australian Government notes this recommendation, noting this is the responsibility of state and territory governments. The Government has written to the state and territory health ministers seeking their consideration and action on this recommendation and the Department of Health and Aged Care will engage with health representatives from the states and territories through the Cancer and Population Screening (CAPS) Committee.

Recommendation 31

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government continue to engage with and support Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations to ensure the ongoing and expanded delivery of culturally safe and appropriate health and supportive care for First Nations people.

The Australian Government supports this recommendation.

The Government is committed to ensuring First Nations people have access to culturally safe and appropriate health and supportive care and is funding a number of activities to achieve this.

In October 2023, a dedicated Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cancer Plan (Plan) was launched. The Plan was developed and owned by the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (NACCHO) and funded by the Government. The Plan provides a comprehensive footprint for cancer reform.

The Government provided $197.9 million to NACCHO to support the Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services sector to respond to cancer inequities and improve outcomes across the cancer care journey. Funding will deliver practical programs in prevention and screening, treatment and navigation, with a focus on remote and outer regional locations. This will enable First Nations Australians to exercise choice and receive holistic care and support within their communities and will support the implementation of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cancer Plan. An additional $12.5 million was provided to NACCHO for the co-design of the National Lung Cancer Screening Program with First Nations Australians and ACCHO partnerships.

In addition, the Government has established a new grant program through Cancer Australia to enhance the delivery of culturally safe and accessible care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people receiving services in mainstream health services, in partnership with local ACCHOs. The Partnerships for culturally safe cancer care grant program opened in July 2024, providing up $19.9 million over the next three years.

This was part of the $38.6 million provided to Cancer Australia through the 2023-24 Improving First Nations Cancer Outcomes budget measure to ensure mainstream health services are culturally safe and accessible for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Other funded activities included:

The Government is committed to continuing to work closely with NACCHO on improving First Nations cancer outcomes.

Recommendation 32

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, in collaboration with Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations, develop initiatives to increase participation rates of First Nations people in cancer screening, research and clinical trials.

The Australian Government supports this recommendation.

The Government is committed to increase the participation of First Nations peoples in cancer screening, research and clinical trials in line with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cancer Plan and funds a number of activities to achieve this. This includes $12.5 million to the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (NACCHO) for the co-design of the National Lung Cancer Screening Program. The Department of Health and Aged Care, Cancer Australia and NACCHO are working in partnership to co-design and implement the Program to ensure it is culturally safe and accessible for First Nations people.

Additionally, the Government has provided $12.7 million to NACCHO to work with the community-controlled sector to improve health care access for First Nations peoples, including point-of-care cervical screening testing. The Government also provided $5.9 million to the Australian Centre for the Prevention of Cervical Cancer for point of care cervical screening testing for First Nations women and people with a cervix.

The Government has funded a $10.2 million national cervical screening campaign to be delivered in 2024-25. The primary target audiences for this campaign are First Nations and multicultural women and people with a cervix. As part of this campaign, NACCHO has been contracted and funded $500,000 to provide advice and expertise on the messaging in the campaign, as well as undertake community engagement and localised grants for smaller community organisations. NACCHO will also work directly with ACCHOs and AMHS to engage healthcare workers on the campaign and cervical screening self-collection.

The BreastScreen Australia (BSA) National Policy and Funding Review will develop evidence-based recommendations to improve the BSA program, including increasing First Nations' participation in breast cancer screening. A final report and the recommendations are expected by the end of 2024.

The 2022-24 Australian Medical Research and Innovation Priorities has identified Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health as a priority area. As a result, many Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) grant opportunities include funding streams specifically targeted to address issues related to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health.

In particular, the MRFF's Indigenous Health Research Fund is investing $160 million over 10 years in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander-led research to tackle health issues facing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

The MRFF has allocated $150 million over 10 years for the Reducing Health Inequities Mission, from 2027-28. This Mission will fund research to address inequities in health outcomes by improving access to quality health services by priority populations, which may include Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) invested $10 million to fund a National Network for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health researchers as part of responding to NHMRC's Road Map 3: A strategic framework for improving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health through research. The National Network was established in December 2020 and is funded over 5 years. It aims to increase the number and capabilities of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health researchers.

The NHMRC priorities for the current triennium (1 July 2021-30 June 2024) include improving the health of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people through research that addresses health inequities. An associated activity with this priority is ensuring that at least 5% of NHMRC funding is directed towards research focussed on Indigenous health. This priority will be retained for the next triennium.

Recommendation 33

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government partner with organisations representing culturally and linguistically diverse communities to develop initiatives to increase participation rates in cancer screening, research, and clinical trials.

The Australian Government supports this recommendation.

The Government is committed to increasing participation in cancer screening, research and clinical trials for culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities and funds a number of activities to achieve this. The March 2022-23 Budget committed $10.6 million (2022-23 to 2023-24) to support the Enhanced Communications for CALD Communities—Prevention and Management of Chronic Conditions Campaign measure, a targeted initiative delivering on the National Preventive Health Strategy 2021-2030.

A community-led campaign has been co-designed with the Department of Health and Aged Care's Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Communities Health Advisory Group and the Preventive Health Communications and Engagement Working Group. The campaign is focused on increasing uptake of bowel, breast and cervical screening among multicultural communities where data shows rates are currently lower than the general population. Campaign activities will be evaluated to provide evidence for an informed, tailored public health communications strategy for multicultural communities.

The 2022-24 Australian Medical Research and Innovation Priorities has identified individuals from culturally and linguistically diverse communities as a priority population. As a result, many Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) grant opportunities include funding streams specifically targeted to improving the health and wellbeing of individuals from culturally and linguistically diverse communities. Further, applicants must articulate in their project plans how the views and preferences of people from culturally and linguistically diverse communities are addressed in the design and conduct of their research.

The MRFF has allocated $150 million over 10 years, from 2027-28 for the Reducing Health Inequities Mission. This Mission will fund research to address inequities in health outcomes by improving access to quality health services by priority populations, which may include people of culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.

The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) offers partnering opportunities to individuals, philanthropic trusts and foundations, government agencies and other funders to effectively and efficiently direct funds by drawing on NHMRC's expertise and services. The research topics for these partnerships is dependent on the interests and objectives of the partner.

Recommendation 34

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government ensure continued funding for rare and less common cancer projects to reduce existing research and clinical trial disparities.

The Australian Government supports this recommendation.

Under the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF), the Government has committed $750 million over 10 years from 2024-25 under the Clinical Trials Activity Initiative to increase clinical trial activity in Australia. Under this Initiative, a priority area for funding is clinical trials research that investigates new drugs, devices or treatments for rare cancers/diseases or for areas of unmet medical need. Additionally, the MRFF will provide $150 million for the Low Survival Cancers Mission into research to improve care and health outcomes for people with cancer with a survival rate of less than 50%, many of which are rare and less common cancers.

Between 2018 and 2022, National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) committed approximately $221.6 million for 186 new research grants relevant to rare and/or less common cancers. This equates to approximately 5.0% of total NHMRC commitments across the same time period.

Recommendation 35

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government fund biobanking initiatives to ensure the availability of quality cancer samples for research.

The Australian Government supports in-principle this recommendation.

The Government recognises the important role biobanks play in supporting cancer research. The Government has committed $600 million over 10 years between 2024-25 and 2033-34 under the National Critical Research and Infrastructure Initiative for infrastructure that will be used to conduct world-class health and medical research. This includes funding for biobanks.

Around $8.1 million has been allocated to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) for establishment of the Australian Health Biobank (AHB) including the collection and storage of samples.

Additionally, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Direct Research Guidelines allow for NHMRC grant funds to be used to access biospecimen and data collections, and to prospectively support new biobanking initiatives.

Recommendation 36

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government explore options to provide incentives to expand genomic research in Australia.

The Australian Government supports this recommendation.

The Government recognises the potential for genomic research to improve outcomes for people with rare and less common cancers. The Medical Research Future Fund's (MRFF) Genomics Health Futures Mission is investing $500.1 million in genomic research over 10 years from 2018-19 to 2027-28.

The MRFF also provided $150 million for the Low Survival Cancers Mission in the 2024-25 Budget. The Low Survival Cancers Mission invests in research to improve care and health outcomes for people with cancer with a survival rate of less than 50%, many of which are rare and less common cancers.

The establishment of Genomics Australia will support the integration of genomic health technologies into healthcare in Australia, including activities to expand genomic research. Consultation with states and territories on the role and functions of Genomics Australia is underway. While this consultation is undertaken, the Government has provided $6.0 million over two years from 2023-24 to allow Australian Genomics to continue supporting researchers and the rollout of genomics technologies into Australia's health system.

Recommendation 37

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government consider new mechanisms to encourage greater private sector investment in rare and less common cancer related research and clinical trial sponsorship in Australia.

The Government supports in-principle this recommendation.

The Government recognises the importance of research and clinical trials in improving outcomes for people with rare and less common cancers. The Government, through the Department of Industry, Science and Resources has invested $61.2 million towards Omico's Precision Oncology Screening Platform enabling Clinical Trials (PrOSPeCT). PrOSPeCT is dual funded by the Government and industry. PrOSPeCT provides free genomic profiling to Australians with advanced or incurable cancers to match them with Australian clinical trials for new targeted therapies.

The Government will consider additional opportunities to encourage greater private sector investment.

Recommendation 38

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government review its evidentiary standards specifically for rare and less common cancer clinical trials to consider accepting real-world evidence and greater uncertainty in data where appropriate.

The Australian Government notes this recommendation.

The Government is currently considering the Health Technology Assessment Policy and Methods Review, which contains recommendations relating to the evidentiary standards required for health technology assessment.

Recommendation 39

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government ensure the timely delivery of the national cancer data framework and minimum dataset, as per the timeframes set out in the Australian Cancer Plan.

The Australian Government supports this recommendation.

Cancer Australia is developing the National Cancer Data Framework and considering a minimum cancer dataset in partnership with the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and Cancer Council Australia, consistent with the timeframes set out in the Australian Cancer Plan. The Framework and dataset will address gaps in a consistent way, including stage at diagnosis, ensuring accessible and timely data for patients, clinicians and researchers.

Recommendation 40

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, in consultation with the cancer control sector, address the following key data-related issues in its delivery of the national cancer data framework and minimum dataset, under the Australian Cancer Plan:

ensure that data is collected and reported in a way that includes information on both tumour location and body part, as well as molecular level information on cancer type and subtype;

ensure that information on the stage of cancer at diagnosis is consistently captured;

where appropriate, ensure that researchers and academics have access to such data in an accessible and timely way; and

ensure that patient privacy and consent is upheld throughout this work and in any future reforms.

The Australian Government supports in-principle this recommendation.

The National Cancer Data Framework is intended to be whole of sector strategic approach to improving cancer data. The Framework is being developed in consultation with the cancer control sector and will consider the key data-related issues identified by the committee. The Framework and dataset will uphold privacy and consent principles and align with the Closing the Gap Priority Reform Four to be addressed by the Indigenous Data Sovereignty principles. The Government will explore the feasibility of collecting molecular level information in line with the Framework once developed.

The Government has also provided $1.5 million in funding to establish the Australian Cancer Data Alliance and boost the capability of jurisdictional population based cancer registries to collect cancer stage and recurrence data. The Improving stage at diagnosis and metastatic cancer data project will facilitate the collation, standardisation and publication of stage at diagnosis and metastatic cancer data, including the development of a national minimum dataset, by supporting jurisdictional population-based cancer registries.

Additionally, the Government is undertaking broader work to improve data sharing. The Intergovernmental Agreement on Data Sharing commits all jurisdictions to share public sector data as a default position, where it can be done securely, safely, lawfully and ethically. The agreement came into effect in July 2021, and sets out agreed principles for data sharing.

The National Clinical Quality Registry and Virtual Registry Strategy 2020-2030 seeks to build best practice capacity and capability across the clinical quality register (CQR) sector, and gradually integrate CQR data with Australia's healthcare datasets and infrastructure.

Recommendation 41

The Committee recommends that any existing or future reforms to health and cancer data must prioritise and align with the National Agreement on Closing the Gap Priority Reform Four to ensure:

commitment to the best practice collection, handling, and reporting of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander data; and

that such information and data is available to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in a timely and accessible way.

The Australian Government supports in-principle this recommendation.

The development of the National Cancer Data Framework will be in line with principles of the National Agreement of Closing the Gap Priority Reform Four to improve and share access to data and information to enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities make informed decisions. Cancer Australia commissioned Indigenous-led consultations which included two roundtables in May and July 2024 and a series of one-on-one interviews. The consultations have ensured Indigenous Data Sovereignty principles are embedded into the Data Framework and the key data gaps impacting improvements to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cancer control are captured.

Cancer Australia has commissioned the National Centre for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Wellbeing at the Australian National University to undertake the Kulay Kalingka Study. This study is Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander designed and led and will investigate Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people's understanding of cancer, participation in health promotion and cancer screening programs, exposure to risk factors, and patient and carer experiences of cancer, including cancer treatment and participation in clinical trials. The Kulay Kalingka study will collect data to report on indicators identified on the National Cancer Control Indicators website that currently have no data.

Additionally, $8.1 million over four years will be invested for timely access to accurate data on cervical cancer incidence, treatment and mortality to better target elimination efforts and enable reporting of vaccination and screening coverage. This will include improvements in collation, handling, reporting and accessibility of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' data in the National Cervical Screening Register.

Acronyms

ACCHO—Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation

ACNNP—Australian Cancer Nursing and Navigation Program

ACP—Australian Cancer Plan

AHB—Australian Health Biobank

ATEC—Australian Tertiary Education Commission

BSA—BreastScreen Australia

CALD—Culturally and Linguistically Diverse

CAPS Committee—Cancer and Population Screening Committee

CQR- Clinical Quality Register

CSIRO—Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Organisation

CT—Computed Tomography

CTG—Clinical Trials Group

DNA—Deoxyribonucleic Acid

EAG—Expert Advisory Group

HTA—Health Technology Assessment

MBS—Medicare Benefits Schedule

MRFF—Medical Research Futures Fund

MRI—Magnetic Resonance Imaging

MSAC—Medical Services Advisory Committee

MTOP—Medical Treatment Overseas Program

NACCHO—National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation

NDIS—National Disability Insurance Scheme

NGO—Non-government Organisation

NHLS—National Health Literacy Strategy

NHMRC—National Health and Medical Research Council

NHRA—National Health Reform Agreement

NMWS—National Medical Workforce Strategy

NPCP—National Palliative Care Projects

OCP—Optimal Care Pathway

PBS—Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme

PET—Positron Emission Tomography

PoCoG—Psycho-oncology Co-operative Research Group

PL—Prescribed List

PrOSPeCT—Precision Oncology Screening Platform enabling Clinical Trials

SCCT—Support for Cancer Clinical Trials Program

TCC—Temporary Cessation of Care

ZERO—Zero Childhood Cancer Program

At the request of Senator Ciccone, I present additional information received by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee relating to estimates.

On behalf of the Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the Human rights scrutiny report4 of 2025.

I'd like to present the advisory report to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2025. I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I also want to add some comments. The report being tabled here in the Senate is one that proposes just a single change to the ASIO Act: an extension of the operation of the ASIO compulsory questioning warrant framework for a further 18 months from September this year to March 2027. While Bill No. 1 proposes only a time extension, the concurrently introduced ASIO Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025 seeks to make the compulsory questioning framework a permanent part of ASIO's intelligence-gathering powers and other more comprehensive reforms. That will be the focus of committee's work in the coming months.

The PJCIS has already adopted an inquiry into Bill No. 2. The extension of the sunsetting proposed in Bill No. 1 would allow the committee to complete an in-depth review of ASIO's compulsory questioning powers that it commenced in the previous parliament, drawing on evidence to that review and inviting new evidence to the Bill No. 2 inquiry. The committee looks forward to completing a full inquiry into the existing powers and proposed amendments in bill No. 2 and reporting to the parliament in due course. Bill No. 1 already has passed the House with bipartisan support and is now before the Senate. The committee recommends that this bill be passed, and I commend the report to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

I would like to speak to the Environment and Communications References Committee's report on the offshore wind industry consultation process. I rise to speak on behalf of the members of my community in Western Australia who were not given the opportunity to have their voices heard in this inquiry. This inquiry came about, thanks to Senator Cadell, due to the utterly disgraceful manner in which my constituents were treated by this government. The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water was responsible for community consultation processes in Bunbury, Busselton, Harvey and Mandurah. These are all in my home state of WA, where the community is demanding a moratorium on the construction of offshore wind turbines until a precautionary principle can be applied and proper due diligence can be carried out.

The offshore wind zone in Geographe Bay is a whale superhighway. Whales are migrating through the zone for nine months of the year. Well over 50,000 humpback whales are migrating through the deeper waters of the offshore wind zone, and a number of these can be observed nursing in Geographe Bay. These huge numbers of whales are migrating through waters further than 20 kilometres offshore at depths of 30 to 60 metres right in the offshore zone. Our pygmy blue whales and southern right whales are endangered and using Geographe Bay as a birthing and nursery area. The southern right whale has a gestation period of 16 months, not 12 months, as has been recently discovered. This is the worst possible place to be considering the construction of a wind farm.

This offshore wind zone is being fast-tracked and greenlit in this Labor government's reckless pursuit of net zero, a pursuit that is costing Australians $1.5 trillion. Western Aussies have every right to be outraged about the threat to our pristine Indian Ocean and our fishing and tourism industries. This is why the Senate inquiry came about—because the sham community consultation event held in Western Australia and hosted by our federal department of environment involved public officers of the department manhandling, pushing and shoving members of my community and an employee of a member of the state legislative council.

When my constituents came forward to present the details and photos of this physical confrontation to the committee in their submission, they were asked to make the submission confidential. It appears the committee and the department of environment did not wish for the details of this physical altercation to be made public. Then the public hearing at which my constituents would have been offered time to have their voices heard was cancelled. This is the utterly disgraceful way in which my community is being treated by this government, and it doesn't stop there.

The department of the environment has then given a green light to a marine survey of the Bunbury continental shelf.

They did this by declaring that the marine survey was not a controlled action under the EPBC Act 1999. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is there to protect our environment in situations such as this. Our public servants and the department have blatantly disregarded the risks involved with marine survey mapping, which uses sound levels that cause harm and death to whales, in their rush to support the building of an offshore wind farm in the middle of a whale super highway and birthing zone.

When an activity is declared not a controlled action, it means that no-one will be held accountable for the harm done. Whales and dolphins use echolocation to navigate the ocean, and the sound levels recorded in this type of proposed marine surveying has been shown to cause deafness in whales and dolphins, which results in their death. They cannot navigate their surroundings. Reports on the marine-surveying methods used recorded noise levels that exceed the whales' spectrum of hearing, meaning that the whales are not aware they are going deaf from the underwater noise until it's too late. Whales cannot avoid a damaging noise level that is outside of their hearing frequency.

The WA reef system of the Bunbury continental shelf is as unique as the Great Barrier Reef area and is also home to the famous WA rock lobster. The ocean substrate is home to many species of fish, shark, squid and octopus. The risk to the WA rock lobster industry from marine surveying in this area is extremely concerning. I've asked the Minister for the Environment and Water, Minister Watt, to review the decision made by the department of environment so the precautionary principle can be applied. I have not received acknowledgment of my letter or a reply to my request. I submitted an FOI request asking for the documentation involved in making this critical decision, and it was refused last week. It was refused by the same public officer that made the decision that the marine survey is not a controlled action. This is another utterly disgraceful act to avoid transparency and accountability. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I rise to speak on the Community Affairs References Committee's report into excess mortality—item 2 on page 9 of today's Notice Paper. I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

How timely is it to stand here and talk about mortality, particularly for Indigenous Australians, when in this very chamber we just saw the Greens and the Labor Party vote down scrutiny of Indigenous affairs in the next Senate estimates? That would be how you define hypocrisy. Excess mortality has a number of drivers and leaves its greatest impact in remote Indigenous communities. As the report notes, rural Australians are more likely to die at a younger age than their metropolitan counterparts.

The rate of avoidable deaths and the burden of disease increase with remoteness, and remote communities have less healthcare infrastructure to deal with it. It's why COVID, one of the key case studies in the report, was more deadly outside cities than inside cities for Indigenous Australians—1.5 times as many Aboriginal people died due to COVID-19 as non-Aboriginal people in major cities, and 3.7 times as many died in remote and very remote areas. According to the Royal Flying Doctors Service, there was a 25 per cent increase in priority 1 aeromedical retrievals post COVID-19.

The Albanese government at Garma, an Indigenous cultural festival in the Northern Territory, talked of economic development with almost no reference to the confirmation that week that the four Closing the Gap targets that were worsening have continued to worsen under his government. In the past year another target is no longer on track.

Let me take you through that data. The four targets going backwards are suicide, adult incarceration, children in out-of-home care and children commencing school developmentally on track. They're all going backwards. You've got to note, though, that it's been going backwards since 2022, the election of the Albanese Labor government. They're so far backwards that youth incarceration is up 11 per cent, adult incarceration is up 3.5 per cent, suicide is up 9.4 per cent, children enrolled in preschool is down 2.6 per cent, and children developmentally on track on commencing school is down 1.2 per cent. That's a reason for scrutiny, I would say. The coalition will always focus on practical action and on the greatest areas of need in remote and regional Australia over Labor's symbolism.

Since appointment as shadow minister for Indigenous Australians in May this year, I've travelled to communities to hear and see firsthand what matters most to them. In the Kimberley, there are high rates of mental ill health. Suicide rates are so much higher than everywhere else in Australia. Forty-two per cent of Kimberley children are developmentally vulnerable, more than double the state average. Family violence is more prevalent there than it is anywhere else in Western Australia, and overcrowding persists.

Crucially, that area has one of the worst rates of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder in the world. In the remote township of Fitzroy Crossing, one in eight children suffers from it. In Katherine, where I visited just over a week ago, the numbers are not much better. With respect to dental health, 80 per cent of children presented with decay, missing teeth or filled teeth. Across two months last winter, eight women from the Big Rivers region around Katherine were killed as a result of family and domestic violence.

Excess mortality and these terrible outcomes are closely linked. Everyone else seems to know about social determinants of health except the Labor Party and the Australian Greens. Why is it that you don't understand? That is why there needs to be scrutiny of bureaucrats and of those organisations that get funding from the Commonwealth so that we can determine why it is these numbers keep going backwards. It is greater scrutiny that's required, not shutting the door on scrutiny. You've helped no-one today, Labor.

Last month's Productivity Commission report—well, that had a lot of data in it. It's a big read, but, essentially, all it tells you is that this has gone backwards under Labor, and, today, you blocked scrutiny about why that's happening.

On behalf of the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Minister King, I table a statement concerning the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility.

I tabled documents relating to the orders for the production of documents concerning online gambling and the review of the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Act 2021.

In relation to the statement that was tabled by the minister, I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) productivity growth is at its slowest rate in 60 years,

(ii) as a result, people born in the 1990s are the first in multiple decades to miss out on generational progress in incomes, enduring comparatively worse standards of living, and

(iii) a boost in productivity growth to the historic average by 2035 would put $14,000 per year in current Australian workers' pockets;

(b) believes that the productivity-enhancing initiatives proposed by both the Government and the Opposition to address productivity stagnation are insufficient to meet the scale of the problem; and

(c) calls for more effective productivity growth measures suitable for today's economy, to ensure that today's Australians get more in their pockets, and that our children experience better standards of living than us.

I read an interesting article in the ABC the other day called '23 big ideas to boost Australia's productivity'. It had different experts in different fields pitching what they think a big, transformative change that would increase productivity would be. The advocacy group Indigenous Business Australia suggested that we should invest more in Indigenous businesses. The CEO of mental health charity Beyond Blue suggested we should invest more in mental health. A professor at the Queensland University of Technology School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences suggested we focus on air quality. These people all suggested that the way to boost productivity is to boost their particular cause. This has been the problem plaguing the productivity debate for a really, really long time. Everybody's got a different idea of what it is and what it means, and that results in different ideas about what to do about it. Some people use that confusion to push their own interests, and we end up getting nowhere.

Part of the reason productivity debates get muddled is that the word 'productivity' itself is so muddy. What does productivity feel like? What does it look like? Nobody can picture it; nobody can experience it. It's just kind of lingering around in the public policy debate. Productivity, I think, is a means to an end. When we talk about productivity, we talk a lot about the means, and that's fine. But, if we want people to care about this, pay attention to this, get excited about this—and we should want that—then we need better language around it. When we say 'productivity', we should really be saying 'quality of life'.

I'm a parent, and I think what I want for my kids is the same as what any parent in Australia wants for theirs. We want for them a better life, an easier life. We want our kids to thrive in an environment where everything they want to do is available to them and everything they want to experience is there. We want them to be good people, responsible people, kind people. We don't want them to know what hunger or pain feels like. And we want them to experience that feeling of abundance—that they can have it all. To me, that's what quality of life looks like. The way we get there is through productivity. The future generation should be left a valuable and strong economy, so that they can actually afford things.

People of my age have already experienced that, courtesy of the work put in by the generations of our parents and their parents. It's an intergenerational gift. We don't always recognise and appreciate it, but, believe me, when you take that flight to Bali with a ticket that cost you the equivalent of 12 hours of work and sleep in a hotel that would have cost you about the same—in the end, you're looking at a week's worth of work to pay for a week-long beachside holiday—you notice it. Let's not talk about whether you took the kids with you too, though! That is the kind of luxury that people a hundred years ago would have killed for. Productivity makes that possible, and now we aren't growing in efficiency the way we had been growing for decades before.

The reason we're stuck in the same productivity swamp we've been in for years is simple: our political system is built on a seesaw of competition between unions and business. When the Labor Party gets in, unions see an opportunity to reverse all the pro-business policies that the Liberal Party introduced and make it easier for unions and employees to capture a bigger part of the pie. But, because unions don't represent the same share of the workforce as they used to, they long ago realised that the fastest and easiest way for them to make economy-wide changes in their favour is to make economy-wide laws. To do that, they need lawmakers—that's the Labor Party.

Then the Liberal Party accuses Labor of being a mouthpiece for the union movement, and the Liberals get back in. Business groups see this as an opportunity to reverse all the pro-union policies that Labor introduced and make it easier for businesses to capture a bigger slice of the pie. But the business lobby are not as influential as they once were, because the public doesn't really hold them in high regard. They have money when the going's good, but the going's not always good, and businesses, at the end of the day, don't vote, so they have a structural disadvantage in this fight. The best they can do to even the ledger is give money. And, when they do, the Labor Party accuses the Liberals of being in bed with their big donors, business interests, and all about the big end of town, and the popularity of the Liberals suffers—until they're kicked out, and the unions see an opportunity.

This is the dynamic of the modern two-party system. It's been the same dynamic for the past 50 years at least. We as a country can't really meaningfully improve productivity when two major parties are focused on undoing what each other last did. We can't meaningfully move the needle if each of the major parties is financially dependent on an increasingly sidelined interest group focused on pushing its agenda. Business says we should streamline workplace laws, cut red tape and reduce taxes. The unions say we should avoid any of those things and instead pay workers 20 per cent more per hour. Does this not have a familiar ring to it? This is what people were talking about when John Howard was prime minister. We're debating solutions that are old enough to vote!

I think a really simple way of measuring what productivity would look like is to look at how desperate businesses in Hobart, Launceston and Devonport are for staff. They are reliant on staff who are on temporary visas in order to meet demand, and they are constantly losing them, having to find more staff, having to retrain them, then losing them all over again. The biggest thing we can do to help these businesses that are suffering from a staff shortage is to deliver efficiency benefits that make it possible to say that the thing that takes three staff today will require only two staff tomorrow. That would reduce their pressure hugely. It would mean more businesses are open. We have businesses in Launceston that are permanently closed, with signs on their windows saying they could not find staff. It's like a gravestone: 'Here lies the dream of that small-business owner who took a risk'—starting a business, trying to be their own boss but they couldn't outrun Australia's slow productivity growth.

Labor is today patting itself on the back for cutting a series of nuisance tariffs. And great; do it. But the effect of this is on productivity is going to be a fraction of a fraction of a per cent. Would we even notice the effect on our productivity growth rates? We need big-picture changes, things that will make a large, permanent difference in the cost of doing business. Here are a few things you won't hear from the major parties, though. A labour market needs complete restructuring, not minor tweaks. We could replace the current maze of seven different leave types with a single universal leave allowance of 25 days annually, weighted down from current total entitlements and based on actual usage patterns. Workers could use these days for any purpose—illness, holidays, family emergencies or personal time—without requiring a different approval process or documentation. Businesses would deal with one simple system instead of tracking multiple leave categories with different rules and obligations.

While we're at it, we should scrap long service leave entirely. It's essentially paying people to stay put rather than find their most productive role. The average long service leave liability represents around two per cent of total wages annually. But we don't want people losing out financially. Instead, mandate that this amount be paid as an immediate productivity bonus, distributed quarterly based on measurable performance outcomes. This would reward actual contribution rather than tenure and would remove barriers to job mobility that trap workers in suboptimal roles and prevent businesses from accessing the best available talent.

Currently employers must advertise locally for at least four weeks, demonstrate that they couldn't find suitable local candidates, and maintain detailed records proving the genuine need for overseas workers. This applies across the board, from fruit pickers to software engineers. The whole system is built on the flawed assumption that businesses would rather deal with visa complexities than hire locals if locals are available. In reality, businesses always prefer local hires when possible, because they're cheaper and simpler. Locals stick around for longer. The labour market testing requirement just adds months of delay and thousands in compliance costs for no productivity benefit.

Instead of making businesses prove that there's a skills shortage in their specific location for their specific role, make it the federal government's job to maintain a real-time national skills shortage list based on actual labour market data: unemployment rates by occupation, wage growth trends, job vacancy duration et cetera. If you can demonstrate competency in a shortage skill area through practical assessment like trade tests, coding challenges or portfolio reviews, you get immediate work rights—no employer sponsorship, no labour market testing, no bureaucratic gatekeeping.

The complexity of our current approvals system is itself a massive productivity drag. The time it takes to get a mine from approvals to actually digging is almost a decade. The problem is that bureaucrats responsible for ticking these things off do not want to be the one that approves an environmental disaster. There is no reward for approving something that doesn't cause a scandal, but there is huge punishment for being the one that ticks off the approval that does. So the incentives of the bureaucracy responsible for the approvals are all stacked in slowing things down, triple-checking everything, double handling and making sure responsibilities never rest with one person. Aligning the incentives of the bureaucracy with the interests of the project proponent is the theoretical ideal, but it opens up all sorts of corruption risks. You don't want bureaucrats getting cash payments in exchange for approving things that really should not be approved.

I think a productivity-enhancing solution would be to introduce skin in the game without giving cash to bureaucracy. The federal government could introduce a statutory project approval guarantee in law that is a predictable, enforceable assurance to applicants that you will get a final answer by a certain date. If that date is passed without a final decision, the federal government would pay interest on projects over $100 million at the market rate cost of capital for the project. With safeguards like a stop-the-clock mechanism, where the clock isn't ticking while the government is waiting for information from the applicant, you could see bureaucrats facing pressure from ministers as to why a decision has not been made, and they would see their own budgets being hit if they drag their feet. It would mean more project applications, and it would see their decisions being made sooner. We're reducing the cost of getting big things done simply by changing incentives around.

I am putting forward these ideas not because I think they are the best the country has to offer; I am putting them forward because they're ideas that haven't been put forward before. That, if nothing else, makes them worth considering. Anything we can do to get ourselves out of this stalemate of stale ideas is worth doing. Why? Because I want to make sure that we're richer tomorrow than we are today. I want leaders who want the same. This is my way of saying it's not that hard. Let's get the conversation going.

I thank Senator Tyrrell for putting this subject on the table because productivity is at the centre of everything this government is trying to achieve in driving living standards. In the first term, it was very much a fight against inflation to protect from the cost of living. Now the focus firmly has to be on resolving that long-term productivity challenge. It's an issue I know both of us care about for our home state in Tasmania particularly. I think what's been proven with this government is we have been very open to all ideas, and certainly the ideas you put forward deserve consideration.

The focus we took with the roundtable was to bring together unions, businesses, researchers and the community sector because it is a whole-of-economy effort. Senator Tyrrell, I know you touched on unions and business, and there was some swing back and forth, but actually productivity is much more than that. There is a weird debate in Australia sometimes as though it's something the government pumps out, as though the government is there to deliver productivity. If you look at some of the recent remarks from former RBA economist Luci Ellis, she said, first of all, that these challenges are a global issue across most of the OECD, regardless of which governments have been in power, which flavour, what the power of the union movement is or what the power of the business lobby is. Secondly, she said it's a very unusual debate in Australia, where there's an obsession on the government being the determinant of productivity.

Yes, government can play a role, obviously, in setting the rules and regulations, but there is so much more across the economy that government doesn't control. When we think about the factors that drive productivity, like capital deepening, innovation, entrepreneurship and managerial capacity, a lot of that is beyond the realm of government. Do we really want government in there doing some of those things? The work force and driving managerial capacity and entrepreneurship, that's something we want to be encouraging, but we don't want to say that's government's job entirely; we actually want to have that innovation culture, that entrepreneurial culture, and encourage more of the risk-taking as well. With the workforce, driving managerial capacity and entrepreneurship are things we want to encourage, but we don't want to say that's government's job entirely; we actually want to have that innovation culture—that entrepreneurial culture—and encourage more of the risk-taking as well. Yes, government has a role, but I don't think we ever want to say productivity is the domain of government alone.

Again, thanks for raising it and putting it on the agenda. I think, as I said, higher living standards, higher wages, secure jobs and an economy that works for everyone, not just the few, is the benefit of productivity. That's why this Prime Minister has made it so that high living standards are the holy grail, and the key to that is productivity. That is the centre of our economic agenda. Without ignoring inflation—the two do go hand in hand—productivity growth underpins sustainable wage rises, cost-of-living relief and national prosperity. I don't think any government—and you could do the word count—has talked more about productivity than this one. We do have to now follow through on that.

The Treasurer has made it very clear that the work of the round table will now inform the subsequent three budgets and our long-term agenda, and I think the feedback out of those round tables was pretty positive on the whole from all sides. It wasn't business complaining or unions complaining or anyone else. Everyone's ideas were heard, and we're not in this rule-in-rule-out game that the other side has tried to engage in. If we want to get somewhere and achieve lasting results that are not particularly partisan, this silly rule-in-rule-out game is not a productive way to go about it. I won't stand here and say we should rule out your ideas, because they should be considered; let's have a look at them and do the research. That's entirely appropriate. It's not: 'What a terrible idea. Will you immediately say you won't do that?' That's not the approach we're taking.

You did highlight three critical points in your motion. That the productivity growth is at its lowest rate in 60 years is undeniable. As a result, Australians born in the 1990s are the first in living memory to risk generational improvement in income and living standards, and that's something I'm equally passionate about. I spoke a lot about it in my first speech earlier this week—making sure we renew that intergenerational handshake and that we actually do create a world where conditions are better for the next generation. On all three counts, you're right to draw attention to the challenge, and we don't shy away from it. Yes, productivity is at its lowest rate. Australians risk seeing the first generation to experience a decline in living standards if we don't act. And, yes, lifting productivity to its historic average would transform household incomes.

Where I differ is on the fact you say our response has been insufficient. The job is not over, but certainly we are doing a mountain of work. I know you highlighted things like nuance tariffs. No one measure will do everything. I know people are saying we need that huge, big-picture thing, like how Keating floated the dollar—what's the next big picture? But actually, if you study the work of the Productivity Commission, they said the key is shifting the dial across thousands of little things. It's not the one, big-picture thing; it's thousands of little things, like changing the culture within the bureaucracy, our culture towards regulatory decision-making and having that abundance agenda. Dare I mention that book again! But that book talked a lot about stopping emphasising process over outcome. That's a real cultural shift we could make instead of just asking if we have ticked all the right boxes. Are we actually getting the outcome?

It's evident that we are trying to shift that culture. We've tried to really push forward on the housing agenda. We're putting a pause on the construction code and saying, 'Let's not keep adding more and more layers,' because there's an incremental effect. Similarly, it's easy to add in new regulation and go, 'Well, that regulation won't hurt productivity,' but incrementally, across thousands of them, it has a huge impact. Too often, we don't look at that total impact of all the new regulations. That is again something that we're trying to change the culture on.

If I just think about things from the round table process—and I won't list all the thousands of things that could be done—there's further abolition of nuisance tariffs. Tick. There's red tape reduction in the National Construction Code. Tick! There's accelerated environmental consideration under the EPBC laws. Tick! There's a new regulatory reform bill in 2025, including a tell-us-once service delivery. That's a really big one, and I know we had former New South Wales minister Victor Dominello, who's the digital master in this space. What he learnt in New South Wales was that no citizen should have to give their information to a government agency more than once. They should be able to share that, with the appropriate privacy safeguards, and not have to fill out a thousand forms, giving the same information for years and years. Putting in some of those 'tell us once' reforms will have a big impact. The national AI capability plan is fundamental to embracing one of the most transformative technologies in human history, and there's the invest-to-front-door pilot to fast track transformational investment.

Beyond these immediate steps, there are very clear reform directions: establishing a single national market, simplifying trade and tariff reform, making better regulation and faster approvals in priority areas, building more homes more quickly, making AI a national priority, attracting and deploying investment capital, building a skilled adaptive workforce and a better tax system and modernising government services. So I don't think anyone could accuse this government of tinkering at the edges. This is a serious reform agenda to lift productivity, prosperity and wages. I think it's something that we should all be engaged in, and again that's why I welcome your contribution, Senator Tyrrell.

Leading up to this, I was fortunate to actually host the Tasmanian economic roundtable. We partnered with the University of Tasmania to deliver that. I think it was the first of its kind, feeding in voices from all parts of the state and all sectors of the community. We had industry, union and academia there. All the Labor members of parliament were there but not all the members of parliament. We focused on three priorities for Tasmania, which were helping productivity and dynamism without sacrificing fairness, building skills and education and recognising care as economic infrastructure—noting that we have a much higher preponderance of what are sometimes pejoratively called 'non-market sectors' but they are basically the care economy.

Sectors in the care economy are statistically lower productivity sectors. You can't deny that, because they take a lot of human effort. It's very hard to make the traditional savings you would by putting in a whole bunch of new capital equipment or modernising a factory because you can't do that necessarily in an aged-care home or a nursing facility. But we can look at ways to actually help those workers by giving them state-of-the-art technology to work with and digital assistance to take a lot of the menial tasks away from them so they can actually spend more time doing what they do best—looking after people and not filling out forms and paperwork.

I think the stakes are clear. In our home state, we're only a $40 billion economy. That's about $70,000 per person compared with $96,000 per person nationally. If we could improve productivity just in Tasmania by one per cent, that's $400,000 million annually to our economy. That's the equivalent of a whole new industry, so the stakes are huge. It's really worth investing in.

I will conclude by thanking Senator Tyrrell for raising the topic, and we will absolutely continue to engage in the topic on this side of the House. Let's not rule things in or rule things out. Let's put everything on the table and take it forward and consider the approach. Productivity is not an overnight challenge; it's decades in the making. People in 20 years, 30 years or 40 years will pay attention to the decisions we make today, and they'll either benefit or not. Thanks for raising the motion.

Thank you, through you, Madam Acting Deputy President, to Senator Tyrrell for her motion on productivity. It's a previously uncontroversial aspect of economic theory which last week was beaten and hacked to death in a politically inspired talkfest that was designed to get everyone sick of talking about productivity and to deceitfully raise the issue of increasing taxes. I can understand why this government wants to avoid discussing productivity. It's because productivity is the inevitable victim of the measures this government is pursuing. Net zero is the primary culprit and rampant immigration is also a main culprit, along with excess regulation and giving large union bosses more power to control businesses, workers and workplaces.

At the recent tax summit, Treasurer Chalmers attempted to frame productivity as taxation. Taxation is the enemy of productivity. When you raise taxes, you reduce productivity. He had the intent, it seems, of using taxation as a blunt instrument for social engineering, such as using a new 'bedroom tax' to throw elderly Australians out of their homes into a single room in a retirement home so they can fill that family home with foreign families arriving to take advantage of this beautiful country. Our elderly who are choosing to stay in their family homes for as long as possible are not the enemy of productivity. Australian parents keeping a spare bedroom for when the children come to visit are not the enemy productivity. Australians using their spare bedrooms for work from home or to run a small business are definitely not the enemy of productivity. Indeed, the reverse is true, unless the Treasurer is suggesting working from home reduces productivity.

Before Labor start whingeing, Senator Gallagher and Senator Wong were given opportunities in question time to rule out the new bedroom tax, and they did not. Why else would the government have allowed others to float an idea that's monstrous, if not that they knew it would be unpopular? They left others like the SBS to find out how unpopular it turned out to be. The answer is simple: this government is desperate for new revenue. In fact, this government is desperate to pretend they know what they're doing.

Every Australian's share of the national pie shrinks every time a new arrival comes here and takes a slice of Australia for themselves. The only way this is not an accurate comment is if every new arrival contributes more to the economy than they take out for themselves and if they create the wealth to pay for the $11 billion a year they send back to family overseas. On Monday's Notice Paper is a motion from One Nation to refer immigration to a Standing Committee on Economics inquiry. It's time to talk about the effect of immigration on productivity, inflation, housing and wages. It's time to get to the truth and to let those cards fall where they may. One Nation are prepared to hear the truth. Are you?

One Nation believes high immigration, record mass immigration, excessive mass immigration, is affecting productivity. Workers need housing. They need transport. They need education and health care to be the best they can be, to work at their highest level of efficiency, to work healthy and work happy and work safely. Immigration is forcing up housing, clogging up transport, reducing education, reducing education outcomes because entire classes don't have English as a first language, and hospitals are overwhelmed. These are facts.

These are the same Australians who feel the talk of productivity is about workers being made to work harder. It's not about workers being made to work harder. It's the opposite. The Liberal Party might use that definition; One Nation does not. Australians in the workforce are working hard enough. Responsibility for productivity is not on the workers' shoulders. I agree with Senator Dowling.

One Nation understands that one way of raising productivity is through infrastructure, and we're advancing projects to build Australia's future. As an example of infrastructure, Sydney University estimates the failed NBN will ultimately cost $50 billion, yet the Productivity Commission only values the NBN at $20 billion. The productivity loss here is more than $30 billion of taxpayers' money. It's the lost productivity the NBN is causing. It's not just the loss of value of the NBN; it's the loss of productivity across the economy due to a faulty NBN. The government has shut down its 3G network, reducing communication; with that, productivity in the bush has decreased. Although, in the finest tradition of free enterprise, Elon Musk's Starlink has come to the rescue of our rural community—no government needed and a better solution. If he could work on GPS that uses Starlink so that tourists are not getting lost in the long black spots between country towns, that would be welcome.

When it comes to productivity, net zero is the worst offender. Look at the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the Greens. There's a direct correlation between increases in electricity and energy prices and business bankruptcies. Even the ABC is reporting that business failures have hit their highest levels since COVID, with the hospitality and construction sectors seeing the most insolvencies and the main causes being rising rent, electricity prices and increases to the minimum wage.

Electricity prices are costing productivity. The Tomago Aluminium smelter in the Hunter employs 1,000 people directly and supports 5,000 jobs in the local community. It uses 10 per cent of New South Wales's power supply, which was not a problem when it was being supplied with cheap, reliable and affordable baseload power from the Lidell coal power station down the road in the Hunter. Now, though, with Lidell closed and the last two coal power stations keeping the lights on in New South Wales, the ACT and Victoria, the cost of power is about to cost one-quarter of Australia's aluminium capacity. It's a threat to Tomago's viability. Incitec Pivot closed its Gippsland facility in Queensland in 2022 and its Geelong plant last year, costing 200 Australians their jobs directly and close to a thousand jobs lost across the local community. Now fertiliser is more expensive and less reliable in supply. Productivity is lost across the country. This scenario is being repeated across the economy.

Data from IBIS provides the following projections: factory and industrial building construction, down 18.6 per cent; nut, bolt, screw and rivet manufacturing, down 14.5 per cent— that might sound boring or trivial, until we realise every piece of construction in our country uses one or all of these right across the economy—petroleum refining and petroleum fuel manufacturing, down 13.1 per cent; road and bridge construction, down 12.6 per cent; nickel ore mining, down 10.6 per cent; commercial building construction, down 9.7 per cent; coalmining, down 9.8 per cent. Tens of thousands of jobs are gone. Tens of thousands more jobs in local communities are gone. Breadwinner jobs, union jobs—gone. Thanks, Prime Minister Albanese. How can businesses pay higher wages when their output is falling, their profitability is falling and they are continually battling red, green, blue and black tape? They can't. It's impossible.

In particular, coal is a key input in steelmaking and energy generation. I'll say it again: coal is a key input in steelmaking, and steel is in everything! It touches everything, transport included. And coal is a key input in energy generation. Australia is one of the world's lowest cost coal producers. This is a key industry that provides critical export earnings—significant royalties to pay for Labor's wasteful handouts to renewable energy and entire towns relying on coal.

Net zero energy costs are driving up electricity bills for everyday Australians right across the country, forcing small, medium and large businesses to close, decimating communities and reducing our productivity. These are facts happening in front of our eyes. Productivity increases come from investment. Whether investment is from government and business—investment in infrastructure, communications, technology and R&D—that's how everyday Australians get sustainable pay rises, from better investment. Everything this government invests in decreases productivity and sabotages sustainable pay rises for Australian workers.

Ironically, before Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, former Labor prime ministers and a former Labor treasurer, productivity was a dirty word in the Labor Party. The term 'productivity' was misunderstood, but Bob Hawke and Paul Keating fixed that. Before them, it was thought that increasing productivity needed workers to work harder or cut conditions or be exploited. That's the reverse of improving productivity. That's reducing productivity. Labor's Bob Hawke and Paul Keating changed all that, because they understood that higher productivity was the way to increase wages, to increase the standard of living, to reduce prices and the cost of living, to creating wealth for the nation and for all Australians, to reduce inflation, benefiting retirees and everyone on fixed incomes and offering consumers greater choice, more options and more leisure.

Why? How does this happen? Productivity is not about working harder. Raising productivity is about working smarter. At its core, productivity is about producing more with less input, or more output for the same input, increasing infrastructure, increasing technology and working more cooperatively, more easily. Higher productivity is the worker's best friend and saviour. Higher productivity is the family's friend. Higher productivity is the consumer's friend. Higher productivity is the employer's friend. Higher productivity is the business's friend. Higher productivity is the owner's friend.

As an underground coalface miner, I felt satisfied, happy and proud when we, as a crew at the coalface, produced more with less physical effort. As a coalmine manager, I felt satisfied, happy and proud when we, as a mine, produced more with lower costs, no safety incidents, higher bonuses to workers and lower turnover of people due to people being satisfied, happy and proud. Everyone wins from higher productivity, providing it's achieved properly. People working smarter, easier and safer to produce more and at higher quality comes from people working together with discipline and responsibility and from the sharing of ideas, open communication and real respect and trust. One Nation will build infrastructure; terminate net zero; get red, green, blue and black tape off the backs of businesses; and restore wealth and opportunity for all, especially hardworking Australians.

Question negatived.

I table a report on government responses to outstanding orders for the production of documents.

I am a proud Queenslander, and everyone here knows that there is a unique brand of resilience forged in Queensland. We face cyclones, floods and droughts, and we keep going. But behind that tough exterior many Queenslanders are struggling in silence. Mental health is not something that most of us talk about easily or comfortably, but it is an issue that touches every community, every family and far too many lives. I am incredibly proud the Albanese government is stepping up to deliver real support where it is needed most with new Medicare mental health clinics in our local communities. I'm even prouder that we have delivered 23 of those centres across Queensland, because it is a promise that we kept to many local communities. These centres provide free mental health care and support. They're staffed by professionals like psychologists, mental health nurses, social workers and more. You don't need an appointment, a mental health plan or a referral. You can just walk in. We know for far too many people that help feels out of reach. People in need can't afford to wait weeks for an appointment or travel long distances to see someone, and you certainly can't be told to toughen up when you're dealing with grief, anxiety or despair. Mental health care is not a luxury; it is health care.

We've already opened 12 of 23 Medicare mental health clinics across Queensland, including the new Caboolture Medicare mental health centre, which I was honoured to officially open last week with Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Emma McBride. That centre represents a promise kept to the people of Caboolture and to the local community. At the Caboolture Medicare mental health clinic, I met Michael and his wife, Kim. Michael is a local, and he has already been accessing the centre's free services. Michael and Kim told us the services and programs he has been accessing have helped him to feel more comfortable in his own skin, to be more confident and to be able to get the best out of his life. His family has seen an improvement in Michael's overall wellbeing. Michael's story is why mental health care should be accessible no matter your postcode, and that's why Labor is building Medicare mental health centres in communities all over Queensland. We've already opened them in places like Bundaberg, Gladstone, Ipswich, Kingaroy, Logan, Redlands, Rockhampton, the Sunshine Coast and Townsville. It is so important in Queensland, where, tragically, we have seen some of the highest rates of suicide and depression in the country.

Labor's Medicare mental health centres offer a new kind of support—compassionate, timely, easy to access and judgement free. In those centres, trained professionals will be there to listen, to treat and to guide people through whatever they're facing. Importantly, those centres will be able to support people across the mental health spectrum, from early intervention to more complex care, whether it's anxiety, lifelong depression, a moment of trauma or even suicidal thoughts. Maybe you just need a chat because things don't seem right, or maybe you need to bring in a mate, your adolescent child or even your mum—whoever needs help. The Medicare mental health clinics will work alongside our Medicare urgent care clinics to bring free essential health care into local communities. It's about bringing care closer to home and breaking down the stigma. So let me say this clearly to all Queenslanders and to all Australians: you are not alone.

I rise to address the latest Quarterly update of Australia's national greenhouse gas inventory. This report should have been an opportunity for the Albanese Labor government to demonstrate progress towards its 2030 emissions target. Instead, it exposes failure. It reveals rising emissions in key sectors and no credible plan for the future, and it leaves Australia off track to meet its targets. Despite the Albanese government's rhetoric, the data tells a very different story.

Transport emissions are now higher than they were before COVID. They're up one per cent since 2020, driven largely by a surge in domestic aviation. Agricultural emissions have jumped seven per cent since 2020, an increase of more than five million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, largely from post-drought livestock recovery and fertiliser use. Fugitive emissions from gas venting are up by nearly a quarter, despite all of the government's talk about safeguards and carbon abatement. And the land sector, the one Labor heavily relies on as an offset, has weakened sharply since 2022 as La Nina ended, rainfall declined and bushfires increased. That is not a durable plan; it's a gamble on the weather.

The picture is just as grim when we look at Australia's carbon budget. Half of the entire 2030 budget has already been spent, but Labor has no credible plan for the harder work that lies ahead. Let us be clear about electricity. The reductions we see in that sector are not the product of Labor's new policies. They are the direct result of projects approved years ago—many under the former coalition government. Labor is coasting on our legacy, not delivering its own. The government's own update admits this:

There have been significant declines in electricity sector emissions since 2020.

…   …   …

This decline in emissions has occurred while demand for electricity across residential and industrial sectors has increased. Residential demand is increasingly being met by rooftop solar supported by the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme, putting downward pressure on demand from the grid. Similarly, industrial demand is being met with a growing proportion of renewable generation, supported by state and federal policies such as the expanded Capacity Investment Scheme.

Even when progress is visible, it's progress built on someone else's initiative.

The Climate Change Authority has already warned that, at the current pace of emissions reductions, Australia will fall well short of its 2030 target. To reach that goal, emissions need to fall by around 15 million tonnes every year from now until 2030. Last year, emissions fell by just three million tonnes. Since 2006, the long-term average has been 12 million tonnes a year. It's straightforward mathematics and it confirms Australia is not on track. The Albanese government's own update reinforces this. On transport, the update says:

Overall transport emissions in the year to March 2025 are 0.1% above the levels … immediately before the COVID pandemic. This overall increase is largely the result of increases in annual emissions from domestic aviation and road transport diesel consumption, which are 16.8% and 7.6% higher … than they were pre-COVID …

Australians deserve an energy and climate policy that lowers bills, ensures reliable power and reduces emissions. The Albanese government has delivered none of this for Australian families or businesses. Their emissions reduction plan is failing, and Australian families and businesses continue to pay a high price. Australians were promised transformation, and that promise, like so many others from the Albanese government, has been broken. You only need to refer to Labor's own numbers to see the demonstration of that.

This week I was honoured to be re-elected as Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. I want to thank my colleagues for their trust, and I look forward to continuing this very important work with the deputy chair, Mr Wallace in the other place, in a spirit of bipartisanship and cooperation. The PJCIS, as it's commonly referred to, has started its important work for the 48th Parliament, with a full agenda ahead. Already the committee has launched new inquiries, including the review of the listing of Terrorgram as a terrorist organisation under the Criminal Code Act; the ASIO Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025; and the Strengthening Oversight of the National Intelligence Community Bill 2025, also referred to as SONIC. Each of these is about reinforcing the legal framework for Australia's national security whilst ensuring proper oversight and accountability.

The committee's objective is very clear: to make our intelligence agencies remain effective, focused and accountable in keeping Australians safe. This oversight not only strengthens agency performance but also builds public trust. Intelligence work often requires secrecy, but democratic accountability ensures that it is always conducted in the national interest. The history of this committee, established back in 1988 as a legacy of the Hawke Labor government, reminds us that strong parliamentary oversight has long been central to Australia's approach to national security. It began as a committee on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation between 1988 and 2001. Then, from 2002 to 2005, it became a committee that was focused on ASIO, ASIS and DSD, before evolving into today's PJCIS, which was formed at the end of 2005.

As global and domestic security challenges evolve, the role of the committee has never been more crucial. This oversight function gives parliament confidence that intelligence agencies maintain the cutting edge capabilities required to keep Australians safe. The events of this week have underlined that point. Revelations of Iran's antisemitic attacks targeting Australia's Jewish community are deeply disturbing. The Albanese government has acted swiftly and decisively in response to credible evidence provided by ASIO and the AFP. This is exactly how our system should work. Agencies provide incredible intelligence, and government responds with strength and clarity to protect our people. Much of this work is unseen. Our intelligence and security agencies work tirelessly to detect, disrupt and prevent threats from espionage, terrorism and foreign interference. These agencies deserve our sincere gratitude for their professionalism, vigilance and commitment to keeping all of us safe.

As chair, my vision is for a committee that strengthens not only the effectiveness of our intelligence agencies but also the public trust in their work. Our oversight must safeguard both the safety of Australians and the democratic values that we all cherish. I look forward to working constructively in a bipartisan way with my colleagues to deliver outcomes that strengthen both national security and our social cohesion. This vision aligns with that of the Albanese government for a secure, resilient and inclusive Australia; a nation where our people are protected, our institutions are strong and our social cohesion, built over many generations, is preserved. In the years ahead, I will work with colleagues across the parliament to ensure Australia's security framework remains fit for purpose against emerging challenges. I will always continue to place equal weight on protecting the unity of our diverse society because cohesion is itself a pillar of national security. The government will always prioritise the safety and security of every Australian, and that's why strong and effective oversight through the PJCIS is more important than ever.

On Tuesday night I ended my speech about massive short comings in the investigation of Eden Westbrook's death by promising more to come. The culture and procedures of Tasmania Police allowed paedophile police officer Senior Sergeant Paul Reynolds, now deceased, to groom and abuse 50 young men and boys in Tasmania across 30 years. This man was a key player in the inadequate investigation into Eden's death. That's just one red flag about her death. There are many more.

Today I want to tell Australians about what I believe is another botched Tasmanian police investigation. I am talking about the Sue Neill-Fraser case. Sue was convicted in 2010 of the murder of her long-time partner, Bob Chappell, on a moored yacht in Hobart on Australia Day 2009. She was released on parole in 2022, after serving 13 years in prison. It was a case with no body, no weapon, no cause of death and no plausible motive. Sue's appeals failed. But Sue has staunch supporters who have been working on this case for years in the hope of uncovering fresh and compelling evidence to overturn her conviction. Today I can tell you that such evidence has been found.

Instances of the police misleading the court and failing to disclose material evidence for Sue Neill-Fraser's 2010 trial have been previously exposed, with papers tabled in the Tasmanian Legislative Council several years ago. This brought no action—none at all.

Independent Tasmanian MPs, both state and federal, have since obtained valuable information from police records under the Right to Information legislation. Analysis of this new information shows basic flaws and oversights in both police investigative work and forensic work. There is clear evidence of failure by police to properly disclose in a timely way to the court, the prosecution and the defence materials supportive of Ms Neill-Fraser, including their investigation into Meghan Vass and her DNA and the use by Meghan Vass of her mobile phones—not just one phone; the police search for the fire extinguisher, said to be missing from the yacht; and the actions, relevant histories and whereabouts of Meghan Vass's known associates on and around Australia Day and several days following.

Regarding associates, no-one was told there were two 'Sams of interest' not one, as previously thought. Either or both may have had information about where Ms Vass went with who and when on the evening of Australia Day 2009. There was also the small blue towel found on the deck of the yacht, near the Meghan Vass DNA. That the item was missing from 2009 major forensic biology reports is still without explanation. We know it was in the DNA lab in early February 2009, and police are still refusing to allow an independent expert to review relevant records or organise independent testing.

The Tasmanian coroner has refused to release autopsy photos in the Eden Westbrook case. There is a pattern of behaviour here. It's a pattern of refusal to release relevant evidence in Tasmania Police matters. At the heart of the evidence in Sue's case is correcting the wrong approach to the manner and the time of when Ms Vass's DNA was left on the deck of the yacht. Ms Vass gave evidence at Sue's trial that she had not been on the yacht. The prosecution claimed that it had come in on the bottom of someone else's shoe. In later years, Ms Vass twice made sworn statements that she had not been on the yacht that day. Then at the second appeal, in 2021, she recanted those admissions.

Only one ground of appeal remained, and it centred upon Ms Vass's DNA, including when it was left on the yacht. Sue Neill-Fraser lost her appeal in 2021. The appeal court accepted by majority, based on expert evidence from 2017, that her DNA was more likely to have been left on the yacht, a few days after the murder, at a slip yard in Goodwood, to where the yacht had been towed. Go figure! The court would not have reached that conclusion had it been properly informed about both the true state of the scientific research and the evidence, and the factual unlikelihood of Ms Vass and her associates, being at that slip yard.

The appeal court was not told about a report prepared for the appeal within the Tasmanian police's Forensic Science Service Tasmania that said it was possible that the DNA was left on Australia Day. The court and Ms Neill-Fraser's lawyers were also not told about a referral by Forensic Science Service Tasmania to an interstate DNA expert in 2019, just after leave for a further appeal was granted.

The time has come when only a thorough, independent inquiry can actually expose the full extent of the problems and lay out a new path for investigations to be done and conducted by Tasmanian police in the future.

My fellow Australians, make no mistake: we are under attack. The despotic Iranian regime of terror is a blight on the world. I welcome the removal of their ambassador and the listing of the IRGC, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, as terrorists. It is the duty of every patriot in this Senate and the other place to protect Australians. There is no higher calling for our being here.

If I am to be told that I am politicising an issue for trying to keep Australians safe by any means necessary, so be it. That will not stop anyone on this side of the chamber from pushing for the government to act to protect Jewish Australians or indeed any Australian. The coalition has long called for that protection. The government failed to act on its own advice. Senator Chandler's work years ago would have likely caused the Iranian government pause. It would have sent that regime a message that Australia takes Iranian human rights abuses seriously.

Two Iranian directed attacks happened in Melbourne, but in Sydney I am, sadly, no stranger to also seeing antisemitism on our streets. Synagogues and Jewish homes have been attacked in my hometown. These may also have been directed by Iran, which, at that time, had never had so much as a demarche, even after funding and directing Hamas to attack Israel. That attack killed an Australian. She will never be forgotten.

What we can do now is make sure this doesn't happen again. The government have said they take a considered approach. That approach has taken too long. To disrupt these attacks before they can take place, we must fund staff and unleash the full capacity of our intelligence services.

I implore the government to take a proactive approach to national security and no longer draw the arbitrary distinction between security and foreign intelligence that hampers our agencies behind red tape and illogical administrative barriers. This government loves red tape, and some isn't as obvious as it is in building houses or environmental impacts. Red tape that ties up our national security agencies with no discernible transparency or operational goal is even more harmful.

The national security capabilities exist to better protect Australians, and these capabilities are held back by policy that, with the stroke of the pen, could make sure that no other foreign power can so easily harm our community. I have called for a comprehensive national security strategy, and this strategy will also examine the better use of our intelligence services in an Australian version of the UK's highly successful National Technical Assistance Centre.

The national intelligence community ensures we are forearmed and forewarned, and the coalition invested heavily in the community for that very purpose. That investment needs to be continued and accelerated. Labor asked the coalition not to politicise this issue. I ask those in government to not politicise this advice just because it comes from over here.

I end by thanking the men and women of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Signals Directorate for the tireless work they do to protect us every day. Their expertise is an inspiration. We owe them every advantage we can muster to get the job done.

Right now, older people in Australia are dying while they are waiting to access a home-care package. Labor promised that, on 1 July, it was going to release more home-care packages to tackle the home-care waitlist. Right now, there are 87,000 older Australians who do not have access to care in their homes. That means they don't have access to care to help them shower. They don't have access to care to help them with medications. They don't have access to care to help them make sure they're eating properly. They don't have access to care to make sure that their homes are safe for them and clean.

By 1 November, it is estimated that there will be 100,000 people waiting for a home-care package. That doesn't just mean that those older people aren't getting the care they need; it means we're seeing older people being admitted to hospital. We know our hospitals are telling us they have hundreds of beds that are blocked because old people who need care at home can't get it and they're clogging up our hospital system. That's a false economy. We know that there are older people who want to stay in their homes if they have the care that they need to do that who are going into residential aged care earlier because they can't get the home-care package that they need. We know that it's taking up to 12 months—and even 18 months—for people who have been assessed as needing care to wait to get that care. That should not be happening in a wealthy country like this. Older people have spent their lifetimes contributing to our communities, and they should be able to expect that, when they need care, they can get it at the time that they need it.

Labor promised older people that on 1 July they would start releasing more home-care packages to start clearing the home-care waitlist. The Greens have been calling on the government since last year, when the aged-care reform legislation came into the parliament, to clear the home-care package backlog. Tomorrow, I'll be chairing a Senate inquiry into the transition to the new Aged Care Act, and already a read of the submissions tells us that providers, advocates, older people and their families are all calling on the government to release more home-care packages, and urgently. Providers were gearing up for those packages to be released on 1 July. They were employing people. They were getting themselves ready to do it, and then the government said, 'Hit pause.' And, whilst the government might have had other reasons for pausing some of the rollout of the new aged-care legislation, there was no need to pause the release of badly needed home-care packages, and providers, advocates and families are telling us exactly that.

Last week, I had a forum that was attended by over 50 older people and their families to listen to their stories of what it means for them not to have access to care. It means people getting sicker. It means people being trapped in their homes. It means people relying on the care of children and friends and other family, and that puts an unnecessary burden on them as well as denying older people the care that they deserve. The recent acting inspector has said that not providing care in a timely way amounts to a denial of care. Older people in this country deserve dignity in their old age, and they deserve more home-care packages so they can get the care that they need.

Before we go this week, I just wanted to provide a friendly reminder of how important productivity is. We've had a belated discussion about productivity in the past couple of weeks, although I have felt sometimes that discussion has been misdirected. At least there has been a recognition that our productivity performance has not been up to scratch. In the past three years, labour productivity in Australia has followed by 5.7 per cent, the biggest fall on record, and it's not even close to the largest fall prior to this particular drop over a three-year period, which was just 0.7 per cent in the early 1990s. So what has happened to productivity in the past three years in Australia is off the charts, and it is a big reason for why we have had the biggest drop in living standards in the developed world.

If we don't arrest this decline and turn it around, things could get a lot worse, and that is why it is timely to have these discussions. I think unfortunately, though, the discussions were not premised on the basis of really trying to drill down about why our productivity has fallen so quickly so fast. If you wanted to get to the bottom of that, you'd think the first step you'd do would be to go, 'Okay, which parts of our economy have had the big falls?' And you can do that. You can go to the Australian Bureau of Statistics and look up exactly what has happened to productivity in different sectors of the Australian economy. In fact, over the past 20 years, where we have had pretty stagnant productivity growth, just two industries have had declining productivity growth, one being mining and the other being electricity, gas, water and waste services.

Quickly, on the mining sector—there's a good reason, or an explainable reason, for its decline. The mining industry typically does have to go after less productive ores over time. They mine the good stuff—back in the day, we'd just get gold out of the river. Now we've got to go deeper and further down underground to lower quality ores to get the same amount. So you do get declining mining productivity, particularly during a commodity price boom, which encourages going after the lower quality ores.

But electricity is of big concern. There's been a 20 per cent drop in electricity productivity in just 20 years. It has effectively been going down almost one per cent a year, every year. What is surprising is that, in these last two weeks, there's barely been a discussion about that. In the productivity paper the government prepared for their roundtable, this did not even rate a mention—that electricity productivity had gone down by 20 per cent, a fifth. Maybe, just maybe, that is a reason for our declining productivity. Maybe, just maybe, we should have a serious discussion, a no-holds-barred discussion, about that. But instead the principle here seems to be that, if we ignore it, it will go away—and it won't. It is the principal reason why our economy is struggling. Our high energy prices are the principal reason why there are so many manufacturing jobs at risk.

Senate adjourned at 17:31