If there is no objection, the meetings are authorised.

Senator Faruqi, Senator Cash was also standing, so she gets precedence.

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the reinstatement of cross-portfolio Indigenous matters hearings as circulated.

Leave not granted.

Well, here we go again, colleagues. Seriously! Mr Albanese, the Prime Minister of Australia, through his representatives—

Senator Cash, you need to move the suspension motion.

I move the motion. And, as I was saying, Mr Albanese, through his representatives in the Australian Senate, treats this place, quite frankly, as a shop floor. They run it as if they are the big union and we are a small business.

Sorry, Senator Cash. Senator McAllister, you're on your feet.

I'm unclear about the motion that Senator Cash is moving.

It's a suspension motion. Senator Cash sought leave. Leave wasn't granted, and so Senator Cash has now moved a suspension.

I'm sorry, Senator Cash. I think Senator McKim is—

No, sorry.

Senators, I'm trying to give Senator Cash a fair go. If you're not objecting, please don't stand. Senator Hanson-Young?

I'm wondering whether there is a copy of the original—

An honourable senator interjecting—

It hasn't been circulated.

It's been circulated electronically, and I believe it's being circulated as we speak. Third time lucky, Senator Cash.

Pursuant to contingent notion of motion standing in my name, 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 related to the reinstatement of cross-portfolio Indigenous matters.

Here we go again. This is a government that will do everything, particularly in partnership with the Australian Greens, to shut down questions. This is not leadership. This is arrogance—nothing more and nothing less—contempt for the parliament and contempt for the Australian people. When a prime minister deliberately shuts down scrutiny, he is not just silencing senators. We are actually here representing our states. We are here representing the Australian people. We are here on their behalf asking questions in relation to one of the biggest portfolio expenditure items on the government's agenda.

I have to say that I'm very disappointed with Labor, and, in particular, with the hypocrisy of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Wong. Senator Wong is always ready to lecture the coalition and even Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa-Price on what she should think and say on Indigenous issues. Yet, when the government are pushed to vote on a matter, in relation to whether or not we should proceed with Indigenous affairs cross-portfolio matters, they shut it down as fast as they can.

Senator Wong, as the Leader of the Government in the Senate, is happy and quick with the pontification, quick with the sanctimony and quick to tell others about how their views are legitimate or illegitimate. But when it comes to real accountability—that is what Senate estimates is; it's the one opportunity that we on the opposition benches get to actually question the government about their programs—and when it comes to facing hard questions about the failures of Indigenous service delivery and the outcomes on the ground for children, families and communities, suddenly Senator Wong and her counterparts fall silent. They go further than that. They're not silent; they actually vote to remove the ability of the Australian Senate and the opposition to ask questions in relation to this portfolio. Labor are happy to talk down any of those who dare to disagree.

With what they did last week, they have now shown the Australian people they will not front up to scrutiny on the facts. That is the real display that is on show here. Every family in Australia pays their taxes. Every community that depends on outcomes, in this important portfolio in particular, and every citizen who expects honesty from their government expects the opposition and those on the crossbench to hold the government to account in relation to these portfolio issues. Mr Albanese and the government, teaming up with the Greens—don't even start me on the Australian Greens and their hypocrisy. If they ever speak on Indigenous matters again, Senator Liddle, they deserved to be closed down immediately. Quite frankly, they're happy to leave this place, run out to the press and do a press conference, but when they come in here, they're happy to ensure that no questions are asked in relation to what is actually going on in Indigenous communities.

This is the attitude of Mr Albanese. This is it in 2025, everybody. You got a majority; yes, you did, but guess what? Answers still matter. Accountability still matters. Your ministers still need to front up and open the books and let us ask questions. But, for Mr Albanese, this is the way the Australian parliament now runs. He has told the Australian people that their right to answers does not matter. That is a sign of contempt, pure and simple—nothing more and nothing less There is the opportunity now for the government to say: 'Guess what? We know that accountability is not a slogan. We know that it's the lifeblood of democracy.' Estimates is the cornerstone of that accountability. When governments fear questions, they fear the people who ask them. When the Senate demands scrutiny, it serves the people who sent us here. So let's all vote for scrutiny.

The government will not be supporting the suspension or the motion that's being moved by Senator Cash. I think it says a lot that the first item of business today demonstrates that the opposition is unable to actually work with the customs and norms of this place to resolve some of these issues.

You trashed them!

Well, no, Senator Cash. This is all about the way the opposition behaves and the fact that you are on a fast track to having zero influence in how issues are managed in this chamber. The Senate agreed to the sitting pattern earlier this term; I think it was earlier this year. It was agreed to. That set out the supplementary estimates week and was agreed to. Subsequent to this, there was a desire to have additional estimates days, which have been provided. We've provided an additional four days from 1 to 4 December—so a full additional week. There will be more estimates days this year because of the decisions the Senate took last week. The government is more than happy to front up and go through an additional week—not that you would understand that judging by the presentation of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate just before.

Don't be condescending!

Order!

I'm sure Senator Ruston might be given the opportunity to say a few words, if she's given permission by her party, rather than interjecting on everything I say. Get your five minutes and speak to it.

On the matter, I do appreciate the opposition's interest in Closing the Gap and cross-portfolio day. It is this government's view that it is every minister's responsibility and every department's responsibility to be accountable for the work that they are doing on Closing the Gap. It should be part of every committee's hearing, which is why there are an additional three days, Senator Cash, for you to pursue Closing the Gap through Legal and Constitutional Affairs, through F&PA, through Economics, through Community Affairs, through Rural and Regional and through Education and Employment—all of those. You name it. Turn up and ask the questions over the entire allocation of estimates. This new-found interest by the Leader of the Opposition—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Senator Cash was heard in silence. That same respect needs to be shown to Minister Gallagher. Minister, please continue.

Now, we believe, Closing the Gap is not the Minister for Indigenous Affairs' responsibility. It is not.

Honourable senators interjecting—

It is one of her responsibilities. It is the entire government's responsibility to ensure that we are making progress against closing the gap.

That's a great video!

Order!

Senator Cash, you're after a video. We're actually about closing the gap and pursuing it through all of the committees. The Minister for Indigenous Affairs leads that work, but all of us have responsibility. I have responsibility for Closing the Gap in my portfolio. The Minister for Health and Ageing has responsibility for Closing the Gap in his portfolio. It is the view of the government that, in addition to providing extra estimates days for the first week of December, after this parliament was due to rise, we can have another full week of estimates. If Senator Cash and her colleagues want to pursue any matter through those committees, that is open to them on those four additional days. This is in addition to the normal scheduling of supplementary budget estimates. We do not believe that cross-portfolio day is the only day that you can ask questions about the Murray-Darling. We think you should be able to ask questions about the Murray-Darling through the scheduled sitting days, and it's the same for Closing the Gap. Those matters can and should be pursued through individual committees, where ministers are responsible for them—and the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, of course, leads that work. The result of last week is that we have an extra estimates week, Senator Cash, so all of your arguments about transparency and all of that are just nonsense because there are extra estimates days.

You may not want to work on those days, or to come for that extra week, but you can be guaranteed the government will be here, ready and willing to answer all of the questions.

Here's a bit of truth-telling: cross-portfolio day is a day to interrogate these critical issues. The Northern Territory, right now, is the worst performing place for your policies and their impact on Indigenous Australians. You have three members in this parliament from the Northern Territory. There have been 17 years of cross-portfolio estimates work, and you decide, when we're seeing the greatest failure in Indigenous Australians' portfolio areas, to axe the cross-portfolio days. It is bad enough that that day is truncated. For people out there in the Australian community: Indigenous Australians cross-portfolio day starts at 9 am and is over by 5 pm—unlike days for the other portfolio days, that sometimes go until 10 o'clock at night. They used to go to 11 o'clock. It is truncated across so many different areas. So many people come in that we can't get to them all, so eventually they have to go home.

This Labor government is actually about announcements, not accountability, and there's certainly no transparency in removing the cross-portfolio day. This is at a time when we see closing the gap going in the wrong direction—not just going in the wrong direction; going in the wrong direction under Labor's watch. Since 2022 youth detention is up 11 per cent, suicide is up 9.4 per cent, adult incarceration is up 3.4 per cent, preschool attendance is down 2.6 per cent, and 1.2 per cent fewer children are commencing school developmentally on track. I think that calls for greater scrutiny. I think that calls for greater time, not less time and not less opportunity. It calls for practical action over symbolism. It calls for action over announcements. It calls for greater scrutiny not just of the Labor government, its policies and how they've contributed to this terrible outcome but also of the bureaucrats and the programs that are delivered.

Recently I travelled to regional and remote Western Australia and the Northern Territory, visiting the Kimberley, Darwin and Katherine—that includes Broome, Wyndham and Kununurra—and I saw and heard of countless examples of the duplication of services where there is desperate need, and of programs that aren't delivering any change for Indigenous Australians. ORIC itself, the regulator, came out and defended the 1,254 Indigenous organisations that have failed to meet their reporting obligations for the 2023-24 financial year. That's under your watch, Labor. You've failed to enforce mandatory minimum requirements under the Indigenous procurement policy, the coalition's landmark Indigenous procurement policy for government contracts. That's your handiwork, Labor. What are you trying to cover up? According to the ANAO, only one in five government contracts is monitored for compliance with the IPP, and only one-quarter of those are compliant. You need to answer those questions.

The Prime Minister held events spruiking his Indigenous economic empowerment agenda—of course, largely consulting with people who've spent most of their lives in the public sector or in organisations that are paid for by the government purse. We didn't see anywhere near enough private sector companies or representatives, even though two-thirds of the people running successful Indigenous businesses are not even part of Supply Nation. This is under your watch.

When there are record insolvencies in this country and Indigenous businesses are struggling, we want to know what you've done and are doing to help them—not coming up with the next grand, big idea of economic development. The four targets going in the wrong direction are not actually about that. We want to talk about what you are doing about the drivers for those four targets. What you did on Friday actually made sure there is less capacity for scrutiny. Shame on you.

I thank the Senate for their support in closing the gap. In fact, I thank the opposition for showing some interest—in particular, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. It's interesting that I met with Attorneys-General across Australia, and the two jurisdictions that are the worst in terms of incarceration rates in the country are the Northern Territory and Queensland.

I would say to members opposite: speak to your colleagues. Work with me in trying to reduce the incarceration rates in this country of both First Nations adults and First Nations youth. There have been 11- and 12-year-olds in remand in the watch houses. Nearly 50 per cent of the prison—

What are you hiding?

Senator McKenzie, Senator Liddle was heard in silence. There were no interjections and that same respect applies to Minister McCarthy. If you can't uphold that respect, please leave the chamber.

Nearly 50 per cent of prisoners in the Northern Territory are on remand. They haven't even had their day in court. And where have been the voices of members opposite? Where have been the voices of members opposite while there have been deaths occurring in the prison system across Australia—most recently, there has been the news this morning out of Western Australia. Where have been the voices of those opposite?

They talk about closing the gap. I say work with me. I am trying to do exactly that, but, as Senator Gallagher said, this is a whole-of-government approach, and that's why I want to see every single parliamentary committee in the Senate and every single minister around the cabinet table of this parliament answer those very questions that I don't have direct responsibility for. The Closing the Gap targets focus on housing, health, out-of-home care, the high rates of removal of our children and justice issues. Where appropriate, those questions need to go to the Attorney-General. I thank the Senate. I thank the Greens for their support in this. When we have greater scrutiny of Closing the Gap targets across every ministerial portfolio, guess what that does?

Nothing!

It brings accountability, Senator Hanson. You have shown no interest whatsoever, so I don't think I'll speak with you on this matter, but I will say this: for those who are genuinely interested in seeing improvement in First Nations people's lives in this country, then work with me. This decision comes about because we need greater scrutiny. I have called on every cabinet across every parliament who have signed up to the Closing the Gap agreement. It's been five years. So of course we've got to insist that every single cabinet across Australia and every minister that sits around those cabinet tables is responsible. When the joint council meets and I sit with Pat Turner, the leader of the Coalition of Peaks, on this, we call on the Indigenous affairs ministers in every jurisdiction to work with their colleagues, and it's the same in this parliament. We need to make sure that every minister, every cabinet secretary and every bureaucrat that works behind them is questioned appropriately on these targets—

We want to scrutinise you!

so if you are that interested, and I am very pleased to hear you are, then work with me on this and we will start to see major changes in the systemic issues that are impacting our outcomes in Closing the Gap.

I've been trying to listen to this debate and, in all fairness, what I do believe is that it should be as it is. This should be raised at Senate estimates so people can ask questions of the ministers and departments. There are grave concerns about what is happening, and if you want accountability then you must be responsible to questions put forward by all political parties and Independents.

The amount of money that is spent on the Aboriginal affairs department is over $30 billion a year. We've got 1,258 Aboriginal corporations that have not reported to ORIC. There is no accountability. We have had corruption, and I've raised in this parliament about a person who has dealt with the aged care who was found to be corrupt. There is not enough accountability. Actually, I attended a meeting with the minister, Malarndirri, and it was supposed to be open discussion there. The minister hardly spoke at all. It was Pat Turner, from the Coalition of Peaks, who actually did all the talking. The minister couldn't answer all the questions. This is a minister that, I believe, is not doing her job properly to represent those Aboriginals.

During the problems that we have, closing the gap has been a huge, big issue. What have they done now? They've closed the gap on only four out of 19 issues. We constantly hear about the incarceration. We hear about people who do not attend schooling. We hear about the domestic violence. We hear about the sexual abuse of children. This has been going on for years, not only under this government but also under the previous government. I've been speaking about it for the last 30 years, but nothing's changed, nothing's happening.

I come across Aboriginals who are crying out, who want that assistance, want that help. But you're not listening to them. It's all closed shop. You're taking it from the elites—those people who want to claim they are Indigenous. Really? Are they truly Indigenous? Are they truly representing the true Indigenous people out there? You've got your voice in parliament here with the 11 members of parliament who claim to be Indigenous. But are you really representing the average Aboriginal out there that lives in remote and regional areas? Are you getting them the funding? It doesn't appear that way. What's happening is it's getting worse. You have no answers to it. You won't be accountable to the Australian people for the money that is put into this Aboriginal industry. You now have the activists. Although the Australian people have voted against the Voice, you are now pushing—

Senator Hanson, please resume your seat. Senator Wong?

On a point of order, I did give Senator Hanson the courtesy, and I'd ask—

Well, Senator, thank you; I will remember that. I gave you the courtesy.

Senator Hanson, please continue.

I—

Order! Senator Hanson, please resume your seat. Senators Wong and Ruston, I've asked you to come to order. Senator Hanson.

My concern is for the Aboriginal people, those kids that are not getting the education. We find that now their educational level is going up to six or seven and then they're dropping out. We're not preparing them for the future as well. Why do we pay people? Why did you get rid of the card? That was actually working. But as soon as Labor got in you got rid of it. Now you've got an organisation—they have not accepted the decision by the Australian people to get rid of the Voice. They are now organising to keep that going. You've got treaties, division that's happening in Australia. Why? It's because you won't stand up to and acknowledge the problem that is happening. I've never seen so much division happening in Australia as under this government. We never had it before. It's just escalated. And the hatred that was out there—you talk about incarceration. If you commit the crime then you've got to actually be punished for it. Talk to the kids about resilience.

Through the chair: the minister laughs about this. The minister thinks it's a joke. It's not a joke. These people's lives are being destroyed. But you have to be accountable. The parents don't send the kids to schools. You're setting them up for failure, and that's a problem that's happening there—the sexual abuse that goes on. What's done about it? Nothing, because you can't do anything about it, because you're going to be called a racist.

When are we going to wake up to ourselves in this place, to treat everyone equally on an individual needs basis and not based on what race you are? That is what's divisive in this nation. We are all Australians together, whether you migrated or whether you were born here. When are we going to get over the fact that you've got be Indigenous or non-Indigenous? We're dividing this nation, our land, and the people in this place are responsible for that.

I first disassociate both myself personally and also the Australian Labor Party from that divisive, illogical and incorrect contribution to this chamber. On that note, I move:

That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

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

Senators, you'll recall that, earlier this morning, Senators Faruqi and Cash stood at the same time. I indicated I would give precedence to Senator Cash, and now I intend to give precedence to Senator Faruqi. I understand Senator McKenzie has sent a motion around. I have taken advice from the clerks, and, because it's gone side to side, it is appropriate to give the call to Senator Faruqi. Senator Cash?

In relation to the ruling, can I ask you to take it away formally and come back to the chamber. Senator Bridget McKenzie is a party leader. A party leader would normally have precedence over someone who is not a party leader and just a senator. I would like you to take that on notice and report back to the Senate.

Senator Cash, I did indicate I had already sought advice from the Clerk, but I am happy to go back to the Clerk. I had sought advice from the Clerk. That is what I was advised. So I am giving the call to Senator Faruqi.

President, will I seek the call later.

Thank you, Senator Faruqi. Senator McKenzie.

I thank you, Senator Faruqi, for that consideration. I seek leave to move a motion.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, as leader of the National Party, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the reinstatement of the cross-portfolio hearing into the Murray-Darling Basin Plan matters.

Here we stand again. The Labor Party is using their numbers, in partnership with the Greens political party, to diminish the Australian Senate, to diminish Senate estimates, one of the key components of our ability as a parliament and as a people to hold whoever's in government to account.

I heard the Manager of Government Business in the Senate, in her contribution to Senator Cash, say: 'Well, it's alright. Steady on. We've got December estimates, everyone. You'll get your chance.' Well, the reality is that that once again shows that the Labor Party don't understand regional Australia, have no idea about water policy and, indeed, fundamentally want to avoid scrutiny of how they've handled the water portfolio in their time in government.

The reason that we have cross-portfolio days is that opposition senators and crossbench senators go to the environment department, the health department, the Treasury department and the finance department and ask their questions, and they're told: 'We don't deal with that. You'll have to go over here or you'll have to go over there.' The reason we had cross-portfolio is that those senators that are interested in the sustainability of the Murray-Darling Basin, its river systems, its communities and the industries that underpin the economics of the Murray-Darling Basin were able to ensure relevant scrutiny.

Over 2½ million people live in the Murray-Darling Basin. Since the Murray-Darling Basin Plan has been in place, we've seen industry decimated and negative environmental impacts. In my own home state of Victoria, rushing flow through particularly the Barmah Choke has seen bank degradation and trees dying en masse because we're more interested in the number of gigalitres that go down the Murray than we are in assessing environmental impact. What we now know, a decade after the plan, is that if we put less water down, more slowly, we would get better environmental impacts. But the Labor Party and the Greens don't care about the environmental, social or economic impacts of their water policy, because it's a bit like their approach to the live sheep trade in Western Australia: it's all about winning votes for Sarah Hanson-Young in Adelaide, for NSW and Victorian senators in Melbourne and Sydney and for Tanya Plibersek and others to hold inner-city seats in Sydney. That is the reality of the Labor and the Greens' approach to the Murray-Darling Basin.

That one day of cross-portfolio allowed us to not only get questions on why you're pursuing buy-backs from unwilling sellers—I like how you call them 'willing sellers' when they are broke because of the Labor party's policies. Why are you pursuing buy-backs when farmers have told you they don't want them, when in my own state of Victoria your own Labor ministers are saying we don't support federal Labor's approach?

What we've seen in the last 10 years is you've gone to where the secure water entitlements are—they are in the highly managed state of Victoria—and you've purchased our water. You've created a swiss-cheese effect right throughout dairy and country, in particular in central-north Victoria, and we have now seen manufacturing jobs in the dairy industry at risk because the litreage in our dairy farms of northern Victoria are dropping. Why? It's not because we don't know how to farm, not because farmers aren't able to innovate and not because we're in severe drought or floods; it's because of the federal Labor Party's water policy.

If you've got your own Labor Party ministers in Victoria saying, 'You are going down the wrong track,' our responsibility as crossbenchers and as opposition senators is to hold the government to account for their policy decisions, to hold the Murray-Darling Basin Authority—this unelected agency, whose own decisions fly in the face of good social, economic and environment policy—to account. Shame on the Labor Party for cancelling— (Time expired)

I move:

That the question be now put.

The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Gallagher for closure be agreed to.

The question is that the suspension motion moved by Senator McKenzie be agreed to.

by leave—I move:

(1) That the business before the Senate at 1 pm today be interrupted to enable a motion to be moved by Senator Faruqi regarding social cohesion.

(2) That the motion moved under paragraph (1) have precedence over all other business and the question be put following 30 minutes of debate (5 minutes per speaker).

(3) divisions may take place between 1.30 pm and 2 pm for the purpose of the motion in paragraph (1).

Question agreed to.

I rise today to speak on the National Health Amendment (Cheaper Medicines) Bill 2025. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is a critical component of Australia's healthcare system. For decades it has ensured that Australians can access affordable medicines and treatments when they most need them. Under the PBS patients make a co-contribution towards the cost of their medicine and the Commonwealth covers the rest. For this year the patient co-contribution is $31.60 for general patients. This bill seeks to reduce that co-contribution from $31.60 to $25. It is an important change and one that the coalition supports. In fact, this bill reflects the coalition's commitment at the last election to guarantee cheaper medicines and lower the PBS co-payment to $25.

Right now Australians are under incredible pressure. Labor's cost-of-living crisis has forced families into impossible choices. More and more Australians are delaying or avoiding filling their scripts because they simply can't afford to do so. Last year alone eight per cent of Australians said that they delayed or went without their scripts because they couldn't afford to fill them. No Australian should have to make the choice between filling their scripts and putting food on the table—and that's on top of the 1.5 million Australians who said they avoided seeing the doctor because they couldn't afford to do so. That's 1.5 million Australians who didn't get a script at all.

This bill is a step towards easing the burden that has grown increasingly heavy under the Albanese Labor government. It ensures that Australians have more affordable access to medicines and treatments they need at a time when health care has never been more expensive. In fact right now it has never been harder or more expensive to see your GP. It builds on the coalition's proud record when it comes to the PBS. When in government, the coalition listed around 2,900 new or amended medicines on the PBS, an investment of over $16.5 billion. That investment ensured Australians had affordable access to potentially life-saving and life-changing medicines that would otherwise have cost them thousands of dollars, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars.

We also maintained our commitment to list every single medicine that had been approved through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Council on the PBS. This stands in stark contrast to Labor's record. When they were last in government, Labor stopped listing new medicines on the PBS because they ran out of money. That despicable decision meant that Australians missed out on treatments for severe asthma, chronic pain, schizophrenia, blood clots, IVF, endometriosis and prostate conditions. Sadly, history is repeating itself. Late last year almost 50 medicines were deferred from consideration because the PBAC imposed a cap on the number of medicines that they would review at their sitting. Why? Because the government has not provided adequate resources and the health minister turned a blind eye. Patients were again left waiting for access to new treatments at affordable prices.

We've seen the consequences of Labor's delays with the PBS—for example, for women living with endometriosis. The government announced the listing of Ryeqo on the PBS before the election, but that medicine had not been recommended for listing for more than 12 months. So for 12 months women who suffer from endometriosis waited for the government to make that decision—an entire year of avoidable delay for women suffering chronic pain. That is simply not good enough. We are now hearing from the pharmaceutical sector that the government is putting much more difficult terms for listing medicines on the PBS after those medicines have received PBAC approval. Like the capping of the number of medicines to be considered by PBAC, this is another backdoor way that the government is avoiding listing medicines on the PBS.

The coalition also initiated the health technology assessment review, an opportunity to look at how we can improve timely access to medicines for Australian patients. The findings of that critical review were brought down a year ago. In September 2024 the Albanese government received that review, yet they have done absolutely nothing for a year, despite the fact that we all agreed that it was absolutely essential that more was done to make sure the process didn't hinder Australians getting timely access to medicines. We say to the government that the time for reviewing things is over. The time for action is now. Patients are sick of waiting. The opposition is sick of waiting because this government is sitting on its hands when it comes to actually letting Australians get access to cheaper medicines.

So, whilst we absolutely support this bill, we call on the government to do more: to properly resource the PBAC listing process, to end the delays, to deliver on the HTA review and to ensure that Australians have timely, affordable access to the medicines they need. That is why I will be moving a second reading amendment, circulated in my name, which seeks for the Senate to note with concern the government's continued delays in implementing the recommendations of the health technology assessment review and to condemn the Prime Minister for his failure to secure a meeting with the President of the United States to advance Australia's interests in relation to possible pharmaceutical tariffs and other issues.

The coalition will always back Australians when it comes to getting access to affordable medicines. We led on cheaper medicines in the 2022 election, we committed to the $25 PBS co-payment in 2025 and we will continue to hold this government to account for its record of delays and failures. I commend the bill to the Senate. I move my amendment:

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

(a) notes with concern the Government's continuing delays in implementing the recommendations of the Health Technology Assessment review; and

(b) condemns the Prime Minister's failure to secure a meeting with the President of the United States to advance Australia's interests in relation to possible pharmaceutical tariffs and other issues".

At the last election, Labor promised the Australian people cheaper medicines. The National Health Amendment (Cheaper Medicines) Bill 2025 is about keeping that promise. Under this bill, the most you will pay for a script on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is $25—just 25 bucks—the lowest amount since 2004.

Let me take you all back to 2004 for a moment. The hit TV show Friends was in its final season. Usher was top of the charts with 'Yeah!' featuring Lil John and Ludacris. Google launched Gmail, and Mark Zuckerberg created Facebook in his Harvard dorm room. As for me, I was going to my high school formal with diamante butterfly clips in my hair, which was very of the time. And the general co-payment for PBS scripts was just $25. Well, we're taking you back to 2004, and for very good reason: because cheaper medicines isn't just good for your family budget; it's good for your health, too, and that means it's good for our health system.

During the election campaign Labor looked the Australian people in the eye and said we would focus on what matters to you, like lower costs and more-accessible health care. I heard from people up and down Queensland about how much this matters to them, how much they would save if they got their regular prescriptions for less, the difference it would make to their family budget and the peace of mind you get from knowing you can afford the medicines your family need. We promised cheaper medicines, and now we are delivering.

This bill will reduce the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme general co-payment from its current amount of $31.60 to $25, a saving of more than 20 per cent. And, under Labor, concession cardholders, like pensioners, will pay even less. We've frozen concessional co-payments at just $7.70 until the end of 2029. These measures build on the work the Albanese government and health minister Mark Butler did during the last term, when they slashed the cost of maximum co-payments down from $42.50. And we've introduced 60-day prescriptions for common medicines that are used on an ongoing basis, saving time and money for millions of Australians who have an ongoing health condition. That has saved those Australian patients around $250 million already and has allowed them to avoid more than 35 million unnecessary trips to the pharmacist.

Not everyone agreed with these measures, but Labor did them because they were the right thing to do. This bill builds on that work and it fits in that mould. From 1 January next year, millions of Australians will pay less for their PBS prescriptions than they will if this bill does not pass. That's why I urge all senators to support cheaper medicines. It's what the Australian people voted for, and it's what they deserve,

This fight is personal for me. As I said in my first speech, I grew up in a single-parent family who relied on bulk-billing doctors, on Australia's world-class health system and of course on an affordable PBS. We couldn't have survived without it. These are the things good Labor governments have delivered, and we're taking up the fight to protect those essential rights for all Australians. In fact, without Australia's universal health system, I probably wouldn't be standing in this chamber today. When I was just 16 years of age I was diagnosed with a serious autoimmune condition. It is a condition that would hospitalise me for a long time and threaten to rob me of my quality of life. I credit my doctor for giving me a new treatment that had just come out of clinical trials and was showing positive results for people with my condition. This treatment was costly, and my doctor had to write to the federal Department of Health to get approval to administer it to me. That drug saved my life as I knew it.

I carry with me every day a debt of gratitude for our public hospital system and our amazing doctors and nurses. If it wasn't for Australia's affordable medicines I wouldn't be standing in this chamber today. So I will spend every day I have in this chamber fighting for Medicare and fighting for medicines to remain affordable in Australia. Australians should know this is real, because right now in my home state of Queensland we are seeing the conservatives talking about privatising our hospitals—well, not on my watch!

The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is one of Labor's proudest achievements. Along with Medicare, it has become an essential part of who we are as Australians. That's why cheaper medicines are just one of the ways we're delivering on our promise. We're even opening more Medicare urgent care clinics and investing in Medicare mental health clinics, where you can go with no appointment, no referral and no payment needed. We've opened Medicare mental health clinics in Lutwyche, in Caloundra, in Caboolture, in Strathpine, and soon in Redcliff too. We're making the biggest ever investment in bulk-billing, so you can see a GP for free when you need to.

The Australian people voted for action on health care; now Labor is delivering it. I urge all senators to vote for cheaper medicines and this bill.

I rise in support of the National Health Amendment (Cheaper Medicines) Bill 2025. From 1 January 2026, the cost of buying PBS approved medicines will fall from $31.60 to $25. This is definitely a welcome change and a genuine relief for millions of Australians who rely on PBS every single day, but we must make one thing clear. Affordability is not just a nice policy; it is a matter of health and survival. Data from the ABS in 2023-2024, found that eight per cent of Australians delayed or did not get prescription medication when needed because of cost. For women and young people, those rates were higher at nine per cent and 12 per cent respectively. That is one in ten women and more than one in ten young Australians who are forced to go without treatment that doctors prescribed. That is why I'm heartened by the bipartisan support for the PBS, particularly as US pharmaceutical companies and President Trump threaten tariffs on Australian medicines. Tariffs are not in Australia's interests, and we must resist any push that would undermine the PBS. We do not want to go down the path of the American healthcare system, where as many as 550,000 people a year file for bankruptcy due to medical debt. For me, the PBS is non-negotiable.

For many Australians, the problem is not just the price of medicines but also whether they can access those medicines at all. According to the TGA's medicine shortage reports database, as many as 373 medicines were in shortage in August this year—diabetes treatment and medicines for menopause, rheumatic fever and breast cancer. These life-saving and life-changing drugs have been among those unavailable. When shortages occur, the minister can approve alternatives, but that often creates a rush on the substitutes and pushes the pressure down the line.

These shortages are not random; they stem from fragile supply chains. A study by the Institute for Integrated Economic Research found that Australia imports more than 90 per cent of its medicines. That is a vulnerability we cannot afford. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners has proposed greater investment in domestic production to shore up supply. I support the call, and I urge the government to act. I foreshadow my second reading amendment, as circulated on sheet 3385, which deals with this very issue.

I also want to acknowledge the positive steps taken on 30-day and 60-day prescriptions. Since 2022, hundreds of medicines have been made eligible for 60-day scripts. This means fewer trips to the pharmacy and half the cost for many households. The final stage of this reform rolled out in September last year, adding another 100 medicines to the list. If there is scope to expand this program further, I strongly encourage the government to do so. However, we must also be clear-eyed about the challenges.

After speaking with local pharmacists in WA, I know that the government has been racing to the bottom on medicines prices without addressing systemic issues within the industry. Doctors are not always aware of which medicines are out of stock, so patients leave with prescriptions they cannot fill at pharmacies. They are then often forced to return to the doctor—often at extra out-of-pocket costs—just to find another treatment plan. If a cheaper generic is unavailable, patients are forced to pay surcharges for premium brands through no fault of their own. Pharmacies, meanwhile, have been stock-piling medicines to meet the demand from the 60-day scripts, which, in turn, worsens the shortages.

We also see absurdities in the system. Spren is available under the PBS for Closing the Gap customers, but no other brands of low-dose aspirin are covered. When Spren goes out of stock, patients are left stranded. Wholesale prices for some antibiotics can be just a couple of dollars, but, if dispensed as a private script, they cannot be counted towards the PBS safety net. Pharmacists also lack the authority to make sensible substitutions. For example, the medicine called Rosuzet—which is a combination of rosuvastatin and ezetimibe—is out of stock. Both medicines are sold separately under different brands, yet pharmacists must chase doctors for a new script before they can supply them separately. That wastes everyone's time. The Pharmacy Guild is right to push for reforms on this. Finally, let's consider Minipress, which is a drug for hypertension, enlarged prostates and Raynaud's disease. It has been in a long-term shortage since July. It is even a medicine eligible for 60-day scripts, meaning patients may face even greater stress if they cannot access it in time.

There is no question that this bill is a step in the right direction. Reducing the costs of medicines will make a real difference in everyday Australians' lives, but the cost is only one piece of the puzzle. Unless we address the systemic supply issues in our pharmaceutical system, Australians will continue to pay the price—either at the counter or in their health. I commend the bill to the Senate.

I too rise today in support of the National Health Amendment (Cheaper Medicines) Bill 2025, which is a bill that delivers on a clear and urgent promise to make medicines more affordable for Australians. This bill reduces the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the PBS, general co-payment from $31.60 to $25. This is a meaningful change that will ease the burden on families, pensioners and all Australians who are struggling to afford the medications they desperately need.

For many, this change is not simply a policy adjustment. It is a lifeline. In the past year alone, eight per cent of Australians delayed or went without their prescription medicine due to cost concerns. That's nearly one in 10 Australians being forced to choose between their health and their household budget. And, under Labor's watch, those choices are becoming more painful by the day. This bill honours the coalition's election commitment to guarantee cheaper medicines. We were the first to commit to lowering the PBS co-payment and we remain steadfast in our belief that no Australian should have to skip a script because they can't afford it.

This bill is part of a broader story—a story of a government that keeps promising to strengthen Medicare but, instead, has presided over its decline. Under the Albanese government, bulk-billing has plummeted. GP bulk-billing has fallen from 88 per cent to 77 per cent, and Australians are now paying 75 per cent more in out-of-pocket costs. In fact, 1.5 million Australians avoided seeing their GP last year because they simply couldn't afford it. The Prime Minister told Australians, 'All you need is your Medicare card, not your credit card.' He said that 71 times during the election campaign, but the facts tell a different story.

In May alone, Australians paid $166 million in out-of-pocket costs at the GP, and, while the Prime Minister waves around his Medicare card, Australians are waving goodbye to affordable health care. The coalition's record, however, stands in stark contrast. In government, we made 2,900 new or amended PBS listings, investing $16.5 billion to ensure Australians had access to life-saving treatments. We listed every medicine recommended by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Labor, on the other hand, capped the number of medications considered for listing, which caused harmful delays.

We saw this again with Ryeqo, which is a treatment for endometriosis. It was recommended for PBS listing for over a year before Labor finally acted. Why should the hundreds of thousands of Australian women suffering from chronic pain every day accept this sort of unnecessary delay? And let's not forget mental health. The Albanese government has cut Medicare funding for mental health support in half, ignoring expert health advice and leaving vulnerable Australians behind. Access to Medicare mental health support is now at its lowest point in a decade.

The situation in Tasmania, my home state, is even more dire. According to the Cleanbill 2025 blue report, there are no clinics in Tasmania bulk-billing new adult patients. Tasmanians are now paying an average of $54 per GP visit—the highest in the country. This has forced more people into emergency departments for non-urgent care, increasing weight times and straining our health system. The Tasmanian government has had to step in with $40 million in primary care funding just to keep clinics open. That's money that should be coming from Canberra.

Australians deserve better. They deserve a government that acts, not one that reviews endlessly and delays progress. The health technology assessment review, for example, which was commissioned by the coalition, remains untouched. We know the challenges, we have the data and we've heard the voices of patients. Now is the time for actions. This bill is a step forward, a step toward restoring trust in our healthcare system and a step towards ensuring that Australians can access the medicines they need without having to choose between their health and their groceries.

This bill, the National Health Amendment (Cheaper Medicines) Bill 2025, implements the Albanese Labor government's 2025 election commitment to reduce the PBS general patient co-payment from $31.60 to $25. Having already slashed the cost of medicines in 2023 through the largest cut to these costs in the history of the PBS, we are now going even further with $25 medicines. This is a more than 20 per cent cut in the maximum cost of PBS medicines that will save Australians over $200 million each year. Medicines haven't cost $25 in Australia since 2004—the same year Kath & Kim was at its peak, Jet was topping the charts and I was finishing high school.

This is an election commitment I am extremely proud of because we do not want a single Australian to go without the medicines they need because they cannot afford them. Four out of five PBS medicines will now become cheaper because of our investment. And this builds on the work we've already done like investing in an additional 18 million bulk-billed GP visits each year, expanding the bulk-billing incentive to all Australians and tripling the number of fully bulk-billed practices. We've implemented 60-day prescriptions, saving time and money for Australians with ongoing health conditions. We're ensuring Australians can access more free and cheaper medicines sooner with a 25 per cent reduction in the number of scripts that a concessional patient must fill before the safety net kicks in, and we're investing in Medicare urgent care clinics across the country—including one in my home community of Sturt. And, given it's Women's Health Week, I should mention that we are investing in more choice and better treatment in women's health through an investment of almost $800 million.

I am extremely proud of our record on health. Labor built Medicare and we will always fight to defend it and strengthen it. This bill implements our commitment for $25 medicines. It's good for the hip pocket of Australians and it's good for their health. Through this bill, we are delivering cheaper medicines and a stronger Medicare. I wholeheartedly commend the bill to the Senate.

I also rise to speak in support of the National Health Amendment (Cheaper Medicines) Bill 2025. This bill lowers the cost of PBS medicines for general patients to $25—the lowest it has been in more than 20 years. It will save households across the country more than $200 million every single year.

The Prime Minister said we would make medicines cheaper, and that is exactly what we are doing here today. Labor believes that no-one should have to choose between their health care and managing their budget. This is real cost-of-living relief and it is a demonstration of our real commitment to making health care more affordable. We know how essential medicines are to families, but too often they place too much pressure on them. Lowering the cost of medicines takes a little bit of that pressure off and makes it easier for people to stay on top of their health care and their finances. What might seem like a small saving on paper becomes a really meaningful saving in day-to-day life.

I am so proud that Labor is putting this bill to the Senate today. Labor created the PBS. We created Medicare. This bill shows that we are committed to those foundations and to making health care more affordable for all Australians.

I rise to speak on the National Health Amendment (Cheaper Medicines) Bill, and I'm also proud to be part of the Anthony Albanese Labor government, who continue to deliver on our election commitments. The cost of prescriptions is a significant concern for many Australians, especially those who have challenges with the cost of living. Sixty-day scripts have made a lot of difference to people who have chronic illnesses. Cheaper medicines have helped put more money back in everyday Australian's pockets, and we know on this side of the chamber that we will always defend Medicare and invest.

It is fitting that we're debating this bill today, because, as co-chair of Parliamentary Friends of Arthritis, our breakfast was held in Parliament House this morning. These are people who live with chronic pain, so having cheaper medicines, which ensure that they don't have to make a choice between their groceries, paying their rent and getting their medication. Labor has always invested in their people. We will always support better access to more affordable medication so that we can manage those chronic illnesses. It also helps to prevent deterioration of your health. We know that there are challenges in the cost of living, so anything that can help, like reducing the cost of medications, has got to be a good thing.

At its heart Labor's cheaper medicines policy is about fairness, and it's about health equity. It doesn't matter where you live; you should still have access to affordable medication. By driving down the cost of prescription drugs at the pharmacy counter, Labor's approach directly addresses the growing concern that many people are being forced to skip doses, delay refilling scripts or avoiding seeking treatment all together due to financial constraints. I'm in this chamber on this side and I'm part of a government that is delivering an election commitment—bringing the cost of medication down. We're putting more medications on the PBS, delivering 60-day scripts, which those opposite when they were in government for 11 years buckled and did not have the fortitude to change. That is huge to people who have chronic illnesses.

Today I rise in support of the National Health Amendment (Cheaper Medicines) Bill 2025. Labor has always been the party of health care, from Chifley's 1946 amendment enshrining health care in our Constitution to Whitlam's universal healthcare reforms and Hawke's Medicare. Now, under the Albanese Labor government, we continue that tradition with our cheaper medicines bill. We believe that every Australian should be able to afford the medicine they need without worrying about the cost. From 1 January 2026 no Australian will pay more than $25—or $7.70 with a concession card—for a general PBS script. That is a cut of more than 20 per cent, saving Australians over $200 million every single year.

We're already seeing the impact. As of 31 July this year, Victorians alone have saved more than $425 million across 69 million cheaper scripts. What does this mean on the ground? It means more money back in the pockets of everyday Australians. In the shires of Yarriambiack, Horsham and Ararat, where older people live with higher rates of chronic conditions, these savings absolutely matter. In Nicholls, where more people live with at least one chronic condition than the state or national average, these savings matter. For First Nations communities, where chronic disease rates are higher and access to care is harder, these savings matter.

This bill cuts the cost of medicines for people in rural Victoria and right across the nation. The Albanese Labor government isn't just reducing the costs of medicines; we're making the biggest investment in health care in a generation. We're making sure you can see a GP for free with the single largest investment in Medicare since it began over 40 years ago.

We are building 50 more Medicare urgent care clinics, on top of the 87 we opened last term. That means four in five Australians will live within a 20-minute drive of one of those clinics. And we know they work. Since June 2023, these clinics have already treated over 1.8 million people.

Twenty years later, Labor's taking the cost out again. This is what Labor governments do: we invest in universal health care, we make medicines cheaper, and we build Australia's future, because Labor has always been and will always be the party of health care.

I rise today to express my unwavering support for the reduction in the cost of PBS medications from $31.60 to $25. Picture this: you are someone who has been living with a chronic illness, whether that be hypertension or asthma; or maybe you're the parent of a child living with an illness that requires constant medication; or—this might ring true for many of us here today—you're supporting your parents or family members as they age and they require medicinal support to experience a good quality of life. You don't get a choice as to whether you buy the medication or not. It's not like a chronic condition is going to spontaneously disappear; nor will illnesses stop existing and negate the need for medication.

The cost-of-living crisis has placed far too many people in a position where they've had to choose between necessary medications or food on the table, both of which are crucial to living a good life. We've heard how the cost of medications has affected Australians—not just those who live with chronic illness, but everyone who utilises the PBS. We know this has affected you, because on 3 May there was an overwhelming vote in support of Labor's plans to fix this problem. We're not only aware of the impact that this has had on Australians; we're also enacting tangible change to alleviate the pressure that you're experiencing.

People who are affected by the increased cost of medications haven't just been struggling recently. They haven't been able to access a cost this low for their essential medications since 2004. We've reduced costs before, in 2023, but, having heard what Australians need, we're going further, to make sure Australians get the help that they need.

Fundamental to our values is making living easier for those who have it the hardest. Crucial to this reform is freezing the co-payment costs for concession-card holders and pensioners. This alleviates not only the real costs experienced month to month but also the stress experienced at the threat of rising inflation and increased cost-of-living expenses, ensuring no-one has to worry about choosing between two necessary costs. The eligibility criteria for the PBS safety net will expand, directly benefiting those who rely on this system the most, because no-one should be disadvantaged for conditions that they cannot control.

To have to choose to forgo medication expenses can affect a multitude of factors. People can't get to work or to school if they're in too much pain or they can't manage their symptoms without medication. How are people supposed to make money and alleviate cost-of-living pressures without being healthy enough to work? And what is the impact of that on small businesses when their staff are unable to attend because they simply can't afford their medication?

We in Labor have listened, and we've responded. This is a government that isn't just about powering through things. Even though we know how strong Australians are, they should haven't to just grin and bear it through a work day because essential medications were too expensive. They should feel comfortable, well and enabled. This cost reduction to PBS medications from $31.60 to $25—a 2004 rate—is a very significant contribution from the Labor government.

People in our community are struggling with the cost of living. Families are being forced to choose between putting food on the table and the medicines that they need. They don't need half measures; they need real relief. The Greens will support Labor's bill to bring the cost of PBS medicines down from $31.60 to $25, because we know that it is important. In fact, it is essential that the cost of these vital medicines is reduced. But our community are demanding that we must go further. More essential medicines need to be added to the PBS. More people need to be able to visit their GP for free, regardless of their postcode.

And dental care must be covered through Medicare. The mouth is part of the body, and yet it continues to be excluded from Medicare. For most, going to the dentist is now entirely unaffordable. Public dental waiting lists literally don't bear looking at. We have people who are stuck for years in pain—year after year after year. Then, in some of these systems, they get to the end of the waitlist to get their teeth treated—to get that the filling, to get the infection addressed in that one tooth—and then they have to go back to the back of the queue because they were only on the waitlist for the one tooth. If anything else is wrong, well then that's back to the start again for them. That is a completely broken and unfair system.

These failures and barriers compound already existing health issues. Older Australians are being hit hard. On average, people over 65 have lost 14 teeth, and one in four avoids certain foods because of dental issues. Fifty-five per cent have delayed treatment due to cost. The royal commission into aged-care services and the Senate inquiry into dental care services and provision in Australia both spoke with one voice, recommending to the parliament and to the government the establishment of a seniors dental benefit scheme so that those over 65 can get access to basic dental care and basic denture provision. Surely we owe it to our older Australians to get this done. Surely both sides of parliament can come together with the Greens and reach down and reclaim this policy reform from the too-hard basket that it was chucked in all those years ago. There is often little that this parliament can agree on, but surely we can agree that older Australians shouldn't be living in unnecessary dental pain. Surely we can come together on that topic. Yet, at this moment, from this government—nothing.

Medicine saves lives. That's the pure and simple fact of the matter. Medicine saves lives. Health care saves lives.

The Greens have put together an amendment to establish a seniors dental benefit scheme. This government, in the last sitting of parliament, responded by shooting that amendment down, confirming once again that they have prioritised the handouts that they give to polluters and landlords, as well as the public funds that they've decided to splash around on nuclear submarines and handouts to fossil fuel companies, over providing essential dental care. This is not the first time they have put polluters, landlords and the already rich and powerful ahead of the community. They have done it so many times, time after time, in my eight years here. It is not good enough. It is why people look to parliament and feel anger and frustration.

Every single year, seeing the GP is becoming less affordable. We know that fewer GPs are bulk-billing than ever before. The latest data tells us that the average out-of-pocket cost for an Australian to visit the GP remains over $40. In Tasmania and the ACT, it's over $50 a visit. People are skipping check-ups, delaying tests or prioritising their kids' health over their own health because of the cost.

At the election, the Greens put forward a plan to make GP visits free for everyone covered by Medicare, to triple the bulk-billing incentive, to increase rebates for longer appointments and to establish 1,000 free local healthcare clinics where GPs, psychologists and dentists can work together to provide care. The government has adopted part of this plan, but the policy changes that they now have put forward don't go far enough to solve the problem. It is not good enough to sit there and say: 'Oh well. Our policy is better than what the Liberals would have coughed up.'

That is cold comfort to somebody trying to figure out whether to buy food or see the doctor, whether to pay rent or buy their medicines. They cannot pay for the health care they need by using the sum total of your self-satisfaction about being better than a party that opposed Medicare in the beginning and that, if left to its own devices, would tear it to shreds. There has to be a raising of the bar in this place above, 'Is it better than what the LNP can scrape together as a policy idea?' We are never going to get people the urgent care and support that they need if those opposite are the benchmark. Come on!

The RACGP has found that 66 per cent of GPs won't be bulk-billing or increasing their bulk-billing rates despite this government's changes to bulk-billing incentives. People with chronic illness, women and disabled people typically rely on longer appointments. We need the rebate system to reflect this, including an increase of the rebate for appointments over 20 minutes. Nobody should have to try to cram their complex experience of a chronic health condition into such a short a bit of time, and no GP should be forced to make the decision as to whether they will listen to their patient or try to cut the appointment short because, after a certain point, a practitioner is losing money because they cannot claim a high enough rebate for the time that they are using on that patient.

The health technology assessment review has made it clear that we need to and in fact can speed up the process of approvals and access to the PBS, especially for the groups that need it most, like children and First Nations communities. That final report was released in September. Since then, there has been no action. The Greens' plan goes further. We would see all PBS medicines free for concession card holders and just $7.70 for everyone else. Labor could make these changes right now, ensuring better access to the necessary medicines that people need. You could make sure that the cost never gets in the way of people getting the medicine that they need. Why haven't you? Why have you not done this with the power now invested in you?

The Greens will support this bill because people desperately need cost-of-living relief right now. But let me be clear: these half-measures are not solutions. If Labor were serious, they would deliver real relief, like cheaper medicines, and make GP bulk-billing a reality again for people. If Labor were serious, we would be talking right now about getting dental care into Medicare and finally removing the ridiculous caps that prevent people from getting the mental health care that they need. That's what we'd be talking about. If you were serious, that's what would be on the agenda. The Greens are serious. I sit here, serious to my bones about this.

There may not be a consensus in this place for every aspect of the Greens policies and plans for health care, but come on now. We have to begin actual work in this space. People are living in pain every day, being exposed to additional healthcare conditions every day and struggling every day either because between them and the health care they need is a health and cost barrier they cannot cross or because, for decades, this parliament under Labor and Liberal governments has collectively decided that it's okay that our Medicare system, loved by the community, doesn't recognise that the mouth is part of the body and doesn't recognise that mental health care is health care and should be covered as health care. Those are the basic realities, those are the basic recognitions that are needed, and that's what it would look like if this government were serious in this space.

We will continue to be serious and work with people of goodwill across this chamber who are serious, who may have different views to ours, with a shared agreement that we must get to work. I urge the government to join us in that work, because it is the work, the task and the priority that the Australian community actually needs of this place at this time. Thank you.

Senator Ananda-Rajah.

Thank you—

I would like to move an amendment, standing in my name, that has been circulated in the chamber. I just need to flag that for procedural reasons.

Sure. We'll come to you at the appropriate time.

I have not seen this amendment circulated, so Senator Steele-John may wish to check that this has occurred.

I'll make sure that we have done that. Thank you.

Thank you for that clarification and for helping the chamber in that regard. Senator Ananda-Raja, back to you.

As a former practising doctor, I welcome any reform that lowers the cost of medicine. We as a Labor government have been, from the get-go, delivering this for the Australian people over the course of two terms now. Since we were first elected we've seen consecutive reductions in the cost of medicines. They were originally around $42. We lowered them to $32 per general script, and from 1 January next year it will fall again to $25 a script. The last time medicines were $25 a script was in 2004. Do you know what else was big in 2004? Shannon Noll exploded onto the scene with his hit, 'What About Me?' Ian Thorpe cemented his greatness at the Athens Olympics, winning more gold medals, and Facebook was founded in 2004. Maybe that was not so great. What is great is seeing the cost of general medicines drop. Why is it important? From a medical standpoint it's important because I've seen patients ration their medicines. That means that either they cut them in half or take them every second day. In other words, they're trying to make them stretch. That has consequences. It leads to avoidable emergency department presentations with a whole list of ailments.

When you think about it, nine out of 10 Australians have chronic diseases. Millions and millions of Australians take medicines on a regular basis. The average family that has, say, four regular scripts, will save around $300 a year. That's $300 more to spend on other items like clothing for the kids, paying rent, buying something special or going out and having a nice time at a restaurant. I welcome these changes, I'm particularly excited about the impact that this will have on emergency department presentations, which I think will be very interesting to monitor going forward.

This reform builds on a whole suite of changes that we have brought in for medicines. I particularly like 60-day scripts, which now include nearly 300 medicines on the PBS. That means you can go and see your doctor and ask your doctor to give you a 60-day script instead of a 30-day script. Again, it means saving more money, as well as convenience, so that you don't have to keep turning up to receive that script each time.

This reform of course builds upon one of Labor's proudest legacies and public achievements, and that is the founding of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. That was a Chifley government legacy in 1948, and this bill takes the principle of access to essential medicines forward again. I thank you.

The Labor government is committed to strengthening Medicare and to delivering cheaper medicines. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme provides timely, reliable and affordable access to necessary for medicines for all Australians, and it has no better friend than the Albanese government. We are supporting all Australians with cost-of-living relief, and this bill is one of the many ways we are providing more-affordable medicines to Australians. General patients will save more than $200 million each year.

The contributions that have been made here today and in the other place tell us so much about why this is important. We've heard, firsthand, accounts of the sacrifices too many Australians make—sacrificing their health by spacing out prescriptions or cutting doses to make them last longer. But, thanks to Labor's plan, the maximum amount a general patient will pay will be $25 per prescription from 1 January, plus any applicable premiums. It provides immediate cost-of-living relief to patients without a concession card while also ensuring that the PBS remains a sustainable investment for government that doesn't come at the expense of priorities like listing new medicines, like investment in other essential health services such as bulk-billing, and like a competitive and sustainable pharmaceutical market. 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.

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

I advise there are a couple more second reading amendments. I call Senator Payne to move hers.

I move my second reading amendment as circulated on sheet 3385:

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

(a) notes that:

(i) in August 2025 over 300 medicines were in shortage in Australia,

(ii) alternatives approved during shortages are often sold out very quickly, and

(iii) lowering the cost of medicine does nothing if there is no medicine for Australians to buy; and

(b) calls on the Government to ensure that the supply of medicine is able to meet Australia's needs".

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

There is one more second reading amendment. I call Senator Steele-John. I understand it has been circulated in the chamber, Senator Steele-John.

Yes, it has been circulated. I move the second reading amendment standing in my name:

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

(a) notes that:

(i) Australians are experiencing a cost-of-living crisis,

(ii) 3 in 10 people delay or avoid seeing the dentist due to cost,

(iii) in 2022-23 there were more than 87,000 potentially preventable hospitalisations due to dental conditions; and

(b) calls on the Government to recognise that the mouth is part of the body and to bring dental healthcare fully into Medicare, starting with an immediate commitment to fund and implement a Senior Dental Benefits Scheme".

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

Minister, the PBS is budgeted at $19.5 billion this year and $20.7 billion next year. Is that the full cost of the PBS? Are there prescriptions written under the PBS that are not counted in those figures?

The advice I have, Senator, is that the published costings for the PBS include only those medicines issued from within the PBS. There are other scripts issued privately, but they are not counted in the published costs.

Are prescriptions written for public hospital inpatients included in the costing?

The advice I have, Senator, is that those are dealt with separately, through agreements that are made with the states and territories.

The PBS increased in cost, from $17.7 billion in 2023-24, to $19.5 billion in 2024-25. That's a $1.8 billion increase in a single year. What happened in 2024-25 that caused this huge increase?

I'm not in a position to confirm for you the numbers that you cite. I have no reason to doubt them, but I don't have those budget figures in front of me. If I have additional information I can provide to you, I will, but, at this point, I don't have the information that you seek

Are you aware, Minister, that there was a huge increase in 2024-25?

I can inform you that we are aware that, as new medicines are added to the PBS, some of them relate to advanced therapies. They respond to very significant improvements in technology which are delivering better outcomes for patients, and some of the costs associated with the PBS will inevitably be associated with the listing of some of those advanced therapies.

I understand you put the co-payment down. The reduction in the co-payment was costed in your own impact analysis at $738 million, three-quarters of $1 billion, for two years or $369 million per year. Where did the other $1.4 billion of cost increase come from?

I might ask Senator Roberts to perhaps go over that question again. I'm not sure that the relationship that you're asserting between the cost of this measure and the cost of the PBS is as you think it is. Perhaps, if you ask the question again, I can seek advice from the officials.

The reduction in co-payment was costed in your own impact analysis at $738 million for two years or $369 million per year. Where did the other $1.4 billion cost increase come from?

In general, there are a range of cost drivers within the PBS. You are correct that there are costs associated with reducing the maximum co-payment, and they are as you've described them. Other cost drivers within the PBS are generally associated with new listings, and, as I indicated to you earlier, some of the new listings are associated with advanced therapies which, as new technologies, deliver very strong outcomes for patients but have costs attached to them.

In the last financial year, how many people were given access to the PBS as a result of gaining access to Medicare? For clarity, how many new people came into the Medicare or PBS system last calendar or financial year? I'm looking for whatever data you have, please, Minister.

I am seeking information. Senator Roberts, essentially, your question asks about increases in the number of people who are eligible to access Medicare. I don't believe that I'll be in a position to answer that in today's discussion, but I'm seeing if there is any other information that's relevant to your question that I may provide to you.

Thank you, Minister, for your openness. I have another question on an associated topic. How many people are accessing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme who are not Australian citizens or permanent residents, and under what circumstances are they allowed to access it?

I can confirm that eligibility for the PBS is attached to eligibility for Medicare, and so the eligibility criteria for Medicare is essentially the same as the eligibility criteria for the PBS.

Minister, is this correct? To be eligible, a person must be living in Australia and meet one of the following criteria to be eligible for Medicare: an Australian citizen; a New Zealand citizen living in Australia; an Australian permanent resident or someone applying for permanent residency, within certain conditions; a temporary resident covered by a ministerial order; a resident of Norfolk Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Christmas Island or Lord Howe Island; someone covered by a reciprocal healthcare agreement within their own country—of the 11 countries, New Zealand and Great Britain have reciprocal arrangements, but otherwise they are small Western countries. Isn't this a concern?

Senator, I think that you are probably reading from government information in relation to eligibility. The government is bringing this bill before the chamber with a view to lowering the price, the maximum co-payment, that can be paid by a person under the PBS. It's not a bill to deal with eligibility for the PBS or eligibility for Medicare. The government, broadly, of course, reviews settings from time to time, but the government self-evidently is not bringing a bill before this chamber to change eligibility for Medicare.

Thank you, Minister; I wasn't imputing that you are. All I want to get a handle on is the cost. Let's just focus on two: people applying for Australian citizenship, currently totalling 150,000 people, from outstanding applications, and temporary residents covered by ministerial order. This includes humanitarian visas. Is that correct?

I'm not in a position to provide the numbers that Senator Roberts is asking for. As I've sort of indicated already, the bill that's before the Senate seeks to deal with the change in the maximum co-payment. It is not a bill that deals with eligibility. The officials here have not come prepared to answer questions at the level of detail that you're asking them, in terms of numbers of people who are eligible under certain kinds of visa categories.

I thought I acknowledged that last time, that you had already mentioned that point. What I'm interested in is what this will cost the Australian taxpayer. Can you confirm that refugees entering under a 786 humanitarian visa are being enrolled in Medicare or the PBS, and, if so, how many 786 visa holders are accessing Medicare in total?

I'll refer the senator to the answer I provided just now to his question. I can confirm that the government is confident about the costings attached to the measure that's before the parliament.

What measures is the government taking to ensure that the person presenting a Medicare card to access taxpayer subsidised prescriptions is the person or family to whom the card was issued?

Senator Roberts has asked questions of this kind before, I think. The last time we engaged on a health bill in this chamber he asked similar kinds of questions. There are a range of ways that the government seeks to monitor questions of integrity within both the PBS and the Medicare system. These issues are significantly beyond the terms of this bill, which, I've already explained, go to the co-contribution that may be levied within the PBS.

Thank you, Minister. I disagree with you because it all impacts at a cost to the taxpayers. Let's move on. How much would taxpayers save by imposing an eight-year wait for access to Medicare and the PBS for new arrivals?

I don't believe the government has costed that policy option.

I will reiterate that question, from Senator Roberts, with regard to using the Medicare card. The minister stated that it has no relation to this bill. This bill is about the PBS. That's prescriptions. It does relate to it, very much so, because there is fraud going on. People are using someone else's Medicare card to go and see a doctor, and that doctor prescribes scripts to them that they are not entitled to.

This is fraud. It is estimated that the cost of fraud imposed on Australian taxpayers is up to $3 billion a year. What precautions are the government taking to stop this fraud from happening, to ensure that a person using a Medicare card in this country is not some tourist visa holder visiting friends or family or someone accessing these drugs—paid for by taxpayers—and taking them out of the country to sell on the black market?

Some of the facts cited by Senator Hanson, in her question, are not facts that the government agrees with. However, I can assure Senator Hanson that, amongst other things, pharmacists are required to ensure that the person to whom the prescription is being dispensed is, indeed, the person to whom it has been prescribed.

I'm fully aware that you give your name and your address. There is no identification required other than the Medicare card or the script that is handed over to the pharmacist. What facts have I stated that are not true?

There are a number of aspects of your question that I am uncertain about, including you citing $3 billion associated with this kind of activity. To obtain a card within the PBS, you are required to provide ID.

Minister, I'm confused. I thought I was pretty good at maths. The explanatory memorandum says:

Patients who are part of the Closing the Gap program won't have to pay more to reach the general patient PBS Safety Net threshold.

The safety net is expressed as a dollar value and prescription is also expressed as a dollar value. How could a person spend more to reach the safety net, and that is a defined value? Yes, they would need more prescriptions to qualify but they wouldn't, as your explanatory memorandum says, spend any more money. How is that the case? It's basic maths.

The advice I have is that the Closing the Gap program you refer to is different to the co-contributions that are required of general patients under the PBS.

I'll see if I can make sense of that one. Let's move to another topic. Are Americans still telling us which drugs to approve?

Decisions about which medicines are listed under the PBS are made by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee.

Does USA pharma have any input into or say on the drugs sold under or put on our PBS system?

McALLISTER (—) (): The objective of the PBS is to make sure Australians have access to medicines that will help them and improve their health. The role of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee is to make that assessment. In doing so, they take information from a range of sources. The decision is taken by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee.

In 2004 Australia signed a free trade agreement with America, and pharmaceuticals were part of it. Part of the agreement was that a medicines working group would be set up and the Americans would be part of that board, which would indicate what drugs would be available on the PBS scheme. Were you aware of that, Minister, and, tell me, is that medicines working group still active? I haven't been told any different.

I reiterate my answer to the previous question, which is that the government depends on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee to provide advice to it about which medicines should be listed on the PBS. I understand your question suggests there is some alternative or different mechanism. That is not correct. I reassure senators and, indeed, the public that decisions about which medicines are to be listed are taken by the government on the advice of this committee. That is a process that has operated under both Liberal and Labor governments over a long period of time.

I'll explain to people what my understanding is and what I have read and come to understand about pharmaceuticals in the agreement. When the free trade agreement was drawn up, it was signed in 2004 and became an act in January 2005 here in Australia. America doesn't have a PBS scheme. We're one of the very few countries in the world that has it; it started up in Australia in 1953. The United States were very concerned about it because the United States wanted to access our market and were very concerned that they wouldn't be able to get medications from pharma onto the market here in Australia. That's why this medicines working group was set up—to allow the Americans to have a say in what medications went onto the PBS scheme.

You may ask why this is of interest to the Americans. It's because pharma make a lot of money out of the drugs they sell worldwide. A case in point is that pharma claims they can spend half a billion dollars to produce a drug, whereas, in fact, a lot of the government research departments and universities do the basics of that drug and then hand it to pharma, and they progress it further. So it really doesn't cost them that amount of money. It could have been around $60 million to $70 million at that time—I am going back to the time when this was drawn up. They pass on that cost to the consumer. It was in the interests of the Americans to get this deal out of Australia—to have an input into the drugs here into Australia.

Also, on top of that, the big problem is generic brands. The generic brands usually have a patent. When these drug companies make the drug, they can have a patent on it. It used to be for around 12 years; then it was extended to 15 years and 20 years, and now it's 25 years. That's because they want to protect it. So when a drug is patented, the drug companies can get big money for it. Once it comes out of the patent, other drug companies can use it and sell the drug a lot cheaper. So it's in their interest to make a lot of money for their shareholders from this drug.

Are we really looking after the purse of the taxpayer in this country? We have seen the cost of the PBS system go up by billions of dollars. I want to put some background to this. There is something that I would like to know, on behalf of the Australian people. Under the PBS scheme, these drugs—the generic brands—are basically the same, but they're cheaper because they're not under the patent of these big companies. Minister, what I would like to ask you is this: If you are going to have taxpayer funded drugs, is it part of your plan to ensure that generic drugs are issued before big pharma or other companies make huge profits out of this? To cut the cost to the taxpayer, will you ensure that generic brands are delivered to the patient or the person who is getting it, if it is the same medication?

Perhaps I can make some general observations about the significance of the PBS to the health of Australians and to the overall way that we approach public health in Australia. The PBS is an incredibly significant instrument for Australian public policy. It does mean that we are able to obtain access to medicines from a range of suppliers and from a range of different countries at very competitive prices, and we are able to provide those to Australian citizens. Our feedback, and the feedback from people I talk to in my electorate, is that it is one of the government programs they care about the most. You may hear something different in Queensland, Senator Hanson, but that's not what I hear. I hear from mums and dads on the ground that having access to affordable medicine through the PBS is highly valued, because every Australian wants to know that if their child, partner, parent or neighbour is sick, they will be able to get access to the medicine that they require. It's why in our public-policy making we place such a high emphasis on making sure it continues to be affordable.

The investment that is being debated in the Senate today is a really significant part of this. It is, as other senators have pointed out, a very long time since the maximum co-contribution for an Australian to make under the PBS was $25. That's a big deal. It will mean a great deal to many families who are looking for support in accessing the medicines they require, and it has flow-on benefits for the rest of the health system. It's important that people are treated in a timely way with the medicines that are prescribed to them because it preserves and protects their health and, in some circumstances, prevents people from accessing more acute medical services as a consequence of their health deteriorating.

This government is absolutely committed to protecting the integrity of that system. Senator Hanson, you and Senator Roberts have asked questions this morning that suggest there is some other process at play. Without evidence, you suggest that the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee is not, in fact, making decisions. I am here to tell you that that is incorrect. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee is the body that is tasked with evaluating applications to list medicines on the PBS. It's an incredibly important mechanism. The integrity of that process is important to government. And I can assure taxpayers that the entire purpose of the PBS is to make sure that we work on behalf of all Australians to obtain medicine at an affordable price so that all Australians can access the health care that they require.

Minister, I'm fully aware of how important the PBS is to the Australian people. I just want to remind the Senate and the Australian people that it was One Nation, prior to the 2019 election, that advocated to drop the prescription cost from over $40 to $19. We were the only ones that advocated that, in 2019, so we're very well aware of the cost on the average Australian out there, with the PBS schemes. And it was then that the Liberal Party did drop it, to about $32, and only after that did the Labor Party come in to drop it further. But ours was at $19, which was supported by the pharmaceutical industry.

The minister has not answered the question with regard to generic brands, and the reason we are questioning this is that the cost is going up; it is costing billions and billions of extra taxpayer dollars. I want accountability that the money is being spent properly by the people who are truly entitled to it—yet you can't even answer that question—to ensure that they are actually covered for it.

The question I have raised is important to taxpayers. I'm not denying people access to the PBS, but I definitely want accountability, and you have not been able to answer those questions in this chamber at all. As I asked you, Minister, what are you going to do to address the generic brands that are available and that are cheaper? Have you put in your legislation that generic brands should be given out first, before the brands of these big pharmaceutical companies, which make their money—hundreds of millions of dollars—out of the taxpayer? Why can't you answer that one?

I can provide Senator Hanson with information about the approach that's taken to generic drugs. Of course we recognise that once a drug is out of patent it produces opportunities for other brands to produce that drug, and those brands then seek listing on the PBS, as any other brand would do. I am advised that at the moment there are over 900 drugs on the PBS; 419 of those are listed with generic brand options available.

Minister, I stand by what Senator Hanson said. Regarding your comment that 'the PBS is an incredibly significant instrument', I agree; we agree. It's significant for people who are using the drugs, and it's highly significant for the people who are making the drugs. In COVID, we had $18 billion transferred from we the people to big pharma, for a drug that was approved provisionally by the TGA, with no testing in this country. Professor Skerritt confirmed that for me in Senate estimates. He said he relied upon the FDA in America. The FDA had previously said that they relied entirely on Pfizer and didn't undertake their own testing. So, we're transferring vast amounts of money—billions of dollars—to big pharma, with no independent testing. So, I ask the question, is anyone on the TGA getting royalties from big pharma? In America, there are people at the National Institutes of Health who are getting royalties from big pharma, for drugs that taxpayers funded the research of, and then the approvers get the royalties. Is anyone from the TGA getting royalties from big pharma?

You and Senator Hanson have sought to use the committee stage for this bill to canvass a wide set of issues—some of which are grounded in fact, some of which are not. We are now straying well beyond the parameters of the bill. This is a bill that deals with co-payments associated with the PBS. It doesn't deal with the operation of the TGA. But I do wish to say that I do not think it is in the public interest for you and others to undermine public confidence in the TGA.

The TGA is a well-established authority which serves an important purpose: validating the suitability of pharmaceuticals for use in Australia. It plays a critical role in ensuring that medicines are safe and fit for purpose when they're used in Australia and it is a precursor for being able to list medicines on the PBS. It is part of a world-leading health infrastructure that sees Australians enjoy significantly better health outcomes than many other people across many of the countries that we would ordinarily compare ourselves with. We are proud of that health infrastructure. You may not be proud; you may have a different agenda. But my view is that we are best served by ensuring that Australians can be confident in the health organisations that have done a good job over many years in supporting the health of Australian citizens.

I'm giving you a huge opportunity to actually validate the TGA. This is a huge opportunity, which is in the public interest. All I'm doing—and all Senator Hanson's doing—is asking questions based on fact. Where we don't know the facts, we ask simple questions. You have a huge opportunity to dispel every question. The TGA has done more damage to itself than any other person or entity in this country as a result of its handling of COVID. That's what raised serious questions amongst the whole population of this country. The TGA did that to itself.

I have another question. Is Professor Skerritt lobbying on behalf of Medicines Australia to the TGA or to the pharmaceutical advisory approval committee?

I refer Senator Roberts to my answers to his earlier questions.

I move amendment (1) on sheet 3424:

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 6), omit "$25.00", substitute "$20.00".

_____

Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendment (1)

Amendment (1) is framed as a request because it amends the bill to further reduce the proposed general patient charge amount from $25.00 to $20.00. The amendment will increase expenditure to subsidise the cost of medicines above the general patient charge amount. The amendment would therefore increase the amount of Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme payments made from the Medicare Guarantee Fund (Health) Special Account.

As the effect of this amendment is to increase payments made from the Medicare Guarantee Fund (Health) Special Account, it will increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 80 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 or in certain circumstances the standing appropriation in section 18 of the Medicare Guarantee Act 2017.

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendment (1)

If the effect of the amendment is to increase expenditure under a standing appropriation, then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendment be moved as a request.

The amendment calls for the proposed general patient charge amount of $25 to be reduced to $20. The Pharmacy Guild advocated to reduce it to $19 for it to truly be effective for Australians who are struggling to put food on the table and pay for their medications. This would massively help them with affordability and the cost-of-living crisis.

The government will not be supporting the amendment moved by Senator Payman. We reiterate the point that, thanks to Labor's plan, the maximum amount a general patient pays will be $25 per prescription plus any applicable premiums. We consider that it provides immediate cost-of-living relief to patients without a concession card, but the important thing is that it will also ensure that the PBS remains sustainable. These are some of the things that parties of government need to give consideration to because we need to ensure that the PBS operates in a way that allows us to continue to list new medicines; allows us to continue, as a government, to make investments in other essential services like bulk-billing; and allows us to ensure that we have a competitive and sustainable pharmaceutical market.

I should add, Senator Payman, that it is also the case that this is the policy that we took to the last election and the policy that the Australian people voted for.

():  I want to put on record the Greens' position in relation to this amendment. We will be supporting this amendment, but the context for that support is one in which our position as a party, which we took to the election, is to actually eliminate co-payments for those with concession cards and to lower the rate for non-concession-card holders to the current concessional rate. We see this amendment, offered to the Senate, as a step closer to the policy position that we advocated for, so we will support it on that basis. I just wanted to make clear what our continued position in relation to this policy in fact is—which is that those on concession cards should not have to pay a co-payment to get their medicines and the rest of the community should have to pay no more than the current concessional rate.

The question is that the request for amendment moved by Senator Payman on sheet 3424 be agreed to.

I have only two questions to go, Minister. You didn't answer the question about whether or not there's an American representative on the pharmaceutical approvals advisory committee. Is there a big pharma representative on it?

Information about the make-up of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee is publicly available.

This is my last question. Has the government had any discussions on this matter regarding drug pricing and availability with the Trump presidency?

Your question is very general. Our government, of course, engages with elements of the US administration on many occasions and for many reasons. I'm not in a position to give you detailed information about every conversation that might have been had at every time, but I can refer you to my earlier answer where I was very clear that the Australian government is keenly aware of the significance of the PBS to Australians and to the Australian public healthcare system. We are deeply committed to preserving it because of its utility over so many decades for all of our people.

Thank you, Minister. I reiterate what Senator Hanson said, about 15 minutes ago, as to how important the PBS is to the Australian people, and One Nation supports it. We've made it easier for people to access the PBS. I'm just concerned that big pharma is primarily—

Senator Roberts, please resume your seat. It being 1.00 pm, the committee will report progress.

Progress reported.

I move:

That the Senate:

1. Condemns the racist, white supremacist, and anti-immigrant rallies held over the weekend and condemns the support of and attendance at the rallies by MPs;

2. Notes:

a. That racism and anti-immigrant hate has been normalised and legitimised in this country by politicians and by the media who fan the flames of hate;

b. That dog whistling on migrants, refugees and international students by politicians of all stripes has emboldened the far-right;

c. That politicians have used hate, fear and scapegoating to cover up their own policy failures on the housing and cost of living crises; and

d. That the alarm has been sounded on far-right extremism for years and has been routinely ignored; and

3. Reiterates its solidarity with the communities who bear the brunt of white supremacy, Neo-Nazism, and right-wing extremism.

On the weekend, Neo-Nazis and far-right extremists spoke and led marches across our cities publicising their hate and racism. Thousands of people joined them in the streets to call for an end to immigration and for the expulsion of—let's face it—people of colour from Australia.

This country's violent discrimination and racism started with colonisation and has never really stopped. In Melbourne, the Neo-Nazis stormed Camp Sovereignty; it was a despicable display of white supremacy. This rampage on the weekend should be a wake-up call that you all, in this chamber and in the other one, have either downplayed or fuelled this hate and racism. The far right have been emboldened. They are loud and they are on the move. And it has been coming for a while. So let's not pretend that racism and far-right extremism are not a problem in this country. Racism is the foundation of settler colonial states. It is not new. But it has been blatantly legitimised and normalised in the media and by politicians who seek to fan the flames of hate and division, and it is this that gives Neo-Nazis succour and it is the reason that they are emboldened.

Migrants like me have been told repeatedly to put up, shut up or go back to where I come from. Is it any wonder that the far right feel that they can publicise this racism on the streets as well? For migrants like me, our belonging to this country has always been conditional—conditional on keeping our heads down and our mouths shut. While we keep agreeing with those in power and doing the hard work that no-one else wants to do, then we are 'good migrants'. But as soon as we find our voice and have the temerity to question you, all hell breaks loose and we suddenly become 'bad migrants'.

These anti-immigrant marches do not happen in a vacuum. They cause real world impact and they cause real harm. Just this morning, I received this message: 'Eff you and piss off back to Pakistan. Australia is not your home. You're not welcome here. You're an effing dog.' Last week it was this: 'Maybe we come find you, rape you, shoot you and your family dead, slice off your tits and call it resistance.' And it is not to me alone; instances of vile racist hate and violence are directed at First Nations people, migrants, refugees and people of colour every single day in this country. And it is the people in here that normalise and legitimise this hate. It is harming people. It is making their lives miserable and unsafe.

Last year Labor passed some of the most draconian anti-refugee and anti-immigration laws we have ever seen in this country. Labor scapegoats international students for a housing crisis they did not cause. Labor and Liberals, for years, have punched down on migrants and refugees, in ways not even the Liberals dreamed up. For the past two years, Labor and the coalition have been smearing and vilifying pro-Palestine activists. They have been doing that while literal Nazis are marching on the streets of this country. I do hope that that is a wake-up call for all of you to change course and do something about far-right extremism, which you have been ignoring.

Then of course there are the merchants of hate right here in this chamber—the likes of One Nation, who have nothing to offer but their racism and white supremacy, to just cause division and hate. Politicians, the media and the government—

Sorry, Senator Faruqi. Senator Hanson?

I want that comment withdrawn.

Thank you, Senator Hanson. I will just confer.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order, please! I am about to rule. Senator Faruqi, it is unparliamentary to cast aspersions over any other senator. I accept that you did name the party rather than an individual, but that is very, very close to the line. I'm going to be listening carefully to the rest of your speech and I ask that you maintain the standards that are required for debate in this chamber.

The Greens condemn these anti-immigrant racist marches. We condemn the senators and MPs who supported and spoke at the marches. I know that the Labor government has an amendment to our motion, which waters down the motion, but in the interest of making sure that this chamber does something and makes a comment and agrees that what happened on the streets is something we should reject—even if they don't agree with the condemnation—the Greens will support that change.

It is on every single senator and MP, here and there, to make sure that they do not spew hate and racism and they do not scapegoat and blame migrants and refugees for their own policy failures; otherwise, this country will never be safe! (Time expired)

I call the minister.

I move an amendment in the terms circulated in the chamber:

Omit all words after "That the Senate", substitute:

(a) affirms that Australia is a nation that welcomes different races, religions and views, united by respect for each other's humanity and for each other's right to live in peace;

(b) therefore rejects the racism, white supremacy and condemnation of immigrants on display at rallies held over the weekend, and profoundly disapproves of MPs supporting and attending these rallies;

(c) calls upon all political representatives to:

(i) reject the normalisation or legitimisation of racism and anti-immigrant hate in this country,

(ii) reject dog whistling on First Peoples, migrants, refugees and international students, which has emboldened the far-right,

(iii) reject any use of hate, fear and scapegoating to cover up their own policy failures on the housing and cost of living crises,

(iv) reject any attempt to downplay or ignore concerns about far-right extremism, and

(v) stand together against far-right extremism as alien to Australia and the values of this nation; and

(d) reiterates its solidarity with the communities who bear the brunt of white supremacy, neo-Nazism and right-wing extremism.

Senators, our government has zero tolerance for hate and discrimination in all its forms. We are building a safer, more inclusive Australia for everyone. Every Australian, no matter their race or religion, should feel safe and welcome without prejudice or discrimination. I make what I think should be an obvious point, that multiculturalism is an integral and a valued part of our national identity. We stand with all Australians, no matter where they were born, against those who seek to divide us and against those who seek to intimidate migrant communities. In targeting specific ethnic groups, like the wave of anti-Indian sentiment we saw over the weekend, is overt racism.

We are moving this amendment, in part, to respond to a proud history in this chamber. I've been here for 10 years now. On a number of occasions, the vast majority of senators in this place have been able to come together and to say clearly and unequivocally that we do not support bigotry, that we do not support prejudice and that we don't believe it is reflective of Australian values.

Senator Faruqi characterised our motion in a particular way. I don't agree with that. We have sought to move this amendment to do two things. Of course, we think this chamber should express what it means to be an Australian and what we seek to have Australia be. Australia welcomes different races, religions and views, united by respect for each other's humanity and for each other's right to live in peace. Over the weekend, we saw people claiming to march for Australia while many of them, in fact, are in conflict with Australia's values of respect and inclusion. We are also amending this motion to be clearer about who it is that is promoting hate.

Senator Faruqi's motion says that all media and politicians of all stripes—presumably, including those of a green stripe—have been fanning the flames of hate. And just now Senator Faruqi doubled down on that idea. Those kinds of sweeping statements are wrong, and they are not productive. We do not believe that politicians and all media have been doing this. We should be promoting those who've been helping to build the Australia that we value, rather than condemning them by way of blanket statements. That isn't a way to build a broad, inclusive movement for peace and respect. No-one should have to confront the level of fear and oppression that was levied against migrant Australians and the Indian community in particular over the weekend. Those who are visibly different bear the brunt of anti-immigration sentiment. Our migrants, our minorities are blamed and scapegoated by a whole range of concerns. It's not accurate, it's not fair, and there should be no place for it in modern Australia.

The coalition will also be moving an amendment in my name. The amendment that we propose to move does one very simple thing, which I would have thought, given the speech that Senator McAllister has just given on behalf of the government, would be a very easy amendment to support. Our amendment goes to the simple principle: Australia must defend free speech and peaceful assembly while drawing a hard line against extremism of every kind.

The coalition is concerned that a number of rallies yesterday were hijacked by a minority of Neo-Nazis. Let me be very clear, lest we are verballed. There is no place for Neo-Nazis in Australia. Their hatred and extremism are a disgrace, and they must be condemned without hesitation. We will not, however, support this motion, because it seeks to suggest that all attendees at the rallies over the weekend were racists and white supremacists. That is clearly not the case. Disappointingly, the amendment moved by the government does not draw a hard line against extremism of every kind.

It's also not lost on me—the irony of Senator Faruqi moving this motion is clear for everyone to see. This is very important for Australians to understand. This is the senator who marched in a rally a few weeks ago where individuals proudly held a portrait of the Ayatollah Khamenei carrying a machine gun. Now, Senator Faruqi, just like myself on behalf of the coalition, could have moved a motion condemning the extremists who hijacked the rally that she attended, but she did not. Quite frankly, Senator Faruqi has no credibility lecturing Australians about anti-extremism.

Senator, please resume your seat.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senators! Order! Everyone will come to order.

Senator McKim. I'm going to insist there be no interruptions at all to any speaker, as has been the courtesy given to other speakers already. Senator Cash, back to you.

Senator Faruqi was quick to condemn those who attended anti-immigration rallies, yet she had no hesitation marching across the Sydney Harbour Bridge during a protest where terrorist flags were flown and extremist chants rang out. Australians, though, can see the double standard. Ordinary mum and dads concerned about Labor losing control of immigration and in particular the impact on housing are smeared and vilified, but when Hamas and Hezbollah banners are paraded in our streets Senator Faruqi and, unfortunately, it would appear, given the government's amendment, the government, not only look the other way; but, quite frankly, in Senator Faruqi's case, she joins the crowd.

As I said, we have a simple principle in the coalition: Australia must defend free speech and peaceful assembly while drawing a hard line against extremism of every kind. The overwhelming majority of Australians who join rallies and protests do so peacefully and lawfully. Their right to do so is a cornerstone of our democracy and must always be protected. But when extremists attempt to hijack those rallies, whether they be Neo-Nazis, pro-Iranian agitators or terrorist sympathisers, as we have seen over the last few weeks, the line must be drawn.

Neo-Nazi symbols have appeared at immigration rallies. That is an absolute disgrace. Pro-Iranian extremists have sought to intimidate communities. That is an absolute disgrace. Most disturbingly, the flags and slogans of proscribed terrorist organisations, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, have been displayed openly on Australian streets, including across the Sydney Harbour Bridge. Let me say that that is an absolute disgrace. These are not legitimate political statements. They are acts of intimidation designed to spread fear and glorify violence.

I have a very, very strong message for the government: the Senate cannot be selective in its condemnation. Hate is hate; extremism is extremism. The Senate must apply one standard—not one for one group that Labor finds it politically expedient to denounce and another for those it prefers to excuse.

The amendment, moved on behalf of the coalition, ensures that principle is upheld. It calls for the strict enforcement of the laws we already have against glorifying terrorism and inciting violence. I'm actually astounded that the government is not able to adopt our amendment. If they did, the Senate would make clear that we defend the right of Australians to peaceful protest, but we will never tolerate those who seek to poison our democracy with swastikas, terrorist flags or pro-dictatorship propaganda.

I want to thank Senator Faruqi for coming in here and telling the truth, for coming in here—as she has time after time after time—to face the barrage of hate from the coalition that comes at her and for continuing to stand and speak the truth with strength. We heard yet another barrage of hate from the coalition just then—the coalition who are going to come into this place and use their numbers in this debate to run cover for Neo-Nazis, to prevent the Senate passing a motion condemning Neo-Nazis, as part of their hateful, divisive, ugly politics that so often they direct against Senator Faruqi.

Honourable senators interjecting—

I hate to interrupt you, but I ask you to be seated. Senators, given the sensitivity of the debate I'm going to insist, again, that everyone please listen to the contributions in silence. If you want an opportunity to speak, you will be given it.

This motion is condemning the racist, white supremacist and anti-immigrant rallies held over the weekend and condemns the support of, and attendance at, the rallies by MPs. Do you know what those in the coalition are going to do? They are going to vote against it because they want to be in a position to platform Neo-Nazis as part of their general attack against multiculturalism. To watch them come in here and run cover for Neo-Nazis is a new low. To run cover for those MPs and senators who went to attend and spread hateful politics attacking multiculturalism and attacking migrants is equally low. But they'll do it, because that's their politics—that's where they come from. It's a shameful, shameful low that the coalition has fallen to in 2025.

But I think we should take a step back and work out who also has been giving cover for anti-immigrant, anti-asylum seeker and anti-refugee politics. It's the club—it's Labor and the coalition. The coalition has the bigger dog whistle, but who has actually been passing the nastier laws and been feeding the anti-immigrant, anti-asylum-seeker rhetoric? Well, in the last three years, it has been Labor passing laws that are the most vicious attack on multiculturalism this country has seen since we abolished the White Australia policy.

In the same week that they're up speaking about their support for multiculturalism and their opposition to racism, they're going to be trying to ram through this parliament laws that take away procedural justice rights for people seeking asylum. In the same weekend that they were condemning these rallies, they were out there pumping their secret deal with Nauru to deport people who have sought asylum—against their wills and contrary to the refugee convention with Nauru—and to dog-whistle about that themselves. I'll give you two quotes that happened this weekend. Here's quote A: 'We need to send them back—no debate, no discussion.' I'll give you quote B:

Anyone who doesn't have a valid visa should leave the country.

One of those quotes was given by a Neo-Nazi at a rally on the weekend and one of them was given by a Labor government minister on the weekend. The fact that you cannot tell one from the other shows where modern Labor has got to. It shows what they're willing to do: on the one hand, pretend to oppose the coalition but, on the other, drive the political debate that demonises asylum seekers and seeks to say—as they have time and time again in their public utterances—that people coming here to seek asylum are somehow inherently criminal. And they seek to say that people who are seeking relief in the High Court are inherently criminal, to try and to give themselves political cover for their appalling laws. Every time they do that, every time Labor ministers and Labor members come up here and seek to demonise people seeking asylum, seek to draw a false equivalence between seeking asylum and being a criminal, they give the coalition cover for their dog whistle and they give the hateful neo-Nazis who came out on the weekend another reason to beat up on multicultural Australia, beat up on people of colour. That is what Labor has done.

Government senators interjecting—

Order! Senator Shoebridge, please resume your seat. Senator O'Sullivan previously said this debate will be heard in silence, so respect the call from the acting deputy president, and the debate will continue in silence.

If you look at the history of who has passed the most hateful laws against asylum seekers, pretty much every time it's Labor.

Every time!

Every time. Mandatory detention? Labor. Who cuts the Nauru deals and the attacks? It's Labor—

Senator McKim, which bit of 'silence' did you not understand?

He wasn't interrupting me.

Senator McKim, if you can't listen in silence, please leave the chamber.

Labor, Labor, Labor, attack, attack, attack, dog whistle, dog whistle, dog whistle—and they wonder why neo-Nazis are getting up on the weekend and attacking immigration, falsely trying to draw that parallel.

Order!

We say enough is enough.

Thank you, Senator Shoebridge.

If you care enough about multiculturalism, vote for it!

Senator Shoebridge, your time has expired! You need to respect my call as well. When I call time, that is what I mean.

For everyone following along at home and listening to the rhetoric, particularly from the Greens, let me read the coalition's amendment, put it on the record, as you might not have it in front of you:

Omit all words after "That the Senate", substitute:

"(a) reaffirms Australia's commitment to free speech and lawful assembly, and condemns all forms of extremism, intimidation, and violence, regardless of the cause;

(b) condemns the recent disruption of public rallies by Neo-Nazis, pro-Iranian Government extremists and those supporting terrorist organisations; and

(c) condemns the public display of symbols, slogans, or imagery that glorify or support proscribed terrorist organisations and urges the strict enforcement of existing laws against the glorification of terrorism and incitement to violence".

I am astounded that this is somehow a cause for debate, and I'm appalled that the party of government in this place finds itself unable to support an amendment as balanced as the one that we've put forward as a mature response to Senator Faruqi's motion.

The reality is that the one thing that unites new Australians and old Australians is a love of our country. Being a patriot isn't being a racist. We, on this side of the chamber, actually support the right to peaceful protest. We back our police, who put themselves in harm's way to keep order. Fringe extremists who tried to hijack the weekend's rallies deserve zero endorsement from anyone in this place. Their ideology is the opposite of Australian values. But let's be very clear. The vast majority of people at those rallies and the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Australians who support them but didn't go were expressing mainstream concerns about unchecked population growth, housing and social cohesion—concerns that we actually must hear, not attempt to smear, which is what is happening today. Senior ministers condemned the rallies and highlighted only extremist links. Senator Watt said they spread hate and were linked to Neo-Nazis. We reject both the hate and the tactic of tarring the many with the actions of a few. Old and new Australians alike want a safe, cohesive, confident nation. That's the Australia we speak for.

Last week, the Greens promoted a bill to entrench the national right to protest. This week, they want us to censor people who protest. Senator Faruqi herself has participated in marches with supporters of terrorist groups, sharing the platform with Hamas supporters and sympathisers, Iranian militants and antisemites. So spare us your sanctimony, your hypocrisy and your self-righteousness. You're happy to march alongside pictures of the Ayatollah Khomeini, who actually ordered a now proscribed terrorist organisation to bomb a synagogue in our country. But that's okay—we're really only worried about the Neo-Nazis! We should be worried about it all. Jew-hating, gay-hating and women-hating protesters on the other side need to be called out as well. It's ridiculous to suggest that everyone marching on the weekend was a Neo-Nazi, just as it would be ridiculous for me to suggest that those who marched across the Sydney Harbour Bridge were all terrorists. They're equally ridiculous contentions. That's why the coalition's amendment to this motion is a sound, sensible, mature response to a problem that doesn't just exist in this chamber but has spilt over into the streets of capital cities right across our country.

I'm not a globalist—like the Greens and many now in Labor are—who imagines a world without borders. A sovereign nation sets its intake of immigration in the national interest and with community consent. The Lowy Institute's poll suggests that 53 per cent of Australians say our immigration settings are too high and are having negative social, economic and, I would suggest, environmental impacts in our community. I'm prepared to have an open and honest conversation about that. I just wish the government was too.

I'd like to just make a few comments in response to some of the comments that have been made during this debate. In particular—supporting the comments that Senator McAllister has made—our government has zero tolerance for hate and discrimination in all its forms. Senator Shoebridge, you might like to listen to this.

We are working towards building a safer and more inclusive Australia for everyone, and the opportunity presented to the Senate this afternoon is to come together and respond to what we saw on the weekend. It is to see what we saw on the weekend and come together, just like we did in the wake of the October 7 attacks and just like we did when Senator Anning made some comments that we, as a parliament and as a chamber, decided weren't on. Those opportunities were often led by Senator Cormann or Senator Birmingham, coming in here and working with us. The government and the opposition would work together to reach agreement on a position about the way forward. But what do we see here today? We see finger-pointing across the chamber—from down there to up here—and the stirring of social division.

It's in no-one's interest in this chamber to make a stand and say that what we saw on the weekend was very concerning, is it? We saw issues around housing and around our migration program being hijacked under the umbrella of Neo-Nazi far-right organisations. That is what we saw, and that is what we should be responding to. Instead, we have the Greens political party standing up here and pointing the finger at the government.

Senator Shoebridge, your comments were disgraceful. They do no credit to you at all. We see you for what you are. You are stirring the pot and trying, as usual, to make a political point when the point that needed to be made following yesterday was about the kind of country we are. Look at what happens.

You do it, Senator Shoebridge, and the opposition do it too. There was no attempt to reach agreement on what a motion might be like. I know attempts were made to work with the opposition about the way of dealing with this, and those attempts by the government to work together and reach an agreement on a position that this Senate could take were not responded to. Instead, we have finger-pointing from Senator Cash and Senator McKenzie, who are asking, 'What's wrong with our amendment?'

We have an amendment put before the chamber that is better than yours, Senator Cash. Yes, there are elements of your amendment that we would support, but ours is stronger. Our amendment incorporates other feedback that we've had from Senator Thorpe, and I flagged that we would be moving amendments to the amendment circulated by Senator McAllister to incorporate some of the points that Senator Thorpe has raised with us about recognising the harm that has been done to First Nations people and also acknowledging what happened when those in Melbourne attacked Camp Sovereignty yesterday.

That is the opportunity before the Senate. Can we agree on a way forward? It might not be what everybody wants in all places, but, honestly, can't this chamber be slightly mature today and believe in this country and the national interest as opposed to partisan political interests? We see it again in the amendments moved by Senator Cash for business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 coming on later today. We see the legitimising of the pursuit of what was sought at the rallies yesterday into a reference to a committee. That is what you are doing, Senator Cash. You know full well what this is about. You, the opposition, a former party of government that had some standards, are prepared to trash that so that you can give air and time and a platform to the likes of what we saw yesterday. That is what you are up to—a party of government, a proud party that used to be—

On a point of order, I believe that is impugning the motives of Senator Cash as to the intention of her motion later today.

I think that's a debating point, Senator O'Sullivan.

This is where we're at today. The Greens are pointing the finger at the Labor Party. The opposition are pointing the finger at the Labor Party. One Nation is pointing the finger at the Labor Party. No-one is prepared to say what happened yesterday was not on. We are political leaders, and we should stand against racism. We should stand against division. We should stand against platforms when issues are hijacked to pursue another motive, which is causing harm to our multicultural community and to our First Nations community. That is what happened yesterday. My bet is that this chamber will not be mature enough to deal with it today. Let's see if we can come out of this with a motion that stands up for our country.

The time for the debate has now expired. Senator Cash?

I just seek some guidance. I need to confirm: did Senator Gallagher make a statement to the chamber that I, on behalf of the opposition, did not respond to Senator Wong in relation to our position on the government's amendment? I'm seeking clarification as to whether that statement was made and then what my recourse is to ensure that statement is corrected.

Senator Cash, I still think that's a debating point, and I'm going to leave it there.

How is it a debating point if I've been misrepresented?

Because it is a debating point. It's not a point of order. You have made that clarification, Senator Cash. You have made your point. It's not for the minister to respond.

I seek leave to make a one-minute statement to ensure that the record is properly corrected and I can read out my response to Senator Wong and her responses to me that occurred prior to the commencement of this debate.

Leave not granted.

The option is that you can have your one minute now, if you wish. The minister has also said she's happy to seek it later.

Thank you.

Senator Hanson-Young, I think we're trying to resolve this. Senator Cash is entitled to seek a point of clarification.

And then she sought leave.

Leave was not granted, and then Minister Gallagher said she was—

I don't need you singing out without any authority, thank you, Senator Shoebridge. As I indicated to the chamber, I am simply trying to sort this out. If leave is not granted—

Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. Next time I try to sort something out for you, I will remember that it's only the standing orders that apply. I am very sorry, Senator Cash. Leave is not granted. We are going to deal with the amendments. There are a number.

Senator Thorpe, the time for the debate has expired.

You can seek leave. Is leave granted for Senator Thorpe to move an amendment? Leave is granted, Senator Thorpe. It has been circulated?

Yes, it has been circulated. I'm going through the proper process. I move the amendment:

Senator Thorpe, by leave, moved the following amendment to Senator McAllister's amendment:

Omit paragraphs (a) to (d), substitute:

condemns:

the racist, white supremacist and anti-immigrant rallies held over the weekend and condemns the support of and attendance at the rallies by MPs, and

the far-right extremist neo-Nazis, including the National Socialist Network, who in Melbourne attacked Camp Sovereignty, a site of Aboriginal resistance and sacred resting place of 38 Nations;

notes that:

racism and anti-immigrant hate has been normalised and legitimised in this country by politicians and by the media who fan the flames of hate,

dog whistling on First Peoples, migrants, refugees and international students by politicians of all stripes has emboldened the far right,

politicians have used hate, fear and scapegoating to cover up their own policy failures on the housing and cost of living crises,

the alarm has been sounded on far-right extremism for years and has been routinely ignored, and

the far-right movement in this country is a continuation of the original violence and genocide against First Peoples that has occurred since invasion;

reiterates its solidarity with the communities who bear the brunt of white supremacy, neo-Nazism and right-wing extremism; and

calls on the Government to:

condemn these white supremacist attacks, and

ensure the Australian Federal Police investigates the attacks on Camp Sovereignty as hate crimes and acts of terrorism.

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

The question is that Senator Cash's amendment be agreed to.

I move the amendment to Senator McAllister's amendment as circulated in the chamber:

The Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) moved the following amendment to Senator McAllister's amendment:

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

(c) condemns the far-right extremist neo-Nazis, including the National Socialist Network, who in Melbourne attacked Camp Sovereignty, a site of Aboriginal resistance and sacred resting place of 38 Nations;

(d) calls upon all political representatives to:

(i) reject the normalisation or legitimisation of racism and anti-immigrant hate in this country,

(ii) reject dog whistling on First Peoples, migrants, refugees and international students, which has emboldened the far right,

(iii) reject any use of hate, fear and scapegoating to cover up their own policy failures on the housing and cost of living crises,

(iv) reject any attempt to downplay or ignore concerns about far-right extremism, and

(v) stand together against far-right extremism as alien to Australia and the values of this nation; and

(e) reiterates its solidarity with the communities who bear the brunt of white supremacy, neo-Nazism and right-wing extremism.

The question is that amendment moved by Senator Gallagher be agreed to.

(In division) Does this mean you support the Neo-Nazis?

Senator Thorpe, order!

Is this what this means?

Senator Thorpe!

You're a bunch of racists?

Senator Thorpe! Order!

You're a bunch of racists! You are the problem here in this country. You are—

Stop the count. Senator Thorpe, you will come to order when I require it.

Order! That is unnecessary! Senator Thorpe!

Senator Thorpe! Stop the count.

Order, Senator McKenzie! I would ask that you respect the chair. When I call for order, that's exactly what I expect. I'm now dealing with Senator McAllister's amendment to Senator Faruqi's motion. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. Senator Roberts?

We'd like to split part of amendment, part (a) from parts (b), (c) and (d).

Senator Roberts has requested that part (a) of the amendment be dealt with separately. I will put part (a) first. The question is that part (a) of the amendment moved by Senator McAllister be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

I am now going to put the rest of that amendment. The question that parts (b), (c) and (d) of the amendment moved by Senator McAllister be agreed to.

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

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

In the earlier debate on social cohesion, I said that Senator Cash had not responded to attempts by the government to engage and reach agreement on the way forward. I should have been clearer. It is not correct to say that Senator Cash didn't respond, but we were not able to reach an agreement on the way forward.

President, I realise this was not part of the debate, but, during divisions, interjections were made across the chamber which I believe were highly disorderly. They were direct reflections on all those opposite and were unparliamentary. I would ask you to consider those comments and, if appropriate, come back to the chamber.

Thank you, Senator Brockman.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, Senator McAllister. As at 31 March 2025, 87,597 older Australians were waiting for the home care they'd been assessed as needing. Experts have suggested that figure now has risen to over 100,000, but on Friday the department refused to release the most recent data despite having been repeatedly asked for it. Minister, how many Australians have been assessed as needing home-care packages and are currently waiting for a home-care package on the national priority list?

I thank Senator Ruston for the question. We are a Labor government and we, in some essential way, understand how important home care can be for older Australians and their families. Older Australians tell us that they want to spend as much time at home as they possibly can, and we know that their families want that too. That is precisely what our reforms are designed to deliver.

There is a lot of work to do. There is a lot of work to do because the record of the previous government was very, very bad. Indeed, it was a record that was characterised notoriously as 'neglect'. Everybody remembers that. It was a situation characterised by neglect.

I have a point of order on direct relevance. I merely asked the minister to advise the chamber of how many older Australians are waiting to receive their home-care packages. She has gone nowhere near answering that question.

Thank you, Senator Ruston. I will direct the minister to your question. Your question also talked about numbers at the beginning, so it wasn't a direct question. But I'm happy to direct the minister—

Senator Ruston, you're not in a debate with me. Minister McAllister, I'll draw you back to the question.

As the senator knows, this was canvassed in the hearing on Friday, and I understand that senators were informed that, as of 31 March, the national priority system data showed 87,597 people waiting for an approved home-care package.

Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Ruston?

Once again, it's on direct relevance. I actually acknowledged that in my question. I was merely asking the minister to tell us how many more people have joined that priority list since the date of 31 March 2025.

I think the minister is being relevant to your question, Senator Ruston. Minister McAllister, please continue.

As Senator Ruston knows, the purpose of the aged-care reforms, which we were grateful to receive bipartisan support for, is in part to address questions of a waiting list. It is also to make sure that aged care is delivered with the quality assurance and the standards that older Australians and their families expect. It's an important reform, and we are proud to deliver it.

Senator Ruston, first supplementary.

Minister, on 27 August 2025, when asked about the delays to supporting the rollout of homecare packages, the aged-care minister said, of the aged-care sector, that 'they weren't ready'. However, as part of the Senate inquiry on aged-care service delivery, all providers gave evidence that they were ready, including a UnitingCare Australia representative, who said, 'We have capacity to take them on right now.' Your government is withholding essential support on the basis of sector readiness. The sector says they are ready. Who is right, the sector or the minister?

():  Senators will understand that we consulted widely before deciding to make a brief deferral of the commencement of this important reform, and that is so that the sector can get ready. I understand the interest of—

Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Ruston?

On a point of order on direct relevance: I was not asking the minister about the Aged Care Act; I was asking her about homecare packages.

Senator Ruston, the minister is being relevant to your question. Minister McAllister, please continue.

As Senator Ruston will know, because it has been canvassed publicly, and I imagine it was canvassed on Friday as well, each and every week new packages are released.

On a point of order, in terms of misleading the Senate: the senator should know that what she just said is not correct.

Senator Ruston, that is not a point of order. I'm going to call the minister again—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Senators, I am in charge of the Senate. I have said that that was out of order, and I will call the minister back to continue her answer.

As I've indicated here previously, each and every week packages are released; further packages are released. I understand the point Senator Ruston is making, and she sought to draw this out on Friday. The important thing here is that, whether it is a new package or a redistributed package, it is an older Australian coming off the waiting list and getting the care that they need. (Time expired)

Senator Ruston, second supplementary.

Minister, it was revealed on Friday that 121,596 older Australians are currently waiting to be assessed for homecare support and that they could be waiting for up to 15 months just to be assessed. This is on top of the more than 87,000 older Australians on the national priority list who don't have homecare packages. Minister, will you admit that at least 200,000 older Australians are being denied access to homecare support because of the inaction of your government? Minister, considering this evidence, what is the real reason that you are delaying essential new packages? (Time expired)

We acknowledge that wait times for aged-care assessments are longer than we would like. We don't pretend that this is good enough or that this is the final resting place for this issue, because record numbers of Australians are seeking and receiving homecare services. Last year alone more than 521,000 home support and comprehensive assessments were completed. Only some people who are waiting for an assessment will end up on the national priority system, and the assessment waitlist of course contains those seeking lower-level care, along with crossover and duplication of numbers on the national priority system.

As an important example, more than 99 per cent of people who are waiting for a homecare package at their approved level are already receiving home care through a lower-level HCP package or are approved for CHSP services and so are already receiving a level of care. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, Senator McAllister. Addressing cost-of-living pressures is a key priority for the Albanese Labor government. How will the government invest in bulk-billing, cheaper medicines and urgent care clinics to help all Australians with the cost of health care?

Thank you, Senator Polley. No-one should have to check their bank balance to see if they can afford to go to the doctor. Health care should be accessible for everybody. It doesn't matter how much you make and it doesn't matter where you live. That is why, in our first term, the Albanese government delivered $3.5 billion in 2023, which restored access to bulk-billing for the 11 million patients that it covered. From 1 November 2025, Labor will deliver the largest ever investment in the history of Medicare—$8½ billion to expand bulk-billing to every Australian and to create an additional, new incentive payment for practices that bulk-bill every patient. Nine out of 10 GP visits will be bulk-billed by 2030, and fully bulk-billed practices will grow to around 4,800 nationally—that is triple the current number. That's what real cost-of-living relief looks like. We will also expand the availability of free, urgent health care by opening another 50 Medicare urgent care clinics. That's 14 new clinics in New South Wales, 12 in Victoria, 10 in Queensland, six in Western Australia, three in Tasmania, three in South Australia, one in the Northern Territory and one in the ACT.

When Labor came to government, we promised 50 urgent care clinics. How many did we deliver? Eighty-seven. Once all of these clinics are open, four out of five Australians will live within a 20-minute drive of an urgent care clinic. They're a game changer for families. One-third of patients are under the age of 15 and people won't have to pay a dollar to access these urgent care clinics. All you will need is your Medicare card. (Time expired)

Senator Polley, first supplementary?

This is a government that actually delivers for the Australian people. The out-of-pocket costs at the doctor's office can be a big hit to the hip pocket of many Australian families. What other actions are the Albanese Labor government taking to deliver cheaper medicines for all Australians?

In 2023, we delivered the largest cut to the cost of medicines in the history of the PBS. The maximum cost for a script fell to $30—that was from $42.50, but we want to deliver even more cheaper medicines, and that is why the government will make sure that a prescription on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme costs no more than $25. This is a 20 per cent cut in the maximum cost of medicines under the PBS. It's saving Australians more than $200 million a year. Pensioners and concession card holders will have the cost of their PBS medicines frozen at $7.70 until 2030. The last time medicines were this cheap was in 2004 and—make no mistake—this is what Labor governments do.

Senator Polley, second supplementary?

The Medicare system was designed to deliver health care to everyone that needs it. The Albanese Labor government has made significant investments to strengthen Medicare. Why are these significant investments needed?

Thank you for the question, Senator Polley. When Labor came to government in 2022, the consequences of a coalition government neglecting this issue for a decade were there for all to see. The coalition's six-year freeze of the Medicare rebate ripped billions and billions of dollars out of Medicare and the AMA estimates it would have taken $8.3 billion out of Medicare by 2027-28. It wasn't just a budget headline, because those decisions made it harder for people to see a doctor. This situation was completely untenable. It led to a genuine decline in access to health care across the country. The Albanese government's response to this crisis—a product of coalition neglect and ideological blinkeredness—is simply this: we will put back every dollar into Medicare that the coalition's rebate freeze took out— (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, Senator McAllister. Margaret and her husband, Tony, applied for home-care support in January last year. They desperately needed assistance. Tony suffered from Parkinson's and several cancer diagnoses, but more than 12 months later Tony still had no access to care. Tony was taken to hospital on 4 May this year and tragically passed away a few days later. During that week he spent in hospital, in his final days, Margaret was advised that his home-care package had finally been allocated. It was, frankly, too little too late. Minister, will you apologise to Margaret and the thousands of other people who have lost loved ones while waiting for the care they have been assessed as needing?

I thank the senator for raising this important case. Stories like this remind us of exactly why reform is so critical. The reforms we are putting in place are designed to put people at the centre of the aged-care system. They were passed, we acknowledge, with support from those opposite—

Order!

and they reflect the significance of quality aged care for older people in their homes. They follow a period which, as everyone understands, was described as 'neglect'.

Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Ruston, when I call 'order', I shouldn't have to specifically name you. I've called 'order', and now I'm going to name you. Please come to order, Senator Ruston, or leave the chamber. Minister McAllister, please continue.

I have listened to the interjections from Senator Ruston, and I note her use of the term 'national disgrace'. It's an interesting choice of term because that is what a commissioner on the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, Ms Briggs, called it. She called the performance of the aged-care system under you 'a national disgrace'. It was neglectful, and there is a lot of work to do to resolve it, and the government has been pleased to work with senators across the chamber to put these important reforms in place. We know that it is important to make sure people get the care that they require. Older Australians who are currently assessed as high priority continue to receive their package within a month. Just in the last five years we have gone from 155,000 people accessing in-home care to over 300,000 people. There is more to do, and we intend to do it. (Time expired)

Senator Askew, first supplementary?

Minister, we've heard from a 90-year-old constituent from South Australia who also suffers from Parkinson's. He is mostly wheelchair bound and able to do very little for himself. His daughter has had to give up her permanent job as a teacher and move in to care for him. He has been told it will be up to 12 months before he will receive the home-care package he has been assessed as needing. Will you promise this 90-year-old constituent and his daughter that you will urgently address this waitlist before it is too late?

I again thank Senator Askew for raising an important case, and I say to her: of course, for any individual who comes to you, we will always be interested in hearing their stories directly; you should refer those to myself or to Minister Rae. But it highlights why these reforms are so significant. It is a generational reform designed to deliver aged care of the highest quality for older Australians. They are people who have given so much for our country and they deserve nothing less than the very best care. Support at Home, which I know all senators are looking forward to, will make it possible for older people to live independently at home for longer, with higher levels of care available close to family and close to community.

Senator Askew, second supplementary?

Minister, Gladys has just turned 97 and has been assessed as needing a level 4 home-care package, but she's just been told she may have to wait up to 12 months before she can access the support she needs. Gladys fears that, at her age, she may not live long enough to see the support she has been assessed as needing. Why is your government making older Australians wait for a year for the help they need right now?

I thank the senator for her question. The senator is aware that the government is progressing an important national reform and is doing so with the support of members opposite, because we do understand how important it is for older Australians to receive care in their homes. I don't wish to overly politicise this, Senator Askew, because I do acknowledge the role that the opposition played in providing support to the legislation to bring these reforms through. But we are dealing with a very long period of neglect that requires our attention, and our determination is to make sure that we have the resources and the framework ready to deliver for the people who need care—

Order! Senator Henderson!

under the new arrangements for home care.

After what you did in the last parliament? What a joke!

Senator Henderson, I called for order, and you directly kept speaking over me. I called order again, and you ignored it. Finally, I had to use your name. That's unacceptable and it's disrespectful. When I call order, it includes you.

My question is to the Minister representing both the Minister for Climate Change and Energy and the Minister for Resources, Minister Ayres. Methane is a potent heat-trapping gas which is turbocharging climate-driven natural disasters. Today it was revealed that Santos's Darwin LNG gas facility has been leaking toxic methane for 19 years. FOI documents gained by the Environment Centre NT show that federal agencies, including the Clean Energy Regulator, CSIRO and NOPSEMA, knew about the methane leak but have taken no action nor advised the public. When were any of the responsible ministers for those agencies informed about this leak, and why has no federal action been taken to repair or replace those leaking storage tanks despite three federal agencies knowing about the leaks?

Thanks, Senator Waters. Firstly, your question moves across the various ministers who are engaged here, but I can say that the Minister for Resources and the government are concerned about the reports of methane leaking from this Darwin LNG facility that aired on the ABC this morning. It does largely seem to be a matter for the Northern Territory's EPA regulator, but the minister has asked her department—confusingly, also my department—to review those reports as part of their work with the expert panel on methane reporting.

The government have confidence in the relevant authorities, and we do understand that the facility has been the subject of several reviews and investigations by the operator and by the regulator—the Northern Territory EPA. We know that the tank is currently not in operation. The tank in question was subject to an engineering investigation in 2020 when approval was sought from Northern Territory WorkSafe to extend the life of the Darwin LNG facility. The appropriate regulatory approvals are in place. Importantly, it has an approved safety case. The methane emissions are reported under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme, and there is a monitoring program in place. The licence to recommence operations at the tank is up for renewal on 18 September. It's a matter really for Santos and the Northern Territory. (Time expired)

Senator Waters, first supplementary?

The offshore gas regulator, NOPSEMA, was advised of the leak prior to approving Santos's new offshore gas field in the Timor sea, the Barossa project, which will use this leaking facility. Will the government now revoke Santos's approval for this new gas field after 19 years of leaking methane?

Firstly, in terms of the question you asked, you said that the tank will be used in relation to that project. The advice that I have—and I'll correct it if I'm not asserting this properly—is that the tank is currently not in operation. I would infer from that that it is not the case that it will be used in the context of that project, but I will, as I said, come back on that point if required.

In April 2025, NOPSEMA approved the commission, start up and operation of the Barossa Floating Production Storage and Offloading facility. In that decision NOPSEMA acknowledged the objections raised by the Environment Centre NT regarding the impacts and risks of the unplanned emissions, but NOPSEMA has no jurisdiction to regulate the Darwin LNG facility. (Time expired)

Senator Waters, second supplementary?

The CSIRO has a history of financial agreements with gas corporations and a history of not disclosing those links. Were CSIRO's failures to publish their methane monitoring work at the site since April 2021 and to do anything to stop the leak because of their financial links to Santos?

No. It's usually the role of some of the characters over there to impugn the independence of the CSIRO, and it's less usual for that to happen from you, Senator. On reflection, I don't think impugning the independence of the CSIRO is in the interests of that organisation. They were engaged some years ago to review third-party methodology for monitoring fugitive methane emissions at the Darwin export hub. As part of that project, the CSIRO did not undertake any direct monitoring at the site. That is the extent of their engagement with these issues.

I think it's important not to carelessly impugn the independence of that organisation. It's an important organisation for the country. Research and engagement in the energy sector, including the gas sector, actually are in the national interest.

My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator McCarthy. The Albanese Labor government is committed to building a stronger future for First Nations Australians, including through economic empowerment. How are First Nations people contributing to the government's economic agenda?

I thank Senator Cox for the question. The Albanese Labor government is absolutely committed to building a stronger future for First Nations Australians, and economic empowerment is very much at the heart of that commitment

Over recent weeks I've travelled across the country to host First Nations economic roundtables. We met on Gadigal country, in Sydney; on Larrakia country, in Darwin; on Kaurna country, in Adelaide; on Turrbal and Yuggera country, in Brisbane; on Wurundjeri country, in Melbourne; on Noongar country, in Perth; and on Yaburara country, in Karratha. Each of these roundtables has fed directly into the Treasurer's productivity roundtable. At every roundtable we heard directly from First Nations leaders about the opportunities and challenges facing their organisations and communities. These discussions were rich, grounded in lived experience and focused on practical ways we can work together to drive jobs, enterprise and long-term economic independence. I heard from First Nations leaders about possibilities for Indigenous businesses, opportunities for land activation to support community aspirations and the power of education as a foundation for economic empowerment.

I want to thank my Labor colleagues who joined me and helped to co-chair many of these important conversations, including you, President; Senator Cox; Senator Stewart; Senator Smith; the Assistant Treasurer; the member for Bonner; and the member for Barton as well. Their attendance and their support demonstrate the whole-of-government commitment we are bringing to this reform agenda. The voices of First Nations people are at the centre of this work, and their insights have fed into the Treasurer's roundtables and our reform agenda. This is how we ensure that economic empowerment and productivity go hand in hand for the benefit of all Australians.

Senator Cox, first supplementary?

Thank you, Minister. I welcome the update on the First Nations roundtables and the Albanese Labor government's commitment to the economic empowerment of First Nations Australians. It's important to uplift the voices of Indigenous Australians and share our positive stories. Did the minister undertake any visits in connection with these roundtables?

Absolutely. Alongside the roundtables it was important to get out and see First Nations businesses on the ground, which I certainly love to do more broadly anyway. In Sydney, I visited IndigiGrow at La Perouse. What began as a small native-plant initiative in 2018 has now grown into an Indigenous-run nursery, employing 10 local Aboriginal staff, providing jobs while caring for country and strengthening culture.

In Adelaide, I had the privilege of visiting Aunty Vicki's cafe, Block Ya Dot. It is a 100 per cent Aboriginal owned and run business in the heart of the city. Aunty Vicki had dreamed of running a cafe for decades. Earlier this year that dream became a reality.

In Brisbane, I joined a cultural tour of the Nudgee Waterholes with Madonna and Dereece from Nyanda, who are creating meaningful jobs and sharing knowledge through bushfood experiences and cultural awareness programs. (Time expired)

Senator Cox, second supplementary?

Many Indigenous Australians are already engaging in their own economic empowerment. How is the Albanese Labor government prioritising economic empowerment of our First Nations people?

(—) (): We are delivering jobs for people in remote communities and overhauling the punitive CDP program. It was a welfare program that sought to punish its participants. The Treasurer and I have been working in partnership to deliver a comprehensive economic policy for First Nations people through a new First Nations economic partnership. This is a new and transformative approach to policy development and shared decision-making in this country. We have announced $75 million in additional funding for prescribed bodies corporate to support communities as economic decision-makers to unlock the true potential of their land and their aspirations. We strengthened the ability of Indigenous Business Australia to invest in First Nations businesses and communities by allowing IBA to borrow and raise capital. We have strengthened the Indigenous procurement policy to provide more opportunities for First Nations businesses. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Watt. Your government has passed some of the most extreme far-right-wing anti-immigration legislation, including forcibly deporting people to third countries like Nauru, and now trying to deny them even natural justice. The Department of Home Affairs has said that these laws will impact around 100,000 people in our community. Why does your government call these people, many of whom are refugees, 'criminals', when you know they are not? Will you acknowledge that this rhetoric, this dog-whistling and dehumanising, fuels the far-right rallies we saw over the weekend?

I think, even for Senator Shoebridge, it is a stretch to be implying that the government of Australia, the Albanese Labor government, is responsible for the rallies we saw over the weekend. This government could not have been clearer in our condemnation of those rallies before, during and after the events. Unlike certain others in this chamber, who wanted to be against the rallies until they were held, and then started retreating at a rate of knots to say, 'Maybe it was okay after all,' we have been absolutely unequivocal in our condemnation and opposition to those rallies. While it might suit the Greens party's political interest to try to accuse the Labor government of being responsible for those rallies, I think people will see through that for what it is: just another political cheap shot from a party consigned to irrelevance in this parliament.

Senator Shoebridge?

My question was about the dehumanising right-wing anti-immigration legislation. The minister is yet to address it, probably because of his embarrassment—

Senator Shoebridge, first of all, when you stand, you inform me that it's a point of order, which I presume it was, but you let me know it is. The minister is being relevant to your question. Minister, please continue.

The legislation that Senator Shoebridge was referring to, before he tried to blame the Labor Party for rallies of extremists over the weekend, makes targeted amendments to the Migration Act to expressly exclude procedural fairness from applying to the exercise of powers that deal with the taking of action in relation to third-country-reception arrangements. As to why the government is introducing this legislation, the point at principle that we're adopting is if someone does not have a right to a visa in Australia then that person should leave. That is the situation in relation to the NZYQ cohort, as it's become known. That is the basis of that legislation. That principle—that if you don't have a right to a visa in Australia you should leave Australia—is the basic principle of any functioning migration system. But it would appear that the Greens party does not support that principle, that someone without a right to a visa should leave Australia.

Senator Shoebridge, first supplementary?

Minister, last year when you worked with Peter Dutton to pass the first tranche of these hateful laws, you were told by the Human Rights Law Centre, National Legal Aid, Democracy in Colour, the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, Amnesty International and many more that those laws would fuel racism and antimigrant hatred. Why didn't you listen?

It's ironic, again, that we have Senator Shoebridge, someone from the Greens political party, wanting to talk about working with the coalition, because those of us who were here in the last term of parliament remember that it was the Greens political party working with the coalition to block housing, to block environmental law reform—

A point of order, President: it's not within a bull's roar of relevancy, and you know it.

Senator Shoebridge, I'm going to ask you to withdraw that.

You're asking me to withdraw 'bull's roar'?

Senator Shoebridge, it has always been my practice to ask people not to repeat the offence. Yes, I'm asking you to withdraw that without repeating it.

I withdraw it. I was just checking what it is was you were asking me to withdraw. And I maintain my point of order.

Senator Shoebridge, first of all you're not in a debate with me. If I ask you to withdraw then withdraw those comments, which you've done. Unless you have another point of order, I'm moving back to the minister.

I maintain the point of order, that it's not relevant.

Senator Shoebridge, resume your seat.

Senator Shoebridge, I think earlier today I asked you—when I call you to order, you come to order; you do not continue to talk over me.

You haven't ruled.

Senator Allman-Payne, come to order.

No, Senator Shoebridge, resume your seat. I'm going to ask the minister to continue his answer. Minister Watt.

Well, Senator Shoebridge has his glass jaw out wide this week, that's for sure—

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

I withdraw. Senator Shoebridge, the very beginning of your question went to your accusation that the government was working with the coalition, so I'm completely entitled to point out the many occasions on which the Greens party have worked with the coalition to block housing, to block environmental law reform and to block almost every other progressive reform that this Labor Party ever tries to do. Now, I've already outlined the principle that underpins this legislation, that if you don't have a right to a visa in Australia then you should leave, and that's what this legislation is about establishing.

Senator Shoebridge?

Minister, will your government publicly release the secret $400 million MOU on deportation you've signed with Nauru? I ask that especially noting that the Nauruan president had said, in relation to the deal he's cut with the Albanese Labor government, that Nauru's 'long-term goal remains the eventual repatriation of these individuals to their home countries' and that 'they have fled persecution and they need protection.'

The government will publish details about that agreement in the usual way at the appropriate time. It's obviously a matter for the Nauruan government to make a decision, as a sovereign nation, on what agreements they enter into. They have chosen to enter into this agreement with Australia, and therefore the agreement will be honoured.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Hundreds of Victorian farmers, community members and volunteer firefighters travelled to Ballarat in their utes, tractors and fire trucks last Friday to protest Labor's renewable energy policies, where the risk of transmission towers and renewable energy infrastructure is threatening the futures of regional communities. Speaking at the Bush Summit, the Prime Minister was heckled and booed when questioned about protecting rural communities. The Prime Minister told farmers:

I'll continue to engage, but I won't bullshit people.

Minister does the Prime Minister's no-bullshit policy mean the government will start telling the truth and release the modelling of the true cost of Labor's 100 per cent renewable rollout?

Thank you for that question, and thank you for the opportunity to outline the difference between our political parties about climate change, net zero and renewable energy. We on this side recognise the imperative of transitioning the Australian economy. We on this side recognise the opportunity that we have. We on this side recognise the importance of reforming the energy system. We on this side recognise the importance of policy certainty.

On that side, what we know is that they have had decades of internal fighting about climate policy, and they're still not over it. Even though Ms Ley has made really clear her view on these issues, everyone, from Senator Cash to Senator McKenzie, is showing a complete lack of loyalty to their leader and, frankly, not listening to their voters.

A point of order on direct relevance. I don't argue with the Labor Party's commitment to this policy; I want them to release the true cost.

The minister is being relevant. Thank you, Senator McKenzie.

I was interested, Senator, to see some of the commentary, including from the Western Australian Liberal leader and in the papers, about coalition voters and how most coalition voters are actually wanting the coalition to take a mature and rational approach to this policy dilemma.

Lower the cost.

I will take that interjection—'Lower the cost.' If you really think that coal-fired power is the lower cost, after you have seen coal-fired power exit the system and you have seen how the unreliability of ageing coal-fired power stations has increased costs to Australians, and you really think that nuclear is the way forward—well, I think everyone can look at the coalition's policy and see it is ideological and irrational. The fact is that we have the cheapest possible policy, unlike you.

Senator McKenzie it is one thing to quote language, which, quite frankly, I'd rather you didn't; it is quite another to shout it across the chamber. Please withdraw.

On behalf of the Prime Minister and myself, I withdraw.

Senator McKenzie, you shouted it across the chamber.

I withdraw.

Senator McKenzie, first supplementary?

Government agencies and renewables companies are failing landholders and communities affected by the renewable rollout. Minister, does the Prime Minister's no-bullshit policy mean the government will explain the real cost of Labor's energy targets, and the impacts of those targets, on the energy bills of Australian households and businesses?

We will go down the path of the cheapest available energy. That is what we will do, and that is what we are doing. That is the reality. You might want to front up in front of communities and tell them something which is not true—that there is somehow a magical, cheap nuclear policy. That is what you said at the last election: 'There's a magical, cheap nuclear policy.' That was untrue. There's somehow some other magical policy. The reality is that renewable energy is the cheapest form of new energy.

Now, I don't know which part of the economics of that, Senator, you do not understand, but you continue to stand up in front of communities and mislead them. That is the reality. Well, do you know what we will do? We will get on with the task of reforming Australia's energy system because we want the cheapest, most reliable form of energy for Australians, and we will work to deliver that, unlike you.

Senator McKenzie, second supplementary?

Under the Prime Minister's no-bullshit policy, will the government explain why, under Labor's renewable rollout, regional communities are bearing the burden of hosting infrastructure on their land, impacting food security, social cohesion and private property rights?

Order! I want order in the chamber before I call—

Senator Whish-Wilson! Once again I've called order, and you continue to speak over me. That is disrespectful. Order! I cannot believe I called you to order and you still kept going. Minister Wong.

First, I will take the question about social cohesion, because we have just had a debate on that, Senator, which was part of your question. You talked about social cohesion. You voted against affirming Australia as a nation that welcomes different races, religions and views, united by respect for each other's humanity and for each other's right to live in peace. You voted against that, so don't address me about social cohesion.

Minister Wong, I have asked you to resume your seat. Senator McKenzie?

On a direct relevance point of order, the minister knows full well that just because she can't answer the question—

Senator McKenzie, you are not getting into a debate with me.

doesn't mean she shouldn't at least give those divided communities—

Senator McKenzie, you are not in a debate with me! I called you to order, and you kept talking over me. The disrespect in this chamber over the last couple of hours is, quite frankly, disgraceful. It really is. And every single person who has been disorderly in this place ought reflect on that. The minister is being relevant.

I am asked about social cohesion, and I think, Senator McKenzie, it is legitimate for us to point out, on a day when you voted against a motion on social cohesion in the way that you did, and say to you: 'Really? Really?' Don't come into this chamber and talk to us about social cohesion when you are refusing to play your part as an elected representative to contribute to strengthening it. That is what is occurring. The hypocrisy is on display between this side of the parliament and those opposite.

Minister Gallagher?

Point of order: I'm wondering whether you could reflect on previous rulings of other presidents around the use of unparliamentary language by way of quotation during question time and come back and consider them in light of Senator McKenzie's questions today.

Sure. I do recall and I will take advice, but I think, where it's quoted, sadly, it is not unparliamentary even though I may have a different view. But I will go back and reflect.

My question is to the Minister representing the Attorney-General, Senator Farrell. We remember Captain Daniel Lyon, Lieutenant Maxwell Nugent, Warrant Officer Class Two Joseph Phillip Laycock and Corporal Alexander Naggs. Minister, the Comcare investigation into the fatal Taipan Defence helicopter crash in the Whitsundays, released in response to my order for the production of documents, revealed the national health and safety investigator alleged serious breaches of workplace health and safety laws by the Department of Defence. There has been no explanation for why the Commonwealth prosecutor did not lay charges, despite these clear findings. Minister, given this new information, will the government release the Commonwealth prosecutor's reasons for not pressing charges, despite the allegations from Comcare to give the families of the crash victims closure and ensure that these allegations are properly tested in court?

I thank the senator for his question. This issue obviously is an issue concerning the Attorney-General, but, as you have said, Senator, we do recognise and pay tribute to the fallen MRH-90 aircrew who were lost in Lindeman Island on 28 July 2023. As to the specifics of your question, Comcare is the independent federal work health and safety regulator responsible for monitoring and enforcing compliance with the Commonwealth Work Health and Safety Act.

In July 2023, Comcare began an investigation of potential work health and safety offences relating to the fatal crash which you referred to in your question. The investigation focused on the Department of Defence's duty owed to workers under the Commonwealth Work Health and Safety Act. Comcare conducted a thorough investigation and have provided their findings to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. There are ongoing independent investigations on this matter by the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force and the Queensland coroner, who is also supported by the Queensland police. As these investigations are ongoing, it would be inappropriate to comment on them at this stage.

Senator Roberts, first supplementary?

The Comcare investigation lays out that Defence knew that the TopOwl helmet displays could tell the pilots the incorrect altitude, that the risk was of controlled flight into terrain with the consequence of serious injury or death, that Defence overrode their own internal systems to field the equipment anyway and that the pilots of the crashed helicopter were flying at low altitude in the dark—a high risk for this hazard. Why did the prosecutor not progress this case?

I thank Senator Roberts for his first supplementary question. I refer you back to my original answer. I can repeat it, for your benefit: there are ongoing independent investigations on this matter by the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force and the Queensland coroner. As these investigations are ongoing, it's inappropriate to comment on them. You would be aware that the last thing anybody would want to do in these circumstances, given the terrible circumstances of losing these pilots, is to interfere with investigations that are ongoing. For that reason, it's inappropriate to make further comments on this matter.

Senator Roberts, second supplementary?

Minister, the clarity of these Comcare documents provides a real justification to waive the immunity on legal advice and understand why this case was not progressed on behalf of the victims' families. Do you accept there are genuine grounds to understand why? Will the government release the reasons why the prosecutor chose not to follow the advice Comcare provided?

I thank Senator Roberts for his second supplementary question. I don't believe the Attorney-General does believe that in these circumstances. There are certain relatively fundamental principles that apply in all these cases where further investigations are being undertaken. We feel great compassion for the families of the people who were lost in this terrible accident. There are investigations underway. I think the Senate ought to leave those investigations to the appropriate authorities to make a final determination of the issue. I think that's the appropriate course of action in these circumstances.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Minister Watt. Minister, in a media interview yesterday you said: 'We absolutely condemn the March for Australia rally that's going on today. It's not about increasing social harmony; it's about spreading hate and division in our community.' Minister, how does the current record-high level of immigration encourage social harmony?

I can certainly tell you one thing that doesn't encourage social harmony in Australia, and that is overt support for the kinds of rallies we saw yesterday and that is oppositions who aspire to be future governments of this country opposing Senate motions like we saw about an hour ago that sought to affirm that Australia is a nation that welcomes different races and religions. That's what we saw.

We supported that motion—

No, no, no. Have a look back at what you did. You opposed a motion in the Senate that affirmed that Australia is a nation that welcomes different races and religions. The Liberal Party of Australia, opposed a motion that rejected the racism, white supremacy and condemnation of immigrants on display at rallies held over the weekend. That is the so-called Liberal Party of Australia.

I don't resile for one moment from the comments that I made yesterday and, interestingly, comments that were made by some members of the opposition before the rallies where they also condemned those rallies. But, as I say, the minute the rallies happened, they ran away from their position at a rate of knots. We saw in the lead-up to those rallies the opposition leader, Ms Ley, put up a video saying, 'There is no place for violence, racism or intimidation,' trying to take a stand against some of the views that were expressed at those rallies on the weekend. But what we saw at those rallies then was Neo-Nazis addressing the Melbourne rally, that rally ending with attacking the site of Aboriginal resistance in Melbourne and a sacred resting place, an Adelaide protester carrying a placard in support of an alleged cop killer and speeches blaming migrants for housing shortages. That's what we saw at those rallies over the weekend. Then, when offered an opportunity to support a motion of the Senate that affirmed that Australia is a nation that welcomes different races and religions, the opposition voted against it. When offered an opportunity to support a motion rejecting racism and the white supremacy that we saw at the rallies, the opposition voted against that. Shame on you. (Time expired)

Senator Babet, a first supplementary?

Minister, the vast majority of people that were there yesterday at the march were just everyday mums and dads, grandparents and struggling workers, and many were immigrants themselves. Do you seriously believe that, as you said on Sky News yesterday, these people were motivated by hate and division or are you going to concede that they were just motivated by a genuine concern for their country and their standard of living?

There are plenty of ways that people can express their love of their country or express their concern about cost of living. One way that some people have chosen to do that is to attend rallies that are being addressed by Neo-Nazis. I don't think that is the right way to express your concern about your country, and I don't think that the views that we had on display at those rallies yesterday represented Australian values whatsoever. Australian values are about a fair go for everyone, regardless of who they are or where they come from. Australian values are about standing up for someone who is less fortunate than yourself, not what we saw yesterday. The values that were expressed at those rallies yesterday were not Australian values.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Order, across the chamber!

Order! Senator McKim, you continue to speak over me when I've called for order. Once again, you are being disrespectful to the chair. Minister Watt, please continue.

I know that in their hearts there are some members of the opposition who agree with what I'm saying, people like Senator Bragg, who was interviewed about the effect of anti-migrant policies on the coalition's vote at the last election. He said:

Someone said to me, 'if you're a migrant, you got blamed for the housing crisis. If your parent was a dual national, you could get deported.' And that wasn't a very good starting point for our campaign.

Senator Bragg knows— (Time expired)

Senator Babet, a second supplementary?

Minister, when is your government going to stop insulting everyday Australians and start listening to them by ending the reckless policy of unsustainable mass migration? We all agree with migration, but the problem is the mass migration. It's putting enormous pressure on housing, infrastructure and community cohesion.

Do you know what's putting pressure on housing in Australia? It's opposition parties and Independents voting against housing being built. That's what's putting pressure on it. These hypocrites here get up and try to use their mealy-mouthed phrases about 'migration' and 'Australian values' and then, every time we try to do something about housing, they vote against it.

Senator Bragg is not alone. We have Senator Scarr, who I acknowledge does a lot of work in his Queensland multicultural community. He goes as far as giving speeches in here speaking to Australians of Indian heritage—

I raise a point of order on relevance. The question went to the impact of migration on services. The minister is quoting quotes from coalition senators. I don't see how that could be relevant at all.

I will draw the minister back to the question. Before I ask him to continue his response, I will ask for silence in this chamber.

I think I have addressed Senator Babet's question in what I've already said about voting against housing, like all of these people do.

Now, Senator Scarr spends a lot of his time with multicultural communities in Queensland. He makes speeches to Australians of Indian heritage that their community is a great blessing for our beautiful country.

Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Canavan?

Madam President, I think you rightly asked the minister to come back to the question. Instead, the minister has gone back to the exact same points he was making before you asked him to return to the question.

Senator Watt, you need to respond from what the government is doing, in relation to Senator Babet's question.

And I repeat that our government is building more housing and is building more infrastructure, despite the opposition of people over there. The problem is that, whether it's Senator Scarr, Senator Bragg or anyone else, they say things up in Queensland or wherever and then they come in and vote for motions and don't want to condemn far-right Neo-Nazis. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong, and it goes to how many houses have actually been built, not bought or acquired, by the Housing Australia Future Fund? Senator Gallagher previously told the Senate that the HAFF had acquired and converted 340 homes. My question is: is the HAFF still acquiring and converting homes?

I'm very pleased to get this question again from Senator Bragg and I'm very pleased to update him. Since last week, we now have more than 5,000 homes, through Commonwealth programs, having been completed since our coming to government.

Senator, I would say two things about your interest in housing policy. Can I say, first, we are very disappointed, as are so many Australians, that your position as housing spokesperson is one of opposing more houses. We are disappointed in that. But one thing I would say, Senator Bragg, is that, at least you, unlike most of your party, have not been prepared to point to migrants and migration in the housing debate. So at least we will respect that. I wish more Liberals would be liberal and take the same view you do.

Senator Bragg.

A point of order on relevance: the question was clearly about whether the HAFF was still acquiring and converting houses.

I will bring the minister back to the question.

As I said—President, through you—I'm very pleased to update the Senate that, since I last gave this answer, last week, we now have had more than 5,000 homes completed through Commonwealth programs since coming to government. That is an update from last week, which was 4,000 homes.

Obviously, we, on this side, believe that adding to the supply of housing is one of the ways in which we can address affordability. It is disappointing that those opposite now complain about housing affordability but stood in the way and continue to stand in the way of adding to housing supply. Of course, we all understand the economics of any market, but certainly housing supply affects price.

Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Bragg?

A point of order, President: the question was clearly about whether the HAFF was acquiring and converting existing houses.

Thank you, Senator Bragg. The minister is being relevant to your question. Minister Wong, please continue.

As I said, some 5,000 houses have been completed under a range of government programs, Senator Bragg. They include the HAFF projects in Ms Ley's seat and in Mr Hastie's seat, and, in Ms McIntosh's seat, 132 homes in Penrith; in Page, 32 homes in South Grafton; in Moncrieff, 230 homes in Southport— (Time expired)

Senator Bragg, a first supplementary?

The HAFF was legislated two years ago and its troubles have been well documented, Minister. Has the Prime Minister asked the Housing Australia Future Fund to buy houses to inflate these numbers?

Well, President, I don't accept the precursor to that question—the various assertions about the HAFF. As to the primary problem the HAFF has had, you made a set of assertions in your primary question, or your supplementary question, Senator. The primary problem that the HAFF has had is that you stopped it. That's the primary problem. It's hard to get going when you and the Greens team up to stop more houses being built. Every time you come in here and say, 'We're really worried about how many houses are being built. Why are there not more houses being built?' everyone on this side goes, 'There was a problem, which was that you lot said no.'

Point of order again on relevance: we're trying to get to the point about whether or not there is acquiring and converting going on and whether the Prime Minister has directed that.

The minister is being relevant to your question, Senator Bragg.

Again, I would point out that my recollection of the legislation—the finance minister is telling me that she thinks I might be right—is that there are governance arrangements in relation to the HAFF which would obviously be applicable and would be inconsistent with the political assertion you just made. But, Senator, we always come back to this problem, don't we? (Time expired)

Senator Bragg, second supplementary?

Does the government concede that, by acquiring and converting at least 340 houses, the HAFF is making Australia's housing crisis worse by competing with Australians?

Again, I don't accept the premise of the question that's been put to me. If you are worried, Senator Bragg, about the Commonwealth participating in the market and buying houses because you're saying there's not enough supply, why did you block supply for so long? Why did you block housing supply with the Australian Greens? Let's be really clear. Senator Bragg and Senator Cash want to ask me about housing, but they have never explained to the Australian people, particularly to young Australians, why they stood in the way of more houses for so long.

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

I want to correct the record in terms of my answer to Senator Waters's question. The expert panel that I referred to is in Minister Bowen's portfolio, not Minister King's portfolio.

I move:

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

I'm going to begin with the questions from Senator Ruston to Minister McAllister in relation to aged care. This is something that strikes very close to home for me, having both had my late father, who passed away about ten weeks ago, on one of these packages and my 91-year-old mother currently on one of these packages, on a level 1. She has been waiting for over a year and has gone from level 1 to level 2, to level 3, to level 4 while she still sits on a level 1 package. So I found it very confronting to hear the statement that the government has designed their process to deliver packages. Well, guess what? You're not delivering them. They are not being delivered.

The comment that each and every week new packages are being released is factually incorrect, and it is a complete insult to the people who are waiting for these packages and to their families who are trying to keep their loved ones in their homes and out of residential care but are unable to do so because this government has fundamentally failed in the rollout of packages. I take note in particular of the statement around packages being rolled out every single week. I actually found that to be concerning because it is factually incorrect.

I've got some statistics here. For example, 87,597 older Australians are currently waiting on the National Priority System for a home-care place they have been assessed as needing. My 91-year-old mother is one of the 87,597 people. In addition, 121,596—let's call it 122,000—older Australians are waiting to be assessed for a home-care place. They're waiting to find out if they're eligible and, if they're eligible, what level of care they are eligible for—a level 1, level 2, level 3 or level 4 package. That means that more than 200,000 older Australians are waiting for access to a home-care package under this government.

Again, I repeat what the minister said. She said, 'Each and every week, new packages are released.' Would you like to know how many packages, how many homecare places, have been released this financial year? Zero—none. Again, the minister said, 'Each and every week, new packages are being released.' Well, in every single week since 1 July, zero new homecare places have been provided. That is shameful.

The thing that really struck me—there were two final comments that really bothered me; one was, 'This is ensuring that elderly Australians are getting the care that they need.' Well, I can tell you that right now 200,000 of them are not. And the closing statement was, 'Make no mistake, this is what Labor governments do'—referencing caring or looking after elderly Australians. Can I tell you, the families of 200,000 older Australians are finding out exactly what this government is doing, and it is not providing care packages.

Senator Askew asked some questions in relation to Margaret and her husband, who passed away waiting for a package. This is not inconsistent with the questioning that I and others made last year in the community affairs Senate estimates, where it was very clear that the manner in which some of the places on waiting lists are reduced is that people pass away waiting for them. We should be ashamed that we have 200,000 older Australians waiting for a homecare package and that they and their families watch them struggling at home or being forced into residential aged care because this government isn't doing the job it should be doing.

I, too, would like to take note of the discussions and comments around reforms to aged care and the Support at Home packages. Our aged care certainly is no longer fit for purpose, which is why this government is undertaking once-in-a-generation reforms to ensure that older Australians receive care with dignity, safety and compassion. With bipartisan support, we passed the new Aged Care Act last term, and we are now just two months away from implementing it on 1 November.

As we know, these reforms will deliver high-quality, respectful aged care in a system that is sustainable. That is about making sure that older Australians are at the centre of their care both now and into the future. Our population is ageing, and it is heartbreaking to hear of Australians passing away while waiting for care. My thoughts, and I know the thoughts of all senators in this chamber, are with every family who has lost a loved one in those circumstances. That is precisely why our aged-care forms are so urgent, so that people can access quality care in their own homes faster.

Regarding the national priority system waitlist, as of 31 March, 87,597 people had been approved for a homecare package through the clinical assessment process and were on the NPS list. The government continues to allocate an average of more than 2,000 homecare packages every week. And, importantly, those assessed as high priority continue to receive their package within one month. In fact, the average since September last year was 2,700 packages per week.

It's important to understand that assessment for broader aged-care services is a different process to package allocation. We acknowledge that while the waiting times are still long we are actively working to improve them. Due to our population ageing, demand has surged. Last year alone, more than 521,000 home support and comprehensive assessments were completed. Today more than 300,000 older Australians are receiving homecare packages, and only a portion of those people waiting for an assessment will end up on the NPS waitlist. This list includes those seeking lower-level care, and some duplication across systems. As Senator McAllister said in answer to a question earlier, 99 per cent of people who are waiting for a package at their approved level are already receiving support, through either a lower-level package or the Commonwealth Home Support Program. The median wait time for an assessment is now 25 days from referral to support plan and continues to reduce, thanks to the new single-assessment system.

Regarding the importance of the Support at Home program, Support at Home will help deliver more than 107,000 packages in the next two years, and it is the largest number of homecare packages ever released. Why is it important that we, rightly, focus on Support at Home in particular? It is because ageing at home is preferable to ageing in a residential facility. Everybody wants to age in dignity, in their own home, within their own communities, close to their loved ones, their friends, their families, their groups. This is especially important for elderly community members from non-English-speaking backgrounds, who want to be connected to those around them who they are most familiar with and to the places they know, the healthcare facilities, the doctors, the community groups, and the providers who work with them in their own homes, in their own communities. And what goes with quality care in their home? It is not just the services being provided but the workers who provide those services.

This government has delivered $15 billion for pay increases to the workers in the aged-care system, because pay is inextricably linked to quality services and to Support at Home. I want to give a shout-out to all the dedicated and skilled Support at Home workers across the country, particularly those who deliver through local government in Victoria, who have been recognised for their skilled work by the increased funding delivered by this government. (Time expired)

I rise to take note of the government's woefully inadequate response to the deep concerns raised by Senator McKenzie about Labor's reckless renewables rollout across western Victoria. Along with Senator McKenzie, the member for Mallee and the Victorian opposition leader, Brad Battin, I was honoured to stand shoulder to shoulder with our farmers at a protest against state and federal Labor at the Bush Summit in Ballarat last Friday.

What a disgrace: overnight, this treacherous Victorian state government had passed laws that allow authorised officers of the minister to forcibly enter farmers' land for the purpose of facilitating the construction of high-voltage transmission towers. The Albanese government, combined with the Allen government, are delivering reckless renewables policies which are driving our country off a cliff. Labor could not care less about the impact that the Western Renewables Link, or VNI West, is having on the viability of hundreds of farms, compromising food security and destroying the fabric of regional communities. The Prime Minister said at the Bush Summit, 'I'll continue to engage but I won't BS people.' Well, I say to the Prime Minister, what complete BS.

Labor has treated regional communities with contempt while driving up power and gas bills, turning Victoria from a powerhouse of cheaper electricity into an economic basket case. Do you know why farmers got on their tractors and literally ran the Prime Minister out of town? It was because they say 'BS'. They are angry, and they have every right to be angry. This government does not care about them, does not care about their farms, does not care about their future. For the Prime Minister to say, at the Bush Summit, 'Oh, we're listening,' and for the Premier of Victoria to say, 'We've done such a great job'—what a joke. Last week in the parliament, the member for Ballarat, who's done literally nothing for the people of Ballarat since the Albanese government was elected—and I say that because when we were in government we drove massive infrastructure investment into the Ballarat electorate and into regional Victoria. The former coalition government spent in excess of $500 million on upgrading the Ballarat-Melbourne rail line, including building a number of new railway stations, with the state government playing a relatively minor funding role. But, since Labor has been elected, there have been so few infrastructure projects across regional Victoria.

As I say, I'm very proud that a Battin Liberal-National Victorian government will scrap the emergency services levy. Of course, apart from farmers, CFA volunteers came out in force last Friday demanding the scrapping of these laws which are driving up the price of holding farming land in our state in a way that we have never seen before. The Victorian government's draconian changes to land tax that have now been implemented mean that, if you earn more than $30,000 running a small business, you can be liable for huge increases in land tax for running a small business in your own home. It's no wonder Victorians are worried about this government coming after their home.

We on this side of the chamber will not allow any government to ride roughshod over the property rights of Victorians, including Victorian farmers. As a regional Liberal senator, I am so proud to fight for our farmers, day in, day out. I condemn the actions of the Albanese government. I condemn the actions of the Allan Labor government, who have told regional communities, including those in the Ballarat electorate, 'We do not care.' There will be 190 kilometres of high-voltage transmission towers from Melbourne all the way through to north of Ararat, and this government does not care. I say shame on the Albanese government.

I'm also a senator from regional areas, from regional Tasmania, and it's great to talk about climate change in this place today. On this side of the chamber, we actually do believe in climate change. We believe in the science, and we believe in having a solid plan to transition our country to renewable projects. That's a stark contrast to those opposite, who, over the last decade, have had so many different climate change policies that I've lost count, and the transition to net zero is literally eating them alive as a party and probably as a movement.

When it comes to regional people and regional affairs, people want to have certainty and people want to be able to invest, and what you see under this government is a considered and consultative approach to transition to the future, which is renewables—wind, solar and, as we have in the great state of Tasmania, hydro. We have one of the best hydro systems in the world, and the rest of the country is indeed looking at Tasmania and thinking, 'We want your power.' Part of what Minister Ayres announced was the Marinus Link, which presents amazing opportunities for Tasmania to provide electricity to the big island. Who would have thought that the little state would be able to power the big island? We've seen investments and announcements in Tasmania that we're expanding into solar and wind, and Marinus will play a key role in us being able to sustain the big island with power, moving into the future.

Marinus also presents opportunities for Tasmania when it comes to data. There are going to be great opportunities to increase data coming through the fibre cables, which will have dozens—if not hundreds—of times the capacity that Basslink and Telstra currently use to bring data into Tasmania. This will enable more investment from tech companies to be able to create data centres in Tasmania. We've got the greatest and most stable land. And we don't have the weather events that a lot of the country has, so Marinus Link is going to be part of our link to be able to provide energy certainty to Tasmania and the mainland.

I spoke before about hydropower. It's been incredible to see the people and the workers at Hydro Tasmania. I was very lucky to have a tour through the hydro system and the Hydro building in Hobart not long ago. The staff are really considered and well trained. They manage the Tasmanian electricity system to within a millimetre or a millisecond—I can't remember the exact term. Every single minute, or in five-minute blocks, they are looking at and making bids into the national electricity grid to make sure that Tasmanians are getting the best energy at the cheapest price.

Sometimes we might be net importing power and being paid by other states to take power. Marinus Link is going to give us more opportunities to take power and to get paid to take power from the mainland when they're producing excess. We can then divert our assets away from generation like hydro, for example. We don't need to spill the water out of the dams at that point. Then, when night-time comes and people get home and start using their devices and cooking their dinner, the mainland electricity systems will start to buckle under the pressure and Tasmania will be able to service the mainland and provide good, clean, efficient power to it, which will benefit everybody. Thanks for the opportunity to speak about climate change and net zero and the great role that Tasmania has to play in a sustainable future.

Today, we heard a question about the renewables rollout. We've just heard a Labor senator highlight, again, the hypocrisy that runs through this place. We heard this great story about Tasmania and hydro and how we can do this. But, when it comes here, do we get money to build water infrastructure so that we can roll out hydro for the rest of us? No, we can't dam rivers. We can't do it. We can't do what you've got across the rest of Australia—through you, Mr Deputy President.

So here is the example they would like us to follow—but we won't let you do it. Here's another example of no-cost emission power called nuclear—but we won't let you do it. It's, 'Do it our way or no way at all.' That's what we get all the time. In fact the Prime Minister, down in Ballarat, comes out and says, 'We know we haven't done it right and we haven't consulted right, but we'll look better.' But, up to 10 times in this very chamber, they voted against an inquiry to look at how they do the rollout. So not only do they not want to do it right but they don't want to look at how they didn't do it right. This is the hypocrisy of this policy. It's when people talk about putting eight wind turbines off northern suburbs beaches. They said: 'We can't do that. It's too beautiful. But come to Port Stephens and let's put up 400.' The good news is that industry knows when they're on a loser, and they were on a loser with this, so industry stopped this plan.

Farmers showed up and chased, in a tractor, the Prime Minister's motorcade—I don't condone violence; I do condone peaceful protests—and that says how frustrating it is. A farmer in Victoria showed up with a noose around her neck to show the stress that is being put onto her. The government doesn't care, because they know this is about the consequences. They don't care in the city, because they don't see the consequences in regional Australia. They don't see that you can't get insurance because you've got wind turbines or solar panels next to you. They don't see the loss of amenity that happens out there. They don't see when a plastic bag is pinned on your fence—about a compulsory acquisition, so a transmission line can go through your property. They don't see the consequence, and they've voted 10 times in here to avoid seeing the consequences.

When Senator Dolega gets up and says, 'This is in Tasmania; let's talk about renewables,' sure, Tassie—great stuff—I love your dams and love your hydro. You are the Norway of Australia. But let us do it in the rest of Australia where there's plenty of water infrastructure. We're about to have an inquiry and look into the Murray-Darling thing. We're about to look at algal blooms down there. Was the fresh water running through that, with the nutrients, a contributor down in the algal bloom? Here's an idea: let's spend some of your money, build some water infrastructure, put a couple of gennies on it and make power for the rest of the country through the water coming down that system. That is what we can do.

But instead it's, 'Let's build transmission lines.' The VNI West transmission line—no generation—was quoted at $3.6 billion. When we go to the integrated system plan, this is what they believe: 'We won't give you a total system cost; we'll give you the integrated system plan cost.' In that is the transmission line, VNI West, for $3.6 billion. Then they say: 'Whoops—we've just had an update. It's increased a bit. It's now a minimum of $7.6 billion.' That's more than double what it was at last estimates. But there's good news, folks: it doesn't stop there. It's not just free steak knives; we'll throw in up to $11.2 billion, which is the expected cost for transmission lines. That's almost three times the original cost. Those are the numbers we're dealing with. This is the impossibly bad rollout we're dealing with.

Imagine the generation with a bit of water infrastructure and a couple of generators—a little Tassie on the Murray, a little Tassie in Victoria and a little Tassie in New South Wales. But we can't do that, because this government says no. We hear the real stories of farmers who are losing their farms, getting those plastic bags pinned on their fences and contemplating their own lives after their farms have been in their family for generations. It doesn't matter here, because it's not a consequence of where your voters are.

We can come here, and you can howl us down, 'You don't believe in climate change.' For the record, I believe in climate change. There was a chance here to vote, to have an inquiry and to do this better, and we got told no. If you fly into any city, there are acres of roofs without solar panels on them. There are blocks where you can have big grid-scale community batteries to keep the power where it's needed. This can be done better. Renewables need to be a part of what we're doing, but our people can't suffer everything for it. I get phone calls from guys who had their land compulsorily acquired and then lost their status as a primary producer for off-farm income, and it's not good enough. Don't be hypocrites; do it better.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of answers given by the Minister for the Environment and Water (Senator Watt) to questions without notice I asked today relating to immigration.

That was a pretty remarkable effort from Labor. They were given a chance in question time to respond to the criticism that the Human Rights Law Centre, National Legal Aid, Democracy in Colour, the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, Amnesty International and many more made of Labor's previous tranche of anti-asylum-seeker, antirefugee and antimigration laws that they rammed through, with the help of Peter Dutton, in the dying days of the last parliament.

Each of those groups said that those laws that Labor was the author of and drove through this parliament would fuel racism. They said, 'Don't pass these laws, and don't engage in the kind of debate that the coalition invites you to do all the time, which is to classify, as a criminal, everyone seeking asylum and to paint, as criminals, people who are in immigration detention because of their visa status, because that is false.' It is so obscenely false that those in the sector are tearing their hair out and saying, 'Why do we have a Labor government that keeps making these false claims against people who are seeking asylum?' What did the government do? It ignored those calls to not fuel hateful right-wing, anti-immigration sentiment, and it joined with Peter Dutton to pass those hateful laws. Shame on the Labor government. Then, when their ministers are given a chance in this place to respond to that criticism, they deflect, they dissemble, they defer, they avoid and they turn it into a parallel political attack.

This government needs to take responsibility for what it has done. Do you know what? Labor needs to take responsibility for, now, decades and decades of this. It was Labor which first passed mandatory detention laws against people seeking asylum by boat. It was Labor which cheered the coalition when it put through a ban on people who'd sought asylum in Indonesia being able to come to Australia, and it's Labor which keeps that ban in place. It's Labor which refuses to provide a fair pathway to justice for the thousands and thousands of people rejected by the coalition's unfair fast-track process and instead keeps these people in endless limbo and uses them as political attacks. It was Labor, just last week while those far-right rallies were building up steam, which brought another piece of hateful legislation into this parliament, to take away the rights of natural justice from people seeking asylum. It's Labor which refuses to admit that the laws they are passing affect over 100,000 people and families in this country. Labor, own up to what you have done. (Time expired)

I would like to take note of the answers given by Senator Watt in relation to Senator Shoebridge's good and important questions about this abhorrent deal that we now know about—a secret deal that the Australian government has not really been upfront about with the Australian people. We don't know the details of this arrangement between the Nauru government and Australia, but we do know that it is going to cost Australian taxpayers almost half a billion dollars for Australia to dump people that this government doesn't want on a new island prison. This is just abhorrent. When will we get some honesty from this government that all this deal is about is a political fix, with a half a billion dollar price tag, that treats people not just as political problems but as commodity. It is literally paying one of the poorest nations in the world to clean up problems that this government doesn't like.

I rarely agree with things that James Campbell, who writes for the Herald Sun, says, but he is right today. His column in the Herald Sun, which exposes this for the vain and abhorrent action that it is, is absolutely true. This government has no excuse for this. Dumping human beings on one of the poorest nations in the world and paying half a billion dollars to do it is a shame. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:

Senator Gallagher to move on the next day of sitting:

That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill 2025, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.

Document: Senator Gallagher tabled the following document:

Consideration of legislation—Statement of reasons for the introduction and passage of the bill in the 2025 spring sittings.

Contingent notices of motion: Senator Thorpe gave contingent notices of motion as follows:

No. 1—To move (contingent on the Senate on any day concluding its consideration of any item of business and prior to the Senate proceeding to the consideration of another item of business)—That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the senator moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of the Senate or to provide for the consideration of any matter.

No. 2—To move (contingent on any senator objecting to a motion being taken as formal)—That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion being moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.

No. 3—To move (contingent on any senator being refused leave to move an amendment to a motion moved during formal business)—That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent that senator moving the amendment to the motion.

No. 4—To move (contingent on any senator being refused leave to amend their own motion prior to it being taken as formal)—That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent that senator amending the motion.

No. 5—To move (contingent on the chair declaring that the time allotted for the consideration of a bill, or any stage of a bill, has expired)—That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent further consideration of the bill, or the stage of the bill, without limitation of time or for a specified period.

No. 6—To move (contingent on the moving of a motion to debate a matter of urgency under standing order 75)—That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the senator moving an amendment to the motion.

No. 7—To move (contingent on any senator being refused leave to move a motion relating to the suspension or adjournment of the Senate)—That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the senator moving a motion relating to the suspension or adjournment of the Senate.

No. 8—To move (contingent on a minister at question time on any day asking that further questions be placed on notice)—That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the senator moving a motion that, at question time on any day, questions may be put to ministers until 30 questions, including supplementary questions, have been asked and answered.

No. 9—To move (contingent on any senator being refused leave to make a statement to the Senate)—That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent that senator making that statement.

No. 10—To move (contingent on any senator being refused leave to table a document in the Senate)—That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the senator tabling the document.

I also table a statement of reasons, justifying the need for the bill to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows—

Purpose of the Bill

This Bill gives effect to the Government's intention that non-citizens who have exhausted all avenues to remain in Australia should be removed, including to third countries where Australia has reached an agreement for their reception.

The Migration Amendment Act 2024 (Act 105 of 2024) and the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Act 2024 (Act 107 of 2024) inserted new sections 76AAA, 198AAA, 198AHB, 199C and 501M into the Migration Act 1958 (Migration Act). Those sections deal with the Commonwealth taking action in relation to third country reception arrangements such as disclosing information to that country (section 198AAA), making a visa application for the non-citizen to enter the third country (subsection 198AHB(2)) or giving removal pathway directions to a removal pathway non-citizen.

This Bill would clarify that the rules of natural justice do not apply to any action taken by the Commonwealth in relation to third country reception arrangements. The Bill also validates any relevant decisions that may have been affected by a failure to afford natural justice.

The Bill also addresses the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in AJN23 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (2024) 304 FCR 586; (2024] FCAFC 103 (AJN23). The Bill validates any visa decision made by the Minister or a delegate of the Minister that might have otherwise been rendered wholly or partly invalid only because it was made, or purportedly made, on the basis that the Migration Act authorises or requires the detention of an unlawful non-citizen in respect of whom there is no real prospect of removal from Australia becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future

Reasons for Urgency

Passage of the bill in the 2025 Spring sittings is required to ensure that the Government can deliver on its obligation to protect the Australian community by removing unlawful non-citizens, even where removal to the home country is not possible.

Prior to the decision of the High Court of Australia in NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Case no S28/2023) some level of community protection was available through immigration detention where removal was not immediately possible.

There are now over 200 non-citizens from the NZYQ cohort in the Australian community, many of whom have serious criminal records including crimes of violence. A number of these non-citizens have reoffended since being granted bridging visas following the NZYQ decision, and the Government is committed to removing them from Australia at the earliest opportunity.

I move:

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

(a) Members of Parliament (Staff) Amendment (Providing Certainty and Improving Integrity) Bill 2025, on Wednesday, 3 September 2025; and

(b) Lobbying (Improving Government Honesty and Trust) Bill 2025, on Thursday, 4 September 2025.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to the following senators:

(a) Senator Nampijinpa Price for 1 September 2025, for parliamentary reasons;

(b) Senator Paterson for 1 September 2025, for personal reasons; and

(c) Senator Chandler for 1 September to 2 September 2025, for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I withdraw notice of motions 62 and 63, on good advice.

by leave—I move:

That a leave of absence be granted for me for the period 25 to 28 August 2025 for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I advise the Senate that I should be designated as a whip for the purposes of standing order 24A, relating to the Selection of Bills Committee.

I move:

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

(2) That the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Amendment (Consideration of UNDRIP) Bill 2023 be restored to the Notice Paper and consideration of the bill resume at the second reading stage.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

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

(ii) on 26 August 2025, the Senate agreed to an order:

(A) rejecting the public interest immunity claims made by the minister, and

(B) requiring the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to comply with the order by 9 am on 27 August 2025;

(iii) on 27 August 2025, the minister advised that he maintains the public interest immunity claim, including on the basis that 'unless Ministers can be assured of the confidentiality of Cabinet meetings, they may not speak freely or honestly between themselves and may be more likely to suppress their views on present policies that may be unpopular or politically embarrassing',

(iv) the disclosure of the documents sought would not disclose instances in which ministers spoke freely or honestly between themselves or expressed views on policies that may be unpopular or politically embarrassing, nor is it apparent how disclosure could impact the ability of ministers to so speak or express views in future Cabinet meetings, and

(v) the order has still not been complied with; and

(b) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to attend the Senate at midday on Tuesday, 2 September 2025, to provide an explanation of no more than 5 minutes, of the failure to comply with the order, and that:

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

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

The question is that general business notice of motion 129, moved by Senator Waters, be agreed to.

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) order for production of documents no. 784 agreed to by the Senate on 12 February 2025, requiring the Minister representing the Minister for Housing to table all documents that relate to the usage of availability payments by the Housing Australia Future Fund, was only partially complied with, as the return included significant redactions,

(ii) the Minister for Housing, in her response to the order, made a claim of public interest immunity on the basis of privacy concerns, damage to commercial interests and disclosure of Cabinet deliberations, and

(iii) notice of motion no. 42, agreed to by the Senate on 29 July 2025, sought the compliance of the Minister representing the Minister for Housing to the order, on the basis that the usage of public funds within a government agency falls within the public interest;

(b) rejects the public interest immunity claim made by the Minister for Housing on 22 August 2025 on the grounds of invasion of privacy and disclosure of commercially sensitive details, noting that:

(i) it must be established that some harm may occur because of the disclosure of the information sought by the order, and

(ii) any specific harm could be overcome by disclosing information in general terms without the identity of those to whom it relates; and

(c) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Housing to attend the Senate on Wednesday 3 September 2025, at the conclusion of the consideration of private senators' bills and immediately prior to government business being called on, to provide an explanation of no more than 5 minutes of the failure to comply with the order, and that:

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

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

Question agreed to.

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

The need for the Government to urgently ensure Santos fixes the 19 year leak of potent heat-trapping methane in Darwin and for the relevant ministers to also explain the failure of the CSIRO, Clean Energy Regulator and NOPSEMA who are reported to have had knowledge of the leak and have taken no action to protect the public.

Is consideration of the proposal supported?

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

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

I move:

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

The need for the Government to urgently ensure Santos fixes the 19 year leak of potent heat-trapping methane in Darwin and for the relevant ministers to also explain the failure of the CSIRO, Clean Energy Regulator and NOPSEMA who are reported to have had knowledge of the leak and have taken no action to protect the public.

A major methane leak has gone unaddressed in Darwin for almost two decades. Explosive documents released under FOI to the Environment Centre NT have revealed that Santos's LNG export hub in Darwin has been leaking methane for nearly 20 years since it was commissioned in 2006. FOI documents reveal that the original owner, ConocoPhillips, notified the Clean Energy Regulator, the federal agency, of the leak on 29 May 2020. No action was taken by the Clean Energy Regulator in response to this notification. As the minister currently responsible for the Clean Energy Regulator, Minister Bowen must provide an explanation.

The new owner, Santos, engaged the CSIRO to undertake monitoring of the fugitive methane emissions from the leak, but neither the existence of the leak nor the results of the monitoring have ever been made public. Minister Ayres is responsible for the CSIRO. An explanation and a public release of the monitoring results and any financial relationship with Santos are desperately needed. NOPSEMA was informed about the leak in late 2024. Despite awareness of the leak, NOPSEMA gave final approval to Santos's Barossa LNG project in April 2025. As the minister responsible for NOPSEMA, Minister King must also provide an explanation.

The leak continues in Darwin Harbour today, and there has been no commitment to fix the issue. So we have multiple federal and Territory regulators who knew about the leak but failed to require Santos to repair it or inform the public about it and its risks. We have multiple ministers responsible for these federal regulators, and so far there have been no explanations from them either. Then, of course, we have Santos and ConocoPhillips. Both appear to have intentionally concealed the leak from the public to ensure that it wouldn't derail their plans for an extension of the Darwin LNG plant or approval for its toxic Barossa gas field offshore project. These revelations are beyond disturbing. I commend the Environment Centre NT for uncovering what is either a spectacular failure of regulators or a deliberate cover-up by successive governments to protect a gas corporation's profit margin.

Methane is bringing forward climate disasters in our lifetime and should be the absolute priority of mitigation efforts. It is more than 80 times more damaging to the atmosphere over 20 years than carbon dioxide. The responsible federal ministers must urgently explain why their regulators knowingly allowed Santos to leak methane, an extremely potent heat-trapping gas that has a higher global warming potential than carbon dioxide, and to leak that for almost two decades. Ministers Bowen, Ayres and King must also explain if they were aware of what their regulators knew. Their climate credentials are well and truly on the line. These reports should be a jolt into action for the climate minister to fast-track methane regulation reforms to avoid future incidents like this and to ensure proper accounting of toxic methane. The International Energy Agency has already revealed that Australia is underreporting methane emissions by at least 64 per cent because coal and gas corporations are allowed to guess their methane emissions instead of actually measuring them. The climate minister agreed to fix this absurd loophole in negotiations, but no progress has occurred.

Furthermore, Minister Bowen must immediately assure the public that Santos will be compelled to repair the leak. Anything less would be unacceptable for the Darwin community and the climate. On what other planet would a massive gas corporation cover up a leak for 19 years, then seek approval for a fresh gas field to be used and for that leaky facility to be used for that fresh gas field and have the regulators roll out the red carpet for them? This is a company that doesn't pay its fair share of tax, that is getting the gas for absolute cheap, that is making megaprofits and that has now been spewing toxic methane for almost 20 years, yet this federal government still showers it with a confetti of approvals for yet more dirty, polluting gas. There are health implications here. There are climate implications here. It is about time we had a government that stood up to the fossil fuel industry rather than doing its bidding.

What a remarkably hyperventilating motion this is. There is a third option, Senator Waters—through you, Madam Acting Deputy President Polley—in addition to the two you listed. That is that these leaks were known about, that they were catered for in the emissions reporting of this company and that the regulator was fully aware of them. It was not the scare campaign that you are attempting to drive here in this place today. The hyperventilation present in this motion is absolutely ridiculous. It's not new. In fact, it has previously been publicly reported. You don't like to mention that, because you want it to appear as some massive uncovering of some secret arrangement or the hiding of something that's been done in the past, when, in actual fact, it's been publicly reported. In fact, it's been included in the safety case and it's been part of the emissions reporting, as required under the law. We should not attempt to create something here that doesn't exist.

This is part of a long-term strategy from the Greens to be completely anti gas regardless of the impact on the economy, on the communities involved, on our energy system or on my home state of Western Australia, which is dependent on gas for 70 per cent of its energy requirements, both directly and indirectly. If you do what the Greens want, which is turn off the gas tomorrow—actually, it's not turn off the gas tomorrow but turn off the gas yesterday—then all these systems would fall apart. The economy would fall apart, people's livelihoods would fall apart and manufacturing would fall apart. We should not allow the Greens to trap us into believing their rhetoric on this issue.

I say once again to all those listening to this broadcast: this is not a matter of urgency in any way, shape or form. It is not new. It's been publicly reported on previously. It wasn't uncovered by an environment group in the Northern Territory. It has been included in safety cases. It's been included in the proposals to continue using this facility in the years to come. These facilities are absolutely vital to the economic wellbeing of places like the Northern Territory and Darwin. In the case of projects such as this in my home state of Western Australia, they are absolutely essential. Without new projects coming online, Western Australia will start to run out of gas in a couple of years.

It's absolutely vital that this infrastructure, which has existed for decades, which has been regulated under the law for decades, where fugitive emissions have been reported, as they are required to be under the law, is allowed to continue to operate to generate the wealth this country requires into the future to generate future jobs and the prosperity that we have relied upon for the last 20 or 30 years. Everybody in this place, including those who sit on the far left of the chamber from my position, have been beneficiaries of it. They know they've been beneficiaries of it, and they will continue to be beneficiaries of it, even though they get up in this place and speak against it day after day.

I rise to oppose this matter of urgency. The media reports today regarding leaking methane from the Darwin LNG facility are concerning, but they appear to be, on their face, a matter for the Northern Territory's EPA regulator. Despite that fact, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy has asked his department to investigate these reports. That will be carried out as part of the work with the expert panel on methane reporting.

It is important that the conclusions that we reach and the actions that we take are based on facts and evidence, not knee-jerk reactions and political pointscoring. This occurs in a broader context where we are managing an energy transition to a clean energy grid, and gas plays a role in that. I know those in the Greens political party don't want to admit that, but the Future Gas Strategy this government has proposed and adopted is an essential part of that transition. Gas is an essential part of the transition as firming fuel. It's important, in these contexts, that governments act responsibly. It's important in these contexts that we have the appropriate confidence in the relevant departments and agencies responsible and that those agencies are allowed to carry out the important work with which they're tasked.

This government does not believe it's fair to characterise the work of agencies such as the CSIRO, the Clean Energy Regulator and NOPSEMA as a failure, as this urgency motion proposes to do. It's another attempt by the Greens to stir up controversy and it brings with it a worrying suggestion of a lack of integrity at these agencies for which this government does not believe there is a proper basis in evidence. Our respected scientists and regulatory agencies have behaved properly. They do so on behalf of Australians, and it is important that that be acknowledged. Motions like this lack foundation in terms of the attacks they make on those agencies. They're not allegations—accusations—that the government supports.

At the outset, it's important to acknowledge or note that the tank in question, the subject of this reporting in relation to methane leaks, is not currently in operation and that the licence to recommence operation of the tank is yet to be approved. The future of the tank will be a matter for the owners of the facility, if they want to continue to use that, and the Northern Territory regulator will need to determine whether it permits it to continue to be used for its purpose. The suggestion that multiple government agencies have failed to take action to protect the public is without foundation, and it is scurrilous in this motion. It also shows a misunderstanding of the responsibilities of those agencies. NOPSEMA, an environmental management authority, does not have jurisdiction to regulate the operation of the Darwin LNG facility. That agency's role was in approving the Barossa facility, and it was required to consider whether there were control measures in place. The agency determined that there was such a legislative framework in place to regulate unplanned emissions, but the responsibility for that falls on the Northern Territory regulators, and it's not appropriate to suggest that the regulator—in this case, NOPSEMA—has failed in its task on the basis of what's before us.

The emissions from the Darwin LNG facility are reported yearly under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act, and there are limits to emissions under the government's reformed safeguard mechanism. The government has already made changes to the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme to improve the accuracy and transparency of reported fugitive methane emissions. That's part of the work of the expert panel led by Cath Foley in response to the CCA review, and that work continues to look at ways to further improve methane emissions reporting in coal and oil and gas facilities. But I think the most egregious aspect of the attack of the urgency motion and some of the things that have been said in this chamber has been the attack on the CSIRO, which is one of our most respected public agencies. The suggestion they are actively hiding information on the basis of a conflict of interest is without foundation—or, at least, that foundation has not been provided in what's been said today.

The CSIRO was engaged years ago to review methods used by third parties for monitoring fugitive methane emissions. It was not engaged to be the primary or engage in any direct monitoring on the site. While we're used to seeing attacks on our agencies, it is important to recognise that they do good work, that a process needs to play out here and that this urgency motion is without foundation.

I rise to support this motion moved by Senator Waters, and I thank her for bringing this issue to the Senate. The saga reveals not only a staggering environmental failure but also a governance failure. For nearly two decades, Santos' Darwin LNG facility has been leaking massive volumes of methane into our atmosphere—up to 184 kilograms every single hour. This wasn't an unfortunate oversight; this was known by Santos, by ConocoPhillips and potentially by regulators from NOPSEMA to the Clean Energy Regulator. For almost 20 years nobody has acted to stop it.

We now know this leak was concealed, apparently to avoid threatening corporate profits and the approval of Santos' Barossa gas project. This is the cost of a system that too often treats climate vandalism as business as usual. Let's be clear: methane is over 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period. This leak jeopardises our climate, our public health and the safety of the people of Darwin. Santos have had years to fix this, but today they've chosen not to. Today I call on Santos to fix the leak and pay for it not next year, not the year after that, not after their quarterly earnings call, but now. Start work to fix the leak now.

I call on the government too. How has this gone unaddressed for so long? How has a leak of this magnitude been hidden in plain sight? This is not just about a faulty tank; it's about a failure of transparency, of oversight, of public trust. We cannot hand a safe climate to future generations if we allow polluters to operate without proper scrutiny.

Australians deserve better and the planet demands better. It's issues like this that reinforce the notion that we are seeing state capture in our politics of the fossil fuel industry and of the major parties. They'll kick and scream and say: 'No, no. We may take donations from them, we may ram legislation through this place that seems designed for them, we may turn a blind eye to 20 years of leaking of methane into our atmosphere that we know is damaging, but there's no state capture here. We just happen to be making these decisions that go against what is good for our country and for future generations.' I urge the Albanese Labor government to turn things around. This is not good enough, and Australians are cottoning on to what's happening here. When Labor are in charge, they're no better than the coalition when it comes to gas; they need to change that.

I rise to speak against the urgency motion before us. The government is deeply concerned about reports of methane leaking from the Darwin LNG facility. That is why the minister has asked the department to review these reports as part of its important work with the expert panel on methane reporting. I reiterate the comments of my colleagues: this is a matter for the Northern Territory's EPA regulator to manage.

The government has complete confidence in the work of the relevant authorities and deep respect for the work of agencies like the CSIRO. I understand this facility has already been the subject of several reviews and investigations by the operator, Santos, and the Northern Territory EPA. We know the tank is currently not in operation. It was subject to an engineering investigation in 2020, when approval was sought to extend the life of the LNG facility. The appropriate regulatory approvals are in place and it has an approved safety case. The methane emissions are reported under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme, with a monitoring program in place. The licence to recommence operations of the tank is up for renewal on 18 September. It is a matter for Santos and the Northern Territory regulator to decide the most appropriate course of action.

Under Labor, these emissions are reported, under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act. They will be reported, scrutinised and subject to the safeguard mechanism, which has been strengthened under this government. Labor takes seriously the methane emissions, and we are modernising Australia's methane monitoring and reporting, with satellite technology, using the most rigorous, transparent data in our history. We take these obligations very seriously, and we will continue to make improvements in line with evidence and with science. Through updates to the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme and an expert panel led by the Chief Scientist, we're integrating satellite and atmospheric measurement into our emissions accounting. Greater transparency for methane emissions was achieved in April this year, when facility-level methane emissions were published for safeguard facilities for the first time, along with the methods used to estimate those emissions. The Albanese government's response to the Climate Change Authority's review of the scheme shows that we take our reporting requirements seriously and make improvements based on science and evidence. The CCA review found the scheme was performing well and made 25 recommendations, including one to enhance fossil methane measurement reporting and verification. The work of the expert panel continues, looking at ways to further strengthen methane reporting. That is transparency in action, and it shows we will hold facilities to account. It means we have the very best science here in Australia underpinning our reporting. It means Australians can have confidence that our emissions reductions are real, measurable and verifiable.

Our government is delivering strong and credible action to protect our environment and cut emissions. For too long, Australia fell behind the world. The Liberals gave us a decade of denial and delay, leaving our country isolated on the international stage. But Labor changed that. In 2022, the Albanese Labor government ensured Australia joined the Global Methane Pledge, committing to work towards a 30 per cent reduction in methane emissions by 2030, and we are backing that commitment with practical action. We understand that reducing our methane emissions is crucial to meeting our commitment to net zero. That is why the National Reconstruction Fund includes funding streams for methane reduction technologies, as well as funding through the Methane Emissions Reduction in Livestock program. We are fighting climate change on all fronts, and Australians can be proud that we, the Albanese government, are protecting our environment, strengthening the economy and building a cleaner, safer future.

Here we go again: another week, another climate scandal. Thanks to investigative reporting and the efforts of the Environment Centre Northern Territory, we know that, for nearly two decades, Santos's Darwin LNG plant has been leaking toxic climate-destroying methane straight into Darwin Harbour. I honestly don't know how some people keep a straight face in this place as they're talking to their environmental credentials, ones not worth the paper they're written on.

Methane—a gas more than 80 times more damaging than carbon dioxide—over a 20-year period has been silently accelerating the climate crisis, while governments, regulators and corporations look the other way. Let's be clear. This isn't just a climate scandal. It's a crisis of democracy, of transparency and of accountability. Despite multiple agencies knowing—the Clean Energy Regulator, NOPSEMA, the CSIRO, Northern Territory WorkSafe and the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority—for almost 20 years the public has been kept in the dark! We must ask: 'Why? Why did no-one act? Why was this information buried? And whose interests are being served?'—because it certainly wasn't the interests of the Australian people; it certainly wasn't the people of Darwin, whose harbour has been treated like a dumping ground; and it certainly wasn't the climate.

Instead, what we see looks like a familiar pattern: a fossil fuel giant protecting its profits, regulators failing to regulate and successive governments bending over backwards for an industry that bankrolls their campaigns through donations while recruiting for cushy jobs via the revolving door, with ministerial offices. We know that the gas lobby has the ear of the government on speed dial, and now we learn that Santos was paying our national science agency, the CSIRO, to monitor this leak—monitoring that has never been made public. At the very same time, the government of secrecy is still sitting on its own climate risk assessment, refusing to release it, refusing to level with the public about the dangers we face.

While the truth about climate risk is buried in Canberra's filing cabinets, the truth about this gas leak has been buried in Darwin Harbour. This raises an unavoidable question: is this a spectacular failure of regulation, or a deliberate cover-up? Either way, it is a damning indictment of the integrity of decision-making in this country. The ministers responsible owe Australians an explanation. They must account for what their regulators knew and why they chose secrecy over transparency and corporate protection over public interest.

As a matter of urgency, Santos must be compelled to fix the leak and pay for the pollution it has caused. And we must expose and reform the deep capture of the government by the fossil fuel industry, because democracy depends on trust. Right now every Australian has reason to doubt whether their government works for them or for the fossil fuel companies wrecking our future.

There's a reason for the secrecy around this methane leak in Darwin Harbour. There's a reason for the sensitivity around it. It's because both the dirty fossil fuel industry and this government know that we have a methane problem in this country. When methane leaks from a project it's called a fugitive emission. Did you know, senators, that 27 per cent of all our methane accounting in emissions comes from leaks from fugitive emissions? That makes up just less than 10 per cent of our nation's entire greenhouse gas inventories, from leaks from these kinds of projects. It beggars belief that, at a plant in the Northern Territory that is being looked at and studied by our science agencies and others, we can tolerate this, when at the same time we're opening up some of the biggest carbon bombs, the biggest fossil fuel projects, in our nation's history, and we want to store the carbon and the methane under the ocean, which has never been done before.

Whether it's the Barossa project—remember the sea dumping bill in the last parliament?—or the North-West Shelf extension out to 2070, talk about fugitive emissions, or Murujuga art, if you want to go down that road. But they want to open up the Browse Basin, near the pristine Scott Reef in Western Australia, and pump the CO2 and methane back under the ground, under the ocean. Who's going to be looking at that? These are some of the biggest projects in our nation's history. To even begin that process they literally have to blast the crap out of the ocean with seismic testing for decades to try to understand these geological structures.

This industry and the governments that are captured by these industries cannot be trusted with fugitive emissions, whether it be methane or whether it be CO2. The best way to cut our methane emissions and our carbon dioxide emissions is to stop all new fossil fuel projects in this country.

The question is that the matter of urgency, standing in the name of Senator McKim and moved by Senator Waters, be agreed to.

Senator Hume has submitted a proposal, shown at item 12 of today's Order of Business:

Australians were promised relief, but instead they've been hit with another spike in the cost of living. Inflation is up, power bills are soaring, and interest rates have been higher for longer because of Labor's failures.

Is consideration of the proposal supported?

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

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

This is a matter of public importance because the cost-of-living crisis that began under Labor continues on today. In 2022, Anthony Albanese made a promise to the Australian people. He said that they would be better off under Labor. More than three years on, Australians are worse off. Living standards have declined by more than six per cent under the Albanese Labor government, and that is the biggest decline in living standards in the developed world. Australians were told that their power bills would go down by $275, but, instead, families are paying thousands of dollars more, and there are 330,000 Australians who are drowning in $300 million of energy debt. Labor's solution to this is, 'Oh, you should shop around.' That's not a solution; that's an excuse.

Australians were told that mortgages would be cheaper under Labor. Instead, interest rates went up 12 times, and mortgage repayments are up on average around $1,800 a month. That's not the sort of money that you find down the back of the couch. We were told by Labor that they had a plan for inflation. But, instead, Labor added fuel to the fire by increasing government spending, and that kept inflation higher for longer. Then they told us that inflation was a global problem and it wasn't their fault. But, while other countries' inflation fell and their interest rates came down, ours continued to climb. Australian families and businesses have paid an extraordinarily high price for this. The cost of everything is up. Electricity is up by 39 per cent under Labor. Rent is up by 20 per cent. Insurance is up by 35 per cent. Food is up by 14 per cent. Health is up by 15 per cent. Education is up by 17 per cent.

Labor's had three years and four budgets to get this right, but every single one of them has failed. They also have seen a fall in our standard of living that we now expect will not be recovered until 2030. So, if you are feeling poorer, there is a good reason: you are poorer. You are poorer under Labor.

The coalition set up the cost-of-living committee in September 2022 because we could see at that stage that Labor had no plan to address the cost-of-living crisis. We travelled around the country and received thousands of submissions from ordinary Australians and heard firsthand the pressure that Australian families and businesses are under. After a two-year inquiry, the evidence was overwhelming. It found that Australia's standard of living had collapsed due to Labor's high inflation and low productivity. To address this, two of the many recommendations that committee made included for the Albanese government to convene a National Cabinet to address this issue of excessive government spending that's driving inflation across all levels of government and for a National Cabinet to develop a productivity-enhancing reform to the economy, including establishing a national deregulation agenda.

While Labor didn't act on these recommendations at the time, it does seem that the Treasurer has finally realised that productivity is a problem in Australia. He got halfway there with his productivity roundtable, but, as we know, the outcomes to that were a little lacklustre. Just a few weeks ago the RBA that warned our living standards would continue to fall over the next few years unless something is done to address our sluggish productivity. Because we've gone backwards under Labor and will continue to go backwards, we are concerned that Labor is not taking the cost-of-living crisis that continues in Australia seriously. They're out of their depth. They've blamed everybody else, while Australians know the truth: the cost of living was fuelled by inflation and is homegrown. Inflation is higher than it should be because of decisions that were made here in Canberra.

The government's spending has blown out to more than 27 per cent of GDP. That's the highest level of government spending outside of a recession in nearly 40 years. That's extraordinary! Debt is heading to $1.2 trillion, and that's $32,700 per household and $2,080 a year in extra interest that we're all paying since Labor came to office. Higher spending, higher debt, higher inflation—that's the reality of life under Labor. No Australian household or business would run their budget the way that Jim Chalmers is running his.

Australians were promised relief. They were promised their grocery bills, mortgages and electricity bills would go down, and none of that has happened. The Reserve Bank has been clear. Unless the government reins in its spending, inflation will continue to be too high for too long and standards of living will not improve. Australians deserve better. They deserve a government that keeps its promises, lives within its means and delivers the relief for families that they so desperately need and have been crying out for now for more than three years.

It's another display of crocodile tears from those opposite, showing empathy for people who have challenges with the cost of living when, in fact, each time we put taxation relief before this chamber, they voted against it. Only today we had before the Senate the National Health Amendment (Cheaper Medicines) Bill 2025, which is reducing medications. The reality is different, despite the way that those opposite want to come into this chamber and rewrite history, as they tried to this morning with that contribution around aged care. They're doing it here again.

Looking at cheaper medicines, when they were in government for 11 very long years, they didn't do anything about bringing down the cost of medications. We know that over seven million Australians are living with arthritis in this country. Some of those who suffer with arthritis and from that disease take medications every day. Unfortunately, it's a large number of them. This is going to reduce their cost of living, which is going to have a real impact on those people. The 60-day scripts is another measure that's going to help with the cost of living. What did those people do when they were in government for 11 years? They failed to take that necessary step.

Since we've been in government, we've built on our first term. We take very seriously the challenges to people's households. We've actually delivered a real wage increase for Australian workers, unlike those opposite. Last week, we passed legislation to ensure that workers are able to rely on penalty rates and overtime rates by legislating to stop any change so that workers won't be worse off. Those people opposite didn't support that legislation. It's alright to come in here and try to rewrite history, but we know that the proof is in the pudding.

Let's talk about higher inflation. When we came into government three years ago, inflation was at 6.1 per cent. It was 6.1 per cent under you guys opposite. That's what you left behind. It now has a two in front of it. Is there still more work to be done? Of course, there is still more work to be done. We don't walk away from that. But when it comes to ensuring that we're investing in the Australian people and making sure that real wages are growing—they've grown for seven consecutive quarters—the economy is still expanding. The fundamentals of our national economy are strong. Interest rates have been cut three times in the last six months. Do they still need to come down? Yes, they do, but it's saving people real money and leaving more money in their wallet with interest rates coming down.

More than 1.1 million jobs have been created since we came to government. That's a record for any government in a single term. That's the reality of it, not the false, crocodile tears and rewriting of history by those opposite. The average unemployment rate is the lowest of any government in 50 years. These are the facts. You can't run away from them. The reality is that we have been delivering. We've delivered on all our election commitments. In our last term of government, we turned two Liberal deficits into two Labor surpluses and also halved the deficit in our third year. That's what a Labor government has done. Those opposite like to paint the picture that they're the only ones who can look after and build a strong economy. That is not right. Eleven years, and they failed to deliver one surplus.

When we talk about energy policies, we know that energy prices have to come down; that's why we're investing in renewable energies. But those opposite had 22 energy policies and couldn't land one of them! And at the last election, what did they come up with? The most ineffective, most costly form of energy possible. And the Australian people spoke. Let's not forget: when Australians go to an election, they never get it wrong. Whether we end up in government or not, the Australian people never get it wrong. They saw through Mr Dutton and the former government. They had 11 years of failure. (Time expired)

There is no doubt that Australians are being smashed by a cost-of-living crisis, whether it's power bills through the roof, getting price-gouged by Coles and Woolworths, the supermarket duopoly or mortgages and rents breaking the household budget. While people are struggling so severely, the billionaires, the super wealthy and the big corporations—the banks, the energy giants and the supermarket duopoly—are raking in billions of dollars in profit. The big corporations and the super wealthy have never had it so good in Australia's history.

Here is the truth of the matter: those same interests, many of them, are now seeking to sow division in our community. They are doing that because they want Australians to blame migrants and refugees for the problems of the day, instead of calling out the corporate profiteers who are bleeding people dry and their agents in this place—the Labor and Liberal parties—who are allowing them to get away with it. Too many people who sit in this Senate are doing the dirty work for big corporations and the super wealthy. We saw it on the weekend; those racist, white supremacist, Neo-Nazi rallies were literally being cheered on by some senators who sit in this place. It is a deliberate strategy to pit neighbour against neighbour so that the rich and the big corporations can keep making off like bandits.

I'll tell you one thing: when politicians scapegoat migrants and refugees, they are giving cover to a rigged economy that works for the wealthy few and the big corporations and that punishes everybody else. Many of those people who came to those rallies are being punished by this economy. It's not migrants and refugees that should be the object of their anger and ire; it is people in this place who are allowing big corporations to make off like bandits. They are protecting the powerful and the profits of the powerful by stoking hate, fear and division and causing harm to those who are being targeted. The Australian Greens stand with the communities who are targeted by racists, racism and Neo-Nazis, and we also stand with the people who have been ripped off and left behind by an economy that is rigged against them.

I thank Senator Hume for bringing this very important matter before the Senate today. Earlier this year the Australian Labor Party promised to deliver responsible and meaningful cost-of-living relief to Australians should they be elected. Four months later, we've seen nothing of the sort. Day after day, week after week, we hear the same story: the cost of living is a huge issue. It certainly is, and it's affecting each and every Australian. Yet this Labor government has no solution. Worse still, it seems that they don't even want to fix it. Labor is the Michael Scott of economics: thinking that by shouting loud enough they can dodge the fallout of their reckless spending. If they believe blaming everyone else will erase this damage, they're indeed as delusional as that character himself.

This government's own campaign website promised that they would provide energy bill relief while putting downward pressure on inflation. Well, on the contrary, our headline annual inflation rate has risen from 1.9 to 2.8 per cent, the highest rate we've seen in over a year. The basic laws of economics do not change. Only by improving productivity growth can we sustainably raise living standards. And what is this government doing about it? Well, they called a roundtable to discuss it.

The one thing that came out of the recent economic reform roundtable is that this government finally realised that there is a productivity crisis in this country. But simply trying to spend their way to improve productivity is not the solution either. Robert Breunig wrote in the AFR:

You can't spend your way to productivity. A solid body of evidence underwrites the argument that big government is bad for productivity. Government spending can lead to higher interest rates making borrowing more expensive for businesses and individuals. This reduces private investment.

There are real and tangible things that Labor could be doing, but they aren't. They could be cutting red tape, encouraging private sector investment and creating an environment where small businesses can thrive. Instead, they're bailing water out with one hand while pouring more into the leaky boat with the other. Business Council Chief Executive Bran Black affirmed this by stating, 'You don't fix Australia's lagging productivity and investment by taxing business more and making Australians less competitive.'

Reduced private sector spending is already contracting and continues to do so under this government's watch. We know non-mining investment is already down 1.9 per cent over the past year, and in Victoria it's dropped 5.3 per cent. Private sector capital expenditure is now at its lowest contraction since 2020. So, rather than incentivise private sector investment, this government under its watch saddles it with more red tape and union-favouring industrial relations laws. National productivity will continue to plummet if this government thinks that it can just spend its way out.

When productivity is poor we all feel poorer for it. Our standard of living drops, and people feel they have less to spend in their back pocket. This is all happening under this government. This government have had 1,197 days to deliver on their promises to the Australian people. Sadly, they're failing. But, just like Michael Scott convinced himself that he's the genius manager while the office crumbles daily around him, Labor are full of deluded optimism, convinced that their antics will somehow work out while ordinary Australians foot the bill for their mistakes. The cost-of-living crisis is only getting worse, not better. It's time for them to stop making excuses and start taking real action.

I rise today to speak in response to Senator Hume's matter of public importance regarding the cost of living. When Labor came to office there were huge deficits as far as the eye could see—a trillion bucks of coalition debt in a budget weighed down with nothing but rorts and waste. The Labor government, together with Australians, has made so much progress in the economy. Quarterly headline and underlying inflation is now at around four-year lows. Annual real wages have been growing, and they've been growing for seven consecutive quarters. I'll say that again: real wages are growing after a decade where wage suppression was government policy under those opposite. And the economy is still expanding.

People with home loans will have noted and felt the difference of interest rates that have been cut three times in the last six months. There was a quarter of a per cent in February, another quarter of a per cent in April and another quarter of a per cent in August. These interest rate cuts are making a huge difference for families with a mortgage. The cuts mean that a household with a $700,000 mortgage is now saving about $330 per month, or $4,000 per year.

We've created more than 1.1 million jobs since we came to government, a record for any government in a single term. I note that the average unemployment rate is the lowest of any government in 50 years.

When it comes to the Labor government budget, we've taken a disciplined and considered approach. I note my colleague Senator Polley pointed out that we've turned two Liberal deficits into two Labor surpluses, and then, in the third year, we halved the deficit. The budget position under Labor has improved by more than $207 billion. Debt is $177 billion lower in the 2024-25 year, saving $60 billion in interest costs as a consequence. Real payments growth is estimated to be averaged at 1.7 per cent per year, less than half the average under our predecessors. We have found more than $100 billion in savings, when our predecessors had none in their budget.

But the job is not finished. We know people are still under pressure, and that's why we're delivering more real, practical and ongoing help with the cost of living, including eight new changes that already came into effect on 1 July and three tax cuts for every single Australian taxpayer—one last year, one next year and another the year after that. Those opposite went to the last election opposing our tax cuts. They were going to repeal them. I think the average Australian saw through the policies of the other side for what they were, and they actually voted for higher living standards, higher wages, lower taxes and secure, well-paid jobs. That's what we're working towards every day, delivering for everyday Australians.

Today in this place we've started taking steps to make medicines cheaper for all—another key cost-of-living initiative that Australians supported at the last election. We're reducing the cost of PBS scripts from $31.60 to $25, the lowest that they've been since 2004. Labor built Medicare and the PBS, and Labor is making the system stronger and fairer.

We've delivered strong reforms to industrial relations. We made submissions to the Fair Work Commission supporting real, fair wage rises for the lowest-paid workers. We have levelled the playing field by closing loopholes for labour hire workers and casual workers, with same job, same pay. Just last week we legislated to protect penalty rates for award-reliant workers. This will ensure the wages of around three million workers do not go backwards. And, again, last week we announced that from 1 October more Australians than ever will be able to afford to buy their first home with a five per cent deposit. The five per cent deposit scheme will cut years off the time Australians require to save for a deposit. It will save people tens of thousands of dollars on lenders mortgage insurance. That's real cost-of-living relief.

We've seen an increase to super. We have supported parents, with more paid parental leave. Parents are getting super on paid parental leave.

How could I not mention that in the first sitting fortnight we legislated to slash student debt by 20 per cent. We've also raised the repayment threshold and lowered the payment rates. (Time expired)

The Labor Albanese government has made bold promises—cheaper power, stronger economy, more housing—but Australians are left with broken trust and rising costs. I'm calling bullshit. Take energy. Labor promised a $275—

Senator Whitten, that commentary isn't parliamentary. If you could please withdraw.

Sorry, Acting Deputy President. I withdraw. Labor promised a $275 cut to power. Instead, families are paying $1,500 more per year. People are switching off heaters and appliances just to stay afloat.

This is the same government that claimed it would boost productivity and resilience, but we're now facing the largest drop in disposable income in the developed world. Wages are flat, inflation is biting and everyday essentials—food, fuel and electricity—keep climbing. Australians are having to choose between rent, groceries, school costs and mortgage payments.

This is the same government that promised to help more Australians own their own homes. We're in a rent crisis. Rents are soaring, repayments are blowing out, and homeownership is slipping out of reach for young Australians. Some families are even being pushed onto the streets, not through bad choices but because the government has failed to act and failed them.

This is the same government that has presided over 12 interest rate rises while having the tools to ease pressure. They pointed fingers instead until rates fell slightly, and then they took the credit. That's not leadership; that's spin.

This is the same government that promised a renewables-only policy. Not only has that driven up electricity prices; it's putting our environment and farmland at risk, all in the name of saving it. Australians deserve leadership that delivers not just headlines.

Energy insecurity leads to economic insecurity. Affordable, reliable energy underpins our national economy and supports productivity. Manufacturing, industry, agriculture and small businesses sit next to emerging technologies like AI in their demand and in their need for reliable, affordable energy.

That's why Australians are alarmed and concerned that electricity prices have risen by 30 per cent under Labor's watch. Remember that it was Prime Minister Albanese who promised savings of $275 on household electricity costs. Families today are now having to live with soaring energy costs of up to $1,300. Don't believe me? You can believe Anglicare Australia. Anglicare Australia's June 2025 Cost of living index said:

For the majority of the households we modelled, energy bills are simply unaffordable.

'Energy bills are simply now unaffordable,' is what Anglicare Australia are telling people as a result of the conversations they've had with Australian households.

And nowhere is the cost-of-living experience being felt with more difficulty than in my home state of Western Australia. There are three compelling data points: business insolvencies, slowing employment growth and inflation. In the 2024-25 financial year, 929 Western Australian businesses went insolvent. That's a 26 per cent increase on just a year before and a 149 per cent increase in business insolvencies compared to 2021-22. Think about that—929 business insolvencies in the last financial year compared to just 372 in 2021-22.

Perth has experienced the largest increase in annual inflation of any Australian city. The annual inflation rate for Perth families sits at 2.7 per cent, the highest of any Australian city. Western Australians have been forced to find money to support a 116 per cent increase in their electricity costs, a 2½ per cent increase in their hospital and medical costs and a 3.8 per cent increase in their motor vehicle maintenance costs, and, of course, rents are up by almost two per cent.

The one thing that has protected Australians from cost-of-living pressures is their feeling that they are saved by job security. For many years, people have thought, 'I can deal with the cost-of-living pressure because I have job security.' Well, guess what has changed in Western Australia? Western Australians are now facing increasing levels of job insecurity. In the six months to 2025, there were just 10,000 jobs created in Western Australia. Compare that to the 43,000 jobs that were created in the same period one year before that. What does that mean? It means job growth is slowing and job insecurity is increasing.

Life has become difficult for many, many Western Australian families under Labor. They know the country is going backwards. They can feel the country going backwards, and the data reveals it. Almost a thousand WA small businesses lost, jobs evaporating, families under cost-of-living pressures and energy costs rising: this is Labor's legacy on Western Australian businesses and Western Australian families. Perth tops every city when it comes to inflation. Insolvencies have increased by 26 per cent from a year ago and by almost 150 per cent in just four years, and job growth is in decline.

The time for the discussion has now expired.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

Today, I rise to take note of the 2024 independent review of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Act 2016. When it comes to unlocking the massive potential of northern Australia, there has been no greater enabler than the NAIF. Thanks to the Commonwealth's $7 billion investment, we are developing projects that deliver the jobs and build the services that Australians in the north rely on. The NAIF was established off the back of a white paper on developing northern Australia. That report spelled out what everyone who lives in the north already knew: that northern communities face daily challenges that Australians in Melbourne and Sydney just don't face.

The NAIF was designed to overcome some of the biggest roadblocks to getting investment on the ground in the north. Distances are vast, the weather is unforgiving, and supporting infrastructure and supply chains are more limited. It's just a fact that the north brings higher risks for private investment. The NAIF fills that gap and in doing so encourages additional private investment to enter northern communities. After 10 years of operation, the NAIF is now considered an expert when it comes to providing concessional loans to help complex projects get off the ground.

It's really hard to overstate the kind of impact that these investments have had. Current investments alone are already forecast to generate more than $33 billion in public benefit for northern Australia. It's kickstarting new industries, delivering more housing and unlocking the potential of our critical minerals and energy sectors. It isn't just good for the north; it's about building the industries that will drive the future prosperity of our nation. Importantly, it's also contributing to better outcomes for First Nations people through project-specific Indigenous engagement strategies. And for everyone who calls the north home it means thousands of new jobs. The challenges come from distance, isolation and lack of investment for the people of the north, but the NAIF is bringing change.

As a senator from the regions, I know Queensland's airports well. Every week—almost every day in some weeks—I'm passing through a different terminal in regional Queensland. And I know firsthand how important these hubs are to businesses and communities and to connecting families. For many, they are a lifeline enabling commerce and travel to remote regions. Right now, thanks to NAIF, real investment is happening to upgrade these regional airport hubs and ensure they're fit to service these communities as demand grows. Every time I fly into and out of a regional airport up north in Cairns, Mackay or Townsville, I see the changes that are going on: upgrades that will better connect our regions to the rest of Australia and the world that wouldn't be happening without NAIF's support.

Just last week I was lucky enough to get a sneak peek of the first major international terminal upgrade Cairns Airport has received in almost 30 years. This is thanks to a $155 million loan from NAIF. Work is well underway to enhance the international terminal's departure lounge and baggage claim area. Airports like these are lifelines for regional communities. The funding will also replace ageing taxiways, boosting capacity and enabling the airport to keep up with the expected demand in traffic over the next 15 to 20 years. The funding is also going to build a new eastern aviation precinct, which will provide more stands for domestic flights, not to mention a heliport, commercial lots and a general aviation hub. The same loan is also going to fund new runway and taxiway surface upgrades at Mackay Airport that I will get the chance to see in a couple of weeks. For the people of North Queensland, this will mean faster and easier travel, connecting families and businesses to the rest of the state, Australia and the world. That $155 million investment from NAIF is expected to generate $1.4 billion in public benefit, during construction and operation.

Last week the Minister for Resources and Minister for Northern Australia, Madeleine King, tabled the review prepared by the independent expert panel chaired by the Hon. Warren Snowdon, alongside Dr Lisa Caffery and Professor Peter Yu. I want to thank them all for their work. Thank you, too, to the soon-to-be-retired CEO, Craig Doyle, and his hardworking team for their solid contribution to the lasting impacts that NAIF is delivering across northern Australia.

The Albanese Labor government is backing the north. We are proud to be backing the NAIF and very much looking forward to breaking ground on the next wave of projects in the investment pipeline.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I speak on document 1 at item 13, the marine survey of the Bunbury continental shelf, on behalf of the Western Australians who are concerned about the proposed destruction of our beautiful Geographe Bay. 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 humpbacks are migrating through the deeper waters of the offshore wind zone, and a number of these are observed nursing in Geographe Bay. This huge number of whales are migrating through waters further than 20 kilometres offshore, in depths of 30 to 60 metres, right in the offshore zone. Pygmy blue whales and southern right whales are endangered and are 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.

The department of the environment has given the green light to this marine survey of the Bunbury continental shelf. They did this by declaring the marine survey 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. Public servants in the department have disregarded the risk involved with the marine survey mapping, which uses sound levels that cause harm and death to whales, in their rush to support the building of offshore wind turbines in the middle of a whale superhighway 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.

I'll bring your attention to page 5, item 12(d), which mentions 'Multichannel and single channel high-resolution seismic profilers (boomer or sparker sources)'. A recent report from the USA has brought attention to these survey methods exceeding 160 decibels. Whales and dolphins use echolocation to navigate the ocean, and sound levels recorded of this type of proposed marine surveying has been shown to cause deafness in whales and dolphins, which results in their death as they cannot navigate their surroundings. Reports on the marine surveying methods used recorded excess noise levels that exceed the whales' spectrum of hearing, meaning that the whales are not even aware that they are going deaf from the underwater noise until it's too late. Whales cannot avoid a damaging level of noise that is outside of their frequency of hearing.

The WA reef system of the Bunbury continental shelf is as unique as the Great Barrier Reef area. It 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 have asked the Minister for the Environment and Water, Minister Watt, to review this decision made by the department of the environment so that proper due diligence can be carried out. I have not received an 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. It was refused by the same public officer that made the decision that the marine survey is not a controlled action.

I share my community's concern that, should this offshore wind project be allowed to progress without any transparency, accountability or scrutiny, there will be irreversible damage done in our oceans. I have one question for those on the other side of this chamber. Where is your evidence that repeated high-decibel underwater sound does not cause whale deafness and, therefore, their premature deaths? The offshore wind zone is being fast-tracked and green-lit 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.

I will not let up about my disgust regarding the manner in which the valid concerns of Western Aussies are being treated by this Labor government. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I'm going to reserve this document so as to probably make some further remarks on it, but I just want to give some initial reflections to the community and to the Senate. For context, last week, the Senate ordered the production of a couple of reports from the government. That's a reasonably non-controversial thing for this chamber to do.

We asked the government to release the report commissioned by them and undertaken by the independent health pricing authority for NDIS pricing in relation to allied health services, a report which has been on their desk since November of last year. We also asked them to release a copy of the independent review of art therapy undertaken by Professor Duckett. This is a report which, by the government's own admission, they've had in their possession for about four months now, having listed it on a website as a document that will be released in coming months. It's very fair for the Senate to have asked for them given that both of these questions—what the future of art therapy funding under the NDIS is, and what the independent health pricing authority said in relation to how much allied health professionals should be paid under the NDIS—are in the public interest. Both of these reports and reviews have been in the possession of the government for many months, and it's very reasonable for us to ask for their release.

On the issue of OPDs more generally, I have taken the view—and the Greens have taken the view many times—that if an OPD is lodged in the chamber and it is a request that requires the government to produce every correspondence for the last month or a large volume of information then it isn't reasonable to request that of the government in a short period of time. But, to make it very clear, the Senate asked for the release of two reports that the government have had in their possession for many months so that the community can understand what is being considered by this government in relation to these two key areas.

We've had a response from the minister tabled in which they say that they take their responsibility to the government very seriously, and, as they foreshadowed in their speeches, they will work to comply with the orders of the Senate. However, they have flagged a couple of reasons for not doing so by the date the Senate set them. First of all, they have flagged that they need further time because the NDIS is co-governed and that the states and territories have a strong tradition of co-design with the disability community in relation to the scheme and that the National Disability Insurance Scheme is an independent statutory agency governed by an independent board. That is totally irrelevant to the question of the order for the production of documents, either of them—totally an irrelevant statement. They have flagged: 'There are complex stakeholder and consultation responsibilities that the government would need to acquit before it is in a position to release either report. Additionally, there is a longstanding practice of not disclosing documents that relate to deliberations of cabinet.' They have set a compliance date for the orders of 12 September 2025, at 5 pm.

Let me state really, really clearly for the community this evening: the Greens in the Senate, along with the crossbench and other parties in this place, demanded that the government release these two documents because we know that the future of our therapy and allied health services matter to disabled people and our families. We know and we have heard that the community want to get to the bottom of what the government has been told in response to these reviews—reviews that were promised to deliver transparency so the community could understand. We have heard that the community prioritised having information over the government's desire to keep that information to themselves until it is convenient for them to release it. I am in no way satisfied by this response. It does not speak in any substantive way to the question of why the government could not simply attach these reports to an email and click 'send'. This is not the last you've heard of this.

Senator, the time for the debate has expired.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I table documents relating to the orders for the production of documents concerning the Housing Australia Future Fund; unfair trading practices; the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation; the Construction Forestry and Maritime Employees Union; the Future Fund Board of Guardians and Management Agency; and the Whitsundays Taipan helicopter crash.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the documents.

This batch of documents is from a Comcare investigation into the Whitsundays Taipan helicopter crash that killed Captain Danniel Lyon, Lieutenant Maxwell Nugent, Warrant Officer Class 2 Joseph Phillip Laycock and Corporal Alexander Naggs. These contain bombshell allegations that cast a real shadow on the prosecutor's decision not to progress this case. The Comcare investigation lays out that Defence knew that the TopOwl head-up displays, especially with software version HMSD 5.10, could tell pilots the incorrect data on the helicopter; that the risk was controlled flight into terrain, into the ground, with the consequence of serious injury or death; that Defence overrode their own internal systems to field the equipment anyway; and that Bushman 83 were flying in conditions identified as the highest risk for this hazard.

An eminently qualified pilot who has analysed the flight data recorder information published by the Defence Flight Safety Bureau has put together a compelling narrative of what probably happened in the cockpit of Bushman 83. Having experienced the feeling of disorientation before, under training, the pilot would have relied on his training, which repeatedly emphasised, 'Trust your instruments.' Again, the fuzzy green NVD background image instrument readings presented by HMSD 5.10 would be bright, crisp and sharp. They would be both trusted and compelling head-up displays. Knowing he was disoriented, the pilot would have looked from the side to the front while at 30 degrees of bank angle. HMSD 5.10 would then indicate the aircraft was pitching rapidly nose up. The rate of pitch would have indicated the aircraft was rapidly departing controlled flight and desperate immediate action was required. This is the source of surprise the Defence Flight Safety Bureau was looking to identify, and they were unable to because they had ruled TopOwl out of consideration. We know that from Comcare, and I'll get on to that in a minute. Fatigued, stressed and disorientated, the pilot would have slammed the stick forward to stop the nose pitching up, trusting his instruments. The nose, though, wasn't pitching up as TopOwl would have been indicating, and this sent the aircraft into a dive which ultimately was unrecoverable before they impacted into the ocean.

Defence knew TopOwl could malfunction in exactly the conditions in which Bushman 83 was flying, yet they rolled out the equipment anyway. It was probably illegal for Army aviation to roll out TopOwl in the way they did, When the test pilots refused to certify TopOwl with HMD 5.10 for airworthiness in the MRH-90 Taipans, that should have been the end of it. Army aviation does not have authority to overrule those airworthiness certifiers, yet they did, most likely in breach of the law that allows Army to operate helicopters.

The government of Australia permits defence to operate aircraft in compliance with the Defence Aviation Safety Regulation. Under this regulation, Army are issued a permit recognising them as a military air operator. This places responsibilities on Army officers to conduct air operations in compliance with the Defence Aviation Safety Regulation. Army do not have unilateral authority to amend or violate these regulations. The Defence Aviation Safety Regulation requires aircraft changes to be assessed for airworthiness code compliance by a recognised test agency before release into service.

The Army Aviation Test and Evaluation Section is the only Defence Aviation Safety Regulation recognised test agency within Army. The Aviation Test and Evaluation Section assessed the TopOwl system as non-compliant with airworthiness codes, an assessment which remains unchallenged still. The Army Aviation Test and Evaluation Section reported that TopOwl airworthiness code defects would likely result in multiple deaths if used in poor weather conditions, such as the conditions on the night of 28 July 2023, when an MRH-90 Taipan helicopter crew using TopOwl became disoriented and flew into the water, killing all on board.

Once the system was assessed as being noncompliant with airworthiness codes, the head of army aviation, John Fenwick, did not have authority to release the unairworthy TopOwl system into service. Nonetheless he did so. He released it with the aid of his Director of Operational Airworthiness, David Lynch, and the head of the standards branch, Tony Norton. These persons fabricated a series of documents to support service release using ad hoc processes not approved under the Defence Aviation Safety Regulation. The documents falsely claimed the system was reassessed as safe to use when no airworthiness code assessment had taken place, no such reassessment was authorised under the Defence Aviation Safety Regulation and the system had not been assessed in poor weather conditions. Listen to this litany. This decision to release the unairworthy system and the associated risks were then obfuscated from the external scrutiny which the Defence Aviation Safety Regulation required, through failure to comply with defence mandated risk management processes and failure to record the risk decision on a central risk register—failure, failure, failure, failure.

All of the four men on board the ill-fated Taipan helicopter were likely experiencing hazardous levels of fatigue as a result of disruptive work patterns, burnout and rough sleeping conditions during the defence training exercise. The inspector-general of the Australian Defence Force inquiry heard the crew were sleeping next to an active fire station and operational airport in hot tents while trying to switch their body clocks to night flying mode. The Comcare investigation found Defence failed to follow a single reasonably practicable measure to manage fatigue and offered no less than six examples of protocols available.

It's not enough to get up on Anzac Day and invoke the spirit of the diggers. We need to back the diggers every single day. We must back the diggers every single day. The Comcare investigation, revealed under One Nation's order for production of documents, demonstrates that the government has a long way to go. Just like the Ballarat farmers, we will chase you. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted.

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—

When Joeanne Cassar set out for work on a chilly Melbourne morning in May 2023, the mother and grandmother of six had no idea her life was about to change forever.

As the 55 year old drove to the Services Australia branch at an Airport West shopping centre that Tuesday morning, her mind was on the "Biggest Morning Tea" the office was hosting, and the biscuits she'd baked and decorated. A normal day, in a decades' long career, serving the public.

Sometime that morning, a man—who Services Australia had identified as being a risk to workers, but had no legal authority to ban—turned up at the branch. As Team Leader, Joeanne asked him to leave. He did. Immediately. He then came back later, with a knife.

Joeanne had stepped in to cover for a security guard who was on his lunch break—when the man returned, and lunged at her, chasing her into the office. He punched her in the face, and stabbed her once in the lower back, just missing her spine and kidneys, but leaving her with life-changing injuries, and enduring pain.

It should never have happened. Joanne said yesterday "We all should be safe at work. We all have family we want to get back to. It took me seven days to get home. And I'm one of the lucky ones."

All Australians have the right to feel safe, and be safe, at work.

That's why the Australian Government is re-introducing the Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2025 to strengthen protections for Commonwealth workers, who are facing increasing acts of violence and aggression just by doing their jobs.

Joanne's story is unfortunately not an isolated incident. Between July 2023 and July 2024, Services Australia staff faced almost 1700 serious incidents.

These types of attacks are unacceptable. Violence and aggression have devastating impacts on workers and their families.

No one who works on the frontline for our public service should ever be concerned for their personal safety. They all have a right to go home safely.

This Bill was previously introduced in Parliament in 2024, but lapsed when the Parliament was dissolved for the 2025 federal election. I wish to acknowledge the work of the former Attorney-General, the Hon Mark Dreyfus KC MP, and former Government Services Minister the Hon Bill Shorten in progressing the previous Bill.

The Services Australia Security Risk Management Review was commissioned after Joeanne's assault. After a comprehensive review, former Victoria Police Commissioner Mr Graham Ashton AM APM made 44 recommendations to increase the safety of Commonwealth workers. The Government has committed to implementing all 44 of those recommendations.

This bill implements recommendation 17 of the Ashton review by creating a Commonwealth Workplace Protection Order scheme.

The bill establishes a framework to enable a Commonwealth entity to apply to a court to issue a Commonwealth workplace protection order to protect a Commonwealth worker or workplace from threats of harm and actual harm. A Commonwealth worker would include Commonwealth employees and contractors, such as security guards, apprentices and volunteers.

Before issuing a Workplace Protection Order, the court must be satisfied that the respondent has engaged in personal violence in relation to a Commonwealth worker or the workplace, and that there is a real risk that the respondent will engage in further personal violence if the order is not made.

Personal violence means conduct that causes or threatens to cause harm or a reasonable fear of harm.

A court would be able to apply any conditions or restrictions it determined necessary to prevent any future risk of personal violence to a Commonwealth worker or workplace. Conditions could include prohibiting or restricting contact with a Commonwealth worker, prohibiting or restricting attendance at a particular Commonwealth workplace, or a restricted servicing arrangement (such as phone-only appointments) to allow ongoing service delivery as required.

These orders would be available for all Commonwealth workplaces, extending to anywhere a Commonwealth worker is conducting official Commonwealth work. This would include mobile servicing such as 'pop-up' shops in shopping centres, Commonwealth vehicles, or a Commonwealth worker's residence when working from home.

This protects workers who are working on behalf of the Commonwealth, regardless of where they are.

In circumstances where urgent protection is required, the Commonwealth entity would be able to apply to a court for an urgent interim order to ensure protections are in place as quickly as possible, ahead of a future court date to consider a final order.

A court would also be able to issue a Workplace Protection Order by consent of the parties. Where a court considers a party to an order proceeding to have impaired decision-making ability, the Bill provides that the Court must not make a consent order unless it is satisfied that the person has appropriate representation.

The safety of Commonwealth workers comes first, but we also want to ensure individuals can continue to access necessary government services.

The Bill ensures that, if proposing conditions that would limit the respondent's ability to access Commonwealth benefits or services, or contact their electoral representatives, the applicant is to be required to provide the Court with information about alternative procedures or arrangements for how the respondent may access or obtain those benefits or services. The Court would also be required to consider the personal circumstances of the respondent when determining the conditions attached to an order, and ensure that the person still has the ability to access essential public services and retain the ability to engage in political communication.

The Bill would allow either party to a Workplace Protection Order to apply to the Court to vary or revoke an order. The Court would be able to vary the conditions in the order and/or period for which the order is in force. This would allow flexibility where the circumstances of either the Commonwealth entity or the respondent change. The Bill also provides that either party would be able to appeal a decision of the Court relating to the making, varying or revoking of a final order.

The Bill would allow information-sharing between the Commonwealth and enforcement agencies to ensure identified risks posed to other Commonwealth workers or workplaces can be managed, as a proactive approach in preventing further harm and to enforce Workplace Protection Orders.

Breaching a condition of an order will be a criminal offence punishable by two years' imprisonment or 120 penalty units or both.

This penalty will act as a deterrent for non-compliance with conditions, while protecting workers from any future threatening behaviour.

The bill also requires a review three years after commencement.

The introduction of this Bill sends a strong message that the Government values the contributions made by Commonwealth workers, and that violence and aggression towards those workers and workplaces is unacceptable. This Bill creates a whole new Act and is a serious reform on worker safety.

This Bill is a further step towards creating safer workplaces for Commonwealth workers, and allowing the Australian community safe access to Commonwealth Government benefits and services.

This Bill offers new protections to all Commonwealth workers, like Joeanne Cassar, who had dedicated her life to helping others.

Public servants are just that—Australians who have devoted their professional lives to serving the public.

A life of service should be honoured. It should never be scorned. It should never be ridiculed, and it should never be unsafe to simply go to work.

Every Australian worker deserves to feel safe, and be safe.

I commend this bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 May 2026:

The impact of high immigration levels on the Australian economy, with particular reference to:

(a) home prices, rental prices and rental vacancy rates;

(b) the wage price index;

(c) the inflation rate;

(d) labour productivity growth;

(e) the accuracy of government projections on immigration numbers; and

(f) any other related matters.

This is a motion without emotion. One Nation is proposing an inquiry into the impact of high, mass immigration levels on the Australian economy. We just want the pure facts and the data to be communicated to the Australian public—no labels, no smears, just data and facts. We love data. Over the weekend, tens of thousands of Australians marched, asking for an answer on this question: what is the cost of adding millions of people to Australia's population in just a few short years? That is their question. I will repeat it. What is the cost of adding millions of people to Australia's population in just a few short years?

If the data shows that immigration is our strength, then let the Australian people see for themselves. Let those cards fall where they may. I can guarantee what you'll hear from the Greens and Labor on this sensible inquiry. I could almost write their speeches for them; they are so predictable. If you have a question about whether allowing around 2.4 million new arrivals into the country over four years has an impact on the country, that's a question. If you wonder whether that has an impact on our schools, our rent prices, the congestion on our roads, the healthcare system and our house prices, guess what? The Greens and Labor say that asking those questions makes you a racist and a Neo-Nazi worthy of slurs, smears and labels.

The Greens say that asking whether having 2.9 million temporary visa holders in the country right now, taking up to one million homes, is 100 per cent in our country's interest makes you a racist and a Neo-Nazi. Welcome to millions of Australians that you're tagging as racist Neo-Nazis. The Greens and Labor are lying. They are scared of the conversation because the facts are devastating. The Greens and Labor try to shut down the conversations, smearing everyone as a racist, a Neo-Nazi, a xenophobe. Every time you hear Labor, the Greens and even some Liberals trying to shut down this conversation, calling anyone who loves this country a racist, remember what we're actually voting on here.

This is what my motion proposes. I have moved that the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 May 2026. The terms of reference specify:

The impact of high immigration levels on the Australian economy, with particular reference to:

(a) home prices, rental prices and rental vacancy rates;

(b) the wage price index;

(c) the inflation rate;

(d) labour productivity growth;

(e) the accuracy of government projections on immigration numbers; and

(f) any other related matters.

That's it—no emotion, no judgements. We just want the facts and figures so the public is informed. I'll read that again—the scope:

The impact of high immigration levels on the Australian economy, with particular reference to—

six specified factors. If you want to argue for the current program of mass immigration, show us your data. I say to the Greens and Labor: prove to the Australian people that having millions upon millions of extra people in the country in the middle of a housing crisis and a cost-of-living crisis is justified, is necessary and makes sense.

Calling tens of thousands of Australians—who came out and marched for our living standards and to ensure that we hand on a better country to our children—'racist' is a disgraceful slur. I'll say that again: calling tens of thousands of Australians—who came out and marched for our living standards and to ensure that we hand on a better country to our children—'racist' is a disgraceful slur. Every senator in this chamber should be ashamed to repeat it. Yet you will.

Let's have a look at terms of reference (a) home prices, rental prices and vacancy rates. This motion is purely about the numbers. That's it. Let's look at the numbers. We know from Home Affairs data that, excluding the 300,000-plus tourists and crew, there are 2.9 million temporary migrants in the country right now, known as temporary visa holders—more than 10 per cent of our population. This excludes millions of permanent visa holders, or permanent residents, as they are known. The Bureau of Statistics says that the average household size in Australia is 2½ people per dwelling. That means, on average data, the temporary migrants in this country could be taking up to one million houses in Australia.

Let's have a think about the effect that might be having on the rental market. As of July, there are just 38,000 rental vacancies in the entire country. The national rental vacancy rate is at just 1.2 per cent, massively under the three per cent rate that's considered healthy—less than half. In Brisbane the rental vacancy rate is 0.9 per cent, in Perth it's 0.7 per cent, in Adelaide it's 0.8 per cent, in Darwin it's 0.5 per cent and in Hobart it's 0.6 per cent. There's a demonstrable and strong link between the rate of non-permanent migrants and rent increases. I can provide the reference if you need it. If your rent has gone up in the last four years, as the mass migration program continued, there are 2.9 million reasons why. Again, I call on Labor and the Greens: if you have data to debate these numbers, put them forward at the inquiry. Don't just label or slur everyone; deal with the facts. I know it's not easy for you, but deal with the facts.

Regarding the wage price index, the impact of high immigration is felt on the employment market. Extra retail spending from new arrivals increases employment in the retail sector, partially offsetting the job loss from online sales, which are increasingly being fulfilled through regional fulfilment centres using a high degree of automation. Since the Albanese government was elected, real household per capita spending has fallen by eight points. Australian households have less—a hell of a lot less. Are we dividing the national pie into smaller and smaller pieces because the economy cannot grow as fast as our population is? The data suggests this is the case. Let's find out.

The bad news in this picture is that immigrants provide a pool of labour. They are happy to take an ABN—an Australian Business Number—and work fee-for-service, often meaning low fees and low service. This undermines employment conditions and award wages that have protected everyday Australians for generations. This is apparently okay with the unions, who never question the erosion of wages coming from a large influx of new arrivals into the labour market—the former party of the worker. The evidence for this statement is found in the increase in ABNs during the Albanese government, with hundreds of thousands of new ABNs issued to new arrivals. These people—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Do you want to continue your conversation?

Sorry, I couldn't hear.

Can you address the Greens, please, Acting Deputy President? They just said that they were trying to block out my contribution.

Sorry, I didn't hear that. If that's the case, I will say to colleagues that I urge we all be heard in silence. Thank you.

The evidence for this statement is found in the increase in ABNs during the Albanese government, with hundreds of thousands of new ABNs issued to new arrivals. These people then work and issue an invoice, which includes GST; keep all the money and send a chunk overseas—an $11 billion a year chunk, mind you—and go home or, otherwise, turn into someone else, another ABN.

The measure the ATO uses is not ABNs issued. No, instead the ATO uses active ABNs—people who actually submit their BAS statement and pay the GST they've collected. Why doesn't the ATO tell us how many ABNs are outstanding? What a great way of hiding the problem. Cheating the system allows that person to work for less yet have more. They work for less yet retain more. They're not contributing taxes. How many jobs and how much income tax and GST on those earning are lost to this scam every year? I would suggest it's in the millions. The inquiry should ask the same question. How many people who were marching on the street to protect their livelihood, and those of their kids in future, are funding these people?

The Reserve Bank has advanced the argument that low-skilled arrivals reduce wages for our low-skilled workers, while skilled migration grows the pie for everyone. Skilled migration. I'm a migrant. I've got nothing against migration, but we have to have it under control, and not mass migration. A New Zealand paper looked at this in depth and found the same thing, with the skill level at which the person makes a positive contribution being either a trade qualification or a university degree. The study found the difference in earnings persisted across their entire working life, suggesting language and culture actually matter. That's what the people were saying in the streets of the capital cities and other provincial cities yesterday. Research from Denmark indicates migrants being paid lower wages persists across multiple generations. Clearly, if a company can pay lower wages or lower 'contractor payments' to migrants, it will. If it needs to force them to get an ABN to receive that lower income, it will. And, if the ATO lets them do that because this is not being policed, it will. This is a serious issue that the economics committee must inquire into.

Let's have a look at labour productivity growth. The government pretends it supports higher productivity, yet they'll never mention migration in relation to productivity. This is despite immigration having a direct impact on productivity through capital shallowing. My colleague Senator Whitten is going to address this point in detail, so stay tuned for his explanation of why need to look at term (d) in the terms of reference: labour productivity growth.

Next, (e), the accuracy of government projections on immigration numbers. This term of reference, in relation to the accuracy of government projections on immigration numbers, is vital. For the last five years, the Australian public has been completely gaslit on immigration forecasts. In every budget, the Department of the Treasury has repeatedly released immigration forecasts that were patently wrong. They're either so grossly incompetent in making these forecasts that Australia should be terrified these people are in charge of our economy, or they deliberately hid the extent of the mass immigration program from Australia.

In 2022-23, Treasury said we would expect 235,000 people to arrive under net overseas migration. We got 535,520 people arrive, more than double—225 per cent above. That's a pretty big error. In 2023-24, Treasury said we could expect 235,000 people to arrive; 445,640 arrived, almost double. In 2024-25, Treasury forecast net overseas migration would be 260,000. They then increased that to 340,000 halfway through the year. Data indicates the number for the year may be well over 400,000. Finance columnist Alan Kohler of the ABC lays it quite out well. He said that, on top of the forecasts, which are already extremely historically high:

… at least 800,000 more people came to live in Australia over the past four years than Treasury anticipated. That's more than three extra Hobarts.

That's been added to Australia's population over just four years above what the Treasury forecast. That's not the number of the incoming migrants; that is the size of the error—800,000, three Hobarts, in error. How the hell can people plan around the country? That's an unexpected shortfall of 320,000 houses above Treasury's forecasts.

The conduct of the Treasury demonstrates the government is unwilling to have an honest discussion with the Australian public about how many will come into this country each year. Thats what this inquiry is for—to lay out the data and the numbers and have an honest conversation with the Australian public about what the hell's going on. That's all we want. To the people who marched on the weekend: thank you for standing up for the country and drawing attention to this. These people would not be interested if it weren't for you. Thank you.

I wish to contribute to this discussion. I'm appalled that, after the displays yesterday of members of far-right Neo-Nazi groups and sovereign citizens declaring that the cop killer Dezi Freeman was some type of a martyr and hero, we get into this chamber today and hear that rubbish from One Nation. I'm sorry, but there are two dead policemen. Their families are suffering. The communities that they live in are shell-shocked. Rather than being the bigger people in this place, we have One Nation coming in here and legitimising it. It's disgusting and it's revolting. One Nation have created their entire political—

I rise on a point of order on relevance. We had very terrible murders of two policemen before the marches. It had nothing do to do with the marches. It's ridiculous—

Senator Roberts, you don't have a point of order.

I have not heard the Leader of One Nation or any members of One Nation in this place condemn the cold-blooded murder of those police officers and condemn the actions of that group.

Senator Roberts? You have a point of order and not a debate, I hope.

It's on relevance. We have condemned the heinous murder of two policemen.

I'll take that as a comment.

Coming in here today to legitimise the glorification of this cop killer should be beneath any of us. Sadly, it's not. This is because One Nation have built their entire political foundation on fearmongering, division and not just pseudo-law but pseudo-maths, pseudo-science and now pseudo-economics. The only reason that One Nation exists is that they continue to whip up fear and division in our communities. They're like a toxic algae that feeds on this fear and division. They're like a disease that loves preying on the weak.

Senator Hanson-Young, just resume your seat. Senator Whitten, on a point of order?

I don't like being referred to as a disease or toxic algae.

There is no point of order, but I will remind senators that if we are reflecting on fellow senators I will have to call you out. At this stage, Senator Hanson-Young, you have the call.

There are members of our community who are worried about the cost of housing, the cost of living and how they're going to cover next month's bills, and dealing with those issues in a responsible way, holding government to account where they need to be held to account and asking questions of bureaucrats that are legitimate and need to be asked is what this place is meant to do. But using vulnerable members of our community and migrants as a scapegoat for inequality is pathetic. It's cheap politics and it's weak. That's what One Nation does, and that's what this motion is all about.

Now, I would have thought that, after this weekend's rally, the display and glorification of people who have killed police officers and the glorification of Neo-Nazis, there would be some reflection on what this is doing to our community and our society, but the only reflection we seem to getting from One Nation today is their rubbing their hands in glee and their wanting more of it. They are feeding on this nastiness, on this division, on this fear. I mean, if they had it their way we would have here in Australia the race riots that the US have had. They'd be cheering it on. We are not America. Australia is built on multiculturalism. Our nation is diverse, but you can't take that for granted. We can't take it for granted. It is something that you nurture and look after and protect. We don't always agree on everything—of course not. That's why we're a democracy. We are able to debate things. We should be able to debate things without sinking to the level of dividing people by the colour of their skin or where they were born.

This brings me to the person in the other place, Mr Bob Katter, who I think today showed a total lack of judgement in doubling-down on his aggressive threat of violence to an Australian journalist for simply asking about his immigration policies and his background. Now, I put it to you that, if this was any other member in this place, this wouldn't be just laughed off as, 'Bob Katter; that's him.' Mr Katter's behaviour on Friday, threatening violence to a journalist for simply asking a question, is unacceptable. He should either apologise or resign. The idea of doubling-down on this means he's missed the point. I would have thought that, since the weekend's horror show, he may have reflected a little bit on his own contribution to whipping up these fears and division, but he clearly hasn't. Tonight I say that Mr Katter should apologise to that journalist or he should step down. If we start in this country down the road where politicians can threaten violence at journalists for asking pesky questions they don't like or individuals shooting cops dead is not called out but, in fact, glorified, then we are heading down a very, very dangerous path. I don't for one moment suggest that any one party or any one person in this place has it right all the time. I don't believe we do. But I do think that, with the incidents of the last week—whether it is the shooting of innocent police officers, the threatening of journalists or the glorification of neo-Nazi politics on our streets—we have a moment right now where we have to think about what kind of country we want to be—and, I tell you what, it's not this. This is not the type of future we want for Australia. I respectfully ask One Nation to stop using vulnerable people and migrants as whipping boys and girls and scapegoats.

We often speak in this chamber about economic growth as though GDP alone tells the story of our nation's success, but GDP is not a measure of whether young Australians can own a home, start a family or build a secure life. It counts money changing hands and it counts population growth. It doesn't count the stress of housing insecurity or the heartbreak of delaying having children because people just can't afford a place big enough to raise them.

When the fundamentals of ordinary life become unattainable for the next generation, economic policy is failing at its most basic purpose. Over the past three years Labor has brought in over one million migrants. Unless there is respite, we will approach two million in five years. This includes 536,000 in 2022-23, the highest intake in our history, and 446,000 in 2023-24. To put that into perspective, we've added the equivalent of the entire population of Brisbane in just three years but we haven't built a city like Brisbane to house, feed, employ and educate these additional people. That is population scale growth on a scale that our housing market, our infrastructure, our planning system, our hospitals, our schools and our communities are not prepared for. Even in the 2024-25 budget papers, there's an admission that net overseas migration will remain above the long run average for years to come, and the result is a housing market in crisis—a market that caters for those young people who are fortunate enough to have parents or grandparents wealthy enough to help them out with a deposit.

In the early 2000s, the house-price-to-income ratio sat at around four. Today it is over eight nationally. In Sydney it is among the least affordable in the world, now exceeding 14 times the median wage. It means teachers, nurses, police officers and clerical workers can't afford to live anywhere close to where they work. The median dwelling-price-to-income ratio nationwide was 9.6 in 2000 and has jumped to 16.4 in 2024. Economist Alan Kohler has warned that if the ratio had stayed where it was in 2000—around four—Australian families would be paying half as much for their mortgages as they are today. Instead, mortgage repayments now chew up over 50 per cent of household incomes compared with 36 per cent two decades ago. The median Sydney house price has doubled from $680,000 in 2014 to about $1.4 million today. This is not sustainable. It is shutting a generation out of homeownership entirely.

The social impacts go even further. As Ross Gittins recently posed, have we arrested the development of our young? Danielle Wood, Jim Chalmers' own head of the Productivity Commission, has warned that Australia is in danger of breaking the generational bargain—the promise that each generation would live better than the one before. The statistics are sobering. The proportion of young Australians not yet married has doubled from 26 per cent to 53 per cent. The median age of first marriages has risen from 27 to 34. Among 25- to 39-year-olds, the proportion living as a couple has collapsed from over half to just one-fifth. A Deloitte analysis of the census found that more than half of Australians aged between 18 and 25 now even believe they are unlikely to ever have children. These are not just lifestyle choices. These are economic constraints forcing people to delay or abandon entirely the most fundamental decision of adulthood. And let's be honest about who benefits and who loses.

High immigration feeds the interests of big business, which wants more workers and more consumers to keep driving that economy. It feeds big universities, which rely heavily on international student revenue. And it feeds big government, which grows larger with every extra million people to regulate and serve. So that's who benefits. But the costs of these policy settings are borne by young Australians locked out of homeownership, by young couples delaying marriage and children and by young families struggling to pay rent or save a deposit while prices climb faster than they could ever possibly catch up on.

Every child not born today is another job and another taxpayer that needs to be filled by skilled migration over the next 20 years. We're drifting towards a society where homeownership depends entirely on whether your parents can help you out, where homeownership increasingly comes from inheritance, not from hard work, and where the idea of starting a family depends less on aspirational love than on whether you can even afford a house with a backyard. Ross Gittins, again, has written, 'A society that tells its young people they cannot buy a home unless their parents are rich is a society that's lost its way.' Herein lies the irony at the heart of the debate.

We're told we need high immigration because the birthrate is too low, but the birthrate is falling partly because housing costs are too high, because family formation is delayed further each year because young Australians can't get on with ordinary life. We're using migration to fix a problem that migration itself is making worse and that—

That's not evidence based.

I want to be really clear that this is not an argument against migration. Migration has built modern Australia, and, if you are not Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, then you're all migrants—

Always was, always will be!

whether your family came here five generations ago or five weeks ago. Migration has brought the skills, diversity and energy that have made us the prosperous—

You don't get to walk both sides of the road on this.

Colleagues, as much as I'm loath to depress debate, the interjections are consistent and I will ask that the senator be heard in silence.

Migration in the 20th century achieved great things, like the Snowy Mountains Scheme, but it came with great sacrifice from the migrants themselves, many of whom came here to work, living in camps and dongas while they were built. Entrepreneurial migrants from across the globe have built this great country. I was in Mandurah last weekend, speaking to two young men from the Punjab who'd chosen to buy a business in this country town in WA and raise their families there. They were excited about the opportunity that our country provided them. They made a point of discussing with me, in this small-town conversation, the common values that they shared with Australia and that not all migrants do share those common values and want to see a prosperous, sustainable and sovereign Australia going forward and that we do need to be careful about who comes to this country, how many come to this country and where they live.

So having a rational, respectful conversation through a Senate inquiry of our economics committee, whose terms of reference are quite benign, should be welcomed. Then, if you don't agree with Senator Roberts's motion, you can bring witnesses to that inquiry and have the open debate—it's public—in a respectful way, chaired by whoever's chairing the economics committee today. I'm sure they'd do a fabulous job. There's nothing to be afraid of in having this debate. It says more about those opposed to this motion that they're concerned that there's something nefarious about what the impact is. Let's understand the impact so we can stop having these rhetorical arguments about the heavy migration impact that Labor's imposed on our community.

I believe that migration must be calibrated to the nation's capacity—its capacity to build housing; its capacity to provide infrastructure, water and roads; and its capacity to ensure that young Australians aren't pushed aside in their own country. Economic growth that drives GDP up while homeownership, family formation and fertility rates fall is growth that is failing the very people it should serve. The question for parliament is simple. Do we want a country where the next generation can own a home, start a family and get on with ordinary life? If we can't deliver the basics then all of us are failing in the most basic of responsibilities that we have—to actually leave the next generation better off than the last.

At in Western Australia at the National Party state conference this weekend I said, 'When you can't expect to partner, to get a home and to have some kids and do all the normal things that have meant humanity has grown, prospered and progressed over centuries and millennia, we really do have a problem, and we shouldn't actually be scared about having the conversation, no matter how much certain senators detest One Nation.' The actual substantive motion itself is quite a sensible debate that's overdue in this country. Instead we're turning to high immigration to actually solve the problems of a birthrate so low. There are deeper cultural problems about not being able to just get on and do regular life. We've got to solve that problem. That's the nut we actually have to crack.

Let's start first with a sensible migration number, a number that we can actually have the capacity as a country to service, so that we're not getting waiting queues in our public hospitals, that we can deliver high-quality public education to everyone, that you don't have to wait for an hour and half in your car to get to work because you can't afford to live near your—

I know WA's very different. You've got beautiful roads over there, but come to the east coast, Senator Steele-John. If you're living in the peri-urban sections of Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane because you cannot afford a house if you're a teacher, a nurse, a police officer or a bank teller, then there is a problem. I'm happy to introduce you to any of these people who struggle with this. We need to make sure that people who share our values—such as individual liberty and dignity; every person's equal worth; freedom of faith and expression, including the freedom not to believe; the right to speak and associate peacefully; upholding the law, where we actually have one law for all citizens accountable to the courts; democratic self-government; laws made by elected parliaments, not by religious or secular codes outside democracy; the fair go of mutual respect, tolerance, empathy for the disadvantaged and a quality of opportunity for everyone; English as our unifying national language; and equal opportunities for all, regardless of where you live, your ethnicity or your national origin—and who want to help build a safe, sustainable and prosperous Australia should be welcomed. But we should have a right and indeed a responsibility to the next generation as a country to say, 'No; those who denigrate and despise those values are not welcome here.'

In a country as developed, welcoming, kind and rich as Australia, we're top of the pops for people from all over the world who seek a better life for their families. So it is beholden to those of us who hold the government benches and the immigration portfolio, who get to make these decisions, to make sure that the people that we welcome in to help us build this country share those values.

We have the opportunity to have a choice. We want people who love our country as much as we do, who believe that nation-statehood is a thing. Globalists we don't want so much. To be a patriot of Australia, no matter where and how you've come to this place, like the young men from the Punjab I spoke to in Mandurah on the weekend—we actually want to welcome those people, and those who don't share those values can go try and live somewhere else. The National Party will be supporting Senator Roberts's motion so that the Economics Committee can examine these issues in a rational, calm and respectful manner.

I wish to move an amendment which has been circulated in the chamber in the name of Senator Cash in relation to business of the Senate No. 1. I move:

The amended motion would read as follows:

That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 May 2026:

The impact of the failed immigration policies of the Albanese Labor Government high immigration levels on the Australian economy, with particular reference to:

(a) home prices, rental prices and rental vacancy rates;

(b) the wage price index;

(c) the inflation rate;

(d) labour productivity growth;

(e) the accuracy of government projections on immigration numbers; and

(f) any other related matters.

I rise today to oppose this disgraceful motion, referral, whatever you want to call it. It's dog whistling dressed up as an inquiry. That's all that it is. It gives a platform to people who want to punch down on migrants. That is what this is. No matter how you might want to dress it up by talking about the numbers, you actually just want to attack migrants.

You want to blame migrants for the lack of housing policy for a decade when those opposite were in charge. If you want to blame somebody for the challenges that we have and the housing crisis, One Nation, all you need to do over there is look to your right. They're all on your right over there on the opposition benches. For a number of years they didn't even have a housing minister, not a single housing minister. They've opposed demand measures, they've opposed supply measures. Anything to do with housing they've opposed and got in the way of, and they failed to do anything in the decade that they were in charge. But, sure, punch down on migrants.

It is motions like the one before the Senate today that fuel hate and division in this country. They fuel the rallies we saw yesterday, which you're over there celebrating, but actually lots of migrants in this country are living in fear right now because of them. You're celebrating that, and it's an absolute disgrace. If you can't see how your motion today and the words that you've used in this place fuel that division and hate, then you're delusional, absolutely delusional.

Australia's story is woven from so many threads: Sudanese nurses, Vietnamese grocers, Indian engineers, Lebanese artists. Migration is not a threat to who we are; it is a gift to our nation. It brings flavour, it brings resilience and it brings innovation. As a First Nations woman in this place, I honour the families who have crossed borders and oceans to build lives here on Aboriginal land. I honour them in this place. Their stories are stitched into our streets, our schools and our hearts. Before any migration, before any colony, this land holds stories older than time. We are absolutely the luckiest of countries—the most successful multicultural country in the world combined with the oldest continuous culture on this planet. What a gift that is! That is something to celebrate, not to protest.

This Labor government has zero tolerance for hate and discrimination in all its forms. This is absolutely a continuation of that. We're a proudly multicultural nation, and every one of us, no matter our heritage, has the right to feel safe and welcome in our community. Motions like this undermine that.

I could absolutely stand in this chamber and read out a bunch of statistics that reflect our balanced migration program. I could talk about our very sound management of the economy that means that the inflation figure now has a two in front of it instead of a six. I could talk about those numbers, but that's absolutely not what this motion is about. It is about stoking fear and division. That's what it's about. It's about blaming migrants for the failure of the opposition to build homes over their decade in power. It's about blaming migrants for the lack of policy by those opposite to help people get into their first homes.

There's a little clue that makes you think this isn't about migration specifically. They've lauded the values of yesterday. If this was really about migration then you wouldn't have seen people from the rallies yesterday attack First Nations people at Camp Sovereignty. We're not migrants to this country last time I checked. We're First Nations people. We've been here for 65,000 years. Those protesters somehow found their way to Camp Sovereignty. It's an absolute disgrace. So don't pretend that this motion is about migration. It's about racism—absolutely.

We reject any movements that are raised on the sidelines out of fear like we saw yesterday. Instead of stoking division like some people in this place, the Albanese government is focused on bringing people together. That's what we stand for. We want an Australia that listens before it speaks, that welcomes before it judges, that heals before it divides, one built not on fear but on fierce love for country, culture and community. We stand for unity in diversity, truth in history and future shaped by care. This is not about politics; it's about people and the kind of nation we want to be.

I rise to support business of the Senate motion No. 1. There is no doubt that there are many people in our community who were extremely disappointed by the sight of Neo-Nazis on the steps of the Victorian parliament and with some of the signs and some of the chants that were used by some over the course of the rallies that occurred yesterday. When we discuss these issues in relation to immigration, they must be discussed in a way that is considered, measured and reasoned. When we talk about failures, all of it is a failure of government policy. It's entirely to do with government policy. It is nothing to do with people who have come to this country in good faith. It has everything to do with governments of whatever persuasion at all three levels in relation to building the infrastructure required and coming up with the long-term planning—

Order! Please respect the rights of Senator Scarr while he's speaking.

I would say to Senator Ayres—and I'll take his interjection—go back and have a look at page 47 of the budget for October 2022-23. Open up at that page and have a look at your forecasts, the Treasurer's own forecasts, with respect to net overseas migration and take some responsibility. This is what the Treasurer said in Budget Paper No. 1, released in October 2022-23, in relation to forecasts. The net overseas migration forecast in the 2022-23 year—this was Jim Chalmers's forecast—was 235,000. That was the forecast. And what was it? Over 520,000. Then, in 2023-24, Jim Chalmers and the Labor government's forecast was 235,000. And what was it? Over 446,000. So those are two devastating pieces of miscalculation. What is going on in relation to the forecasting function within the Labor government? How do you explain that? With a forecast of $235,000 for 2022-23, the number came in at $528,000. With a forecast of $235,000 for 2023-24, the number came in at $446,000. That's the first point I would make in relation to Senator Ayres's interjection.

The second point I would make is that the Labor government still hasn't announced the 2025-26 permanent migration program. It still hasn't been announced. We're now in mid-August, and they still haven't announced the permanent migration program for 2025-26. This issue has been raised by the MIA, the Migration Institute of Australia, because it's causing real issues for people seeking to take advantage of the skills stream, in particular the skilled independent stream. They've made applications, gone through processes. They're being advised by immigration agents. They're doing the right thing. Yet the government still hasn't announced the 2025-26 permanent migration program. So, how about you take some responsibility for that?

And how about you take some responsibility for this: we received, on 11 August 2025, the latest update with respect to onshore visa applications and processing in relation to humanitarian visas. Now, I know people who are in this position who have applied for onshore humanitarian visas, and I always do my best to listen to their circumstances and provide assistance where I think it's appropriate. But let me say, on 5 October 2023 the Labor government released a strategy, after beating up on the previous coalition government in relation to the total number of individuals who were not granted a final protection visa and who had yet to be deported at the end of the period—after tipping a bucket on the previous coalition government—saying that they had a new system, that they were going to fix it. So, in October 2023 the total number of individuals who were not granted a final protection visa and who had yet to be deported at the end of the period was 76,185. That was the number back in October 2023, when the then ministers, before they left the portfolio, gave an indication that they were going to fix the system.

Fast-forward to the latest figures that the Hon. Matt Thistlethwaite provided to this committee in relation to orders moved by former senator Keneally from the Labor Party, who'd previously raised concerns in relation to this issue. In these latest figures the number has grown to 98,979. So, on 5 October 2023 Labor said: 'We're going to fix it. We're going to introduce all sorts of measures to fix it.' And it's now gone up from 76,000 to 98,000, which is 2,000 more than our annual humanitarian intake. So, take some responsibility for that as well, before you throw accusations across the chamber, Senator Ayres.

Let me also refer to the review of Australia's migration system—the discussion paper that was released in March 2023. Let me give you some quotes from this discussion paper:

Our approach to migration planning hasn't properly accounted for the impact of large and uncapped temporary migration on infrastructure. We need a long-term horizon that supports more effective planning of infrastructure, housing and services to meet the needs of all Australian residents.

Those aren't my words; those are the words of the independent reviewers you appointed to have a look at the migration strategy. Yet you've left a vacuum, you've left a void, and extremists have sought to fill that void. So, you take some responsibility, Senator Ayres. Your own review of the system back in March 2023 said—and I absolutely agree—'Smooth and predictable migration enables Australia to plan housing infrastructure (such as schools and hospitals)'. That was back in March 2023. As Senator Pocock has mentioned, a vacuum has been left—a vacuum, a void. Page 42 reads:

If the supply of infrastructure and housing does not keep up with demand created by migration, the quality of infrastructure and housing services may deteriorate, and prices may rise.

The review further reads:

Housing and accommodation in particular is currently a major barrier to attracting and retaining migrants across all visa programs and maintaining a social license for a large scale migration program.

That was in the discussion paper for your own review document, more than two years ago. And then, when the migration strategy was actually released—and it's now nearly two years later—this is what was said:

There is insufficient regard for pressures on housing and infrastructure.

It also said:

We have a strong history of well-managed migration that supports, rather than runs counter to, our housing and infrastructure needs.

It also said:

We have not had a long-term planning process that links with the levers that make migration successful, such as planning for housing, infrastructure and services.

That's what your own strategy document said after the discussion paper, and this was released in December 2023. You've left the void. Page 28 of the government's own strategy reads:

A better managed migration system … can help to manage planned cities and revitalise regional communities. This also requires investment in housing and infrastructure such as schools, hospitals and transport to align with migration levels.

Page 79 reads:

Targeted and well-planned migration will support population planning and help deliver better outcomes for Australia in infrastructure, housing, service delivery and the environment.

What's happened? I want to quote from a very useful paper that was released by Emeritus Professor of Demography Peter McDonald, of the Migration Hub at the Australian National University. I commend that everyone read this paper. I think it's got very useful data. The paper asks the question: how can net migration be brought down to an acceptable level more effectively? It draws a distinction between temporary and permanent migration:

While not often stated, mitigating population ageing is one of the two main rationales of the Australian Migration Program. The other rationale is the filling of skilled labour shortages.

…   …   …   

For 19 successive budgets including the 2024-25 budget, under seven different Prime Ministers beginning with Howard, the Australian Migration Program has been set within the narrow range of 160,000 to 195,000 per annum. The Humanitarian Program has added another 10-25,000 each year. This has been successful bipartisan policy.

In 2009, Peter McDonald and Jeromey Temple were asked by the then Department of Immigration and Citizenship to estimate the level of net overseas migration that would optimise the growth rate of GDP per capita through its impact on population ageing (McDonald and Temple 2010).

The result provided was in the form of a range: 160,000 to 220,000 per annum, thus confirming the level that had been applied by successive governments. Importantly, McDonald and Temple demonstrated that there were diminishing returns to scale—as the level of migration increased, its relative impact on the growth rate of GDP per capita fell. Above 220,000, net migration served to increase the population while doing little to mitigate population ageing. As stated above, successive governments have maintained the size of the permanent migration program within this range, and it seems that they have been satisfied that the skilled shortage rationale has been fulfilled adequately by applying the 160,000 to 220,000 range.

This paper also raises a number of issues in relation to the relationship between net overseas migration and the size of the permanent migration program. It also deals with issues in relation to temporary visas and whether or not there has been a practice of people on particular temporary visas engaging in visa hopping. It's also raising another issue, which is:

By far the largest category of new permanent residents, about 100,000 per annum are partners—partners of skilled immigrants in the Skilled Stream and partners of Australian citizens and permanent residents in the Family Stream, who are not tested for their skills …

And so it goes on. I really do commend that paper to those who are listening to this debate and who want to obtain a greater appreciation of the relevant issues in relation to Australia's migration policy, because I found it incredibly helpful.

In conclusion, I do not support blaming immigrants or migrants for the issues we're facing today. I think it's wrong, I think it's divisive, and I think it tears at our social fabric. I do support having a reasoned, considered debate in relation to the issue. I think we need to have that debate. As I said earlier today, if the debate is not had, extreme elements will fill or seek to fill the vacuum, and that's something we must guard against. It genuinely grieves me that we're in the position that we have found ourselves in over the course of the day.

In relation to that issue, Senator Askew has moved an amendment in the name of Senator Cash calling for an amendment to the resolution, because we simply cannot support a resolution which does not make it clear that we are talking about government policy. We are talking about government policy, and we should be very careful in relation to the framing of these discussions to include any words that could, in any way, send a signal that people are actually to blame when they come to this country.

I must say, that was a very considered contribution from Senator Scarr. He's absolutely right that immigration is not to blame for any housing crisis or lack of affordable housing in this country. It is government policy, broadly, that we need to look at.

Immigration hasn't caused our national housing crisis, contrary to what you'll hear from One Nation in here today and contrary to the message going into and coming out of the rallies in Australia on Saturday—that, somehow, immigration is responsible for the housing crisis or the lack of affordable housing in this country. That's just more lies and deception in an age of rampant disinformation. These lies and deception are deliberately spread, peddled by those with agendas, designed to divide us and distract from what has really caused a shortage of housing in Australia and ultimately protect those who benefit the most from economic inequality in our country—the millionaires, the billionaires, right-wing conservative politicians and extremists.

What is responsible, then? It's decades of policy failure by lazy and captured governments who won't reform taxation or planning laws in Australia and who continually ignore underinvestment in much-needed affordable public housing supply. One per cent of taxpayers in Australia own 25 per cent of our investment properties. I'll let that settle in: one per cent of Australian taxpayers own 25 per cent of this nation's investment properties. According to the 2021 census—and we've got a new census coming up soon—over one million homes were unoccupied on the night of the census. The number of homeless people as defined in that census was around 125,000 Australians. That's nearly 10 vacant houses for every person living on the street. That's because tax concessions reward speculation and land banking and, ultimately, the wealthiest in our country.

The Greens are worried about the housing crisis in this country too. We all should be. We've had endless discussions in recent years on how to fix this. But don't point down and beat down on our nation's most vulnerable people when we should be pointing up to the politicians who aren't doing enough and the billionaires, the millionaires and the rich property developers who benefit the most from this debate.

The kind of scapegoating witnessed in here today and on the weekend at these rallies that gave platforms to Neo-Nazis not only endangers our community and cultural identity as a multicultural nation; it serves those in power who benefit the most from our broken system. We can fix that. We can do that in here and we can do that together. Let's put aside the politics that are dividing us, let's come together and let's fix this problem.

I am exhausted as a migrant to constantly have to justify my existence in this country. I've been here for 40 years. I came to Australia when I was 12. Here I am at the age of 52 as a parliamentarian in the Australian parliament having to prove my Australianness—having to prove it! For goodness sake, I'm wearing a sprig of wattle on my lapel today. Why? Because it's 1 September, National Wattle Day, a day to celebrate our unity, diversity and resilience. Why wattle? Because there are over a thousand species of wattle and wattle is one of the most resilient plants in our landscape. It can withstand fire after fire after fire and it blooms; it comes back stronger. It's a bit like the story of the waves and waves of migrants to this country.

Since World War II, every wave of migrants, from the Greeks, the Italians, the Jews and the Vietnamese to, now, the South Asians—Indians, Sri Lankans, Malaysians, people of colour like me—have had to be resilient because they've have all encountered xenophobia—all of them. But you would think that, over this passage of time, we would evolve, that we would get better as a country. I do truly believe we are better as a country, but in this chamber, on some days, I have to question that, and today is one of those days.

If there was ever any doubt that the coalition, the Liberals and Nationals, have moved to the hard right, that was dispelled today by their actions and their words. For years they've been flirting with the fringe, and today they got into bed with that fringe. I've seen this movie before. I've seen this movie played over and over again. My sister Senator Stewart, a First Nations woman, knows exactly what I'm talking about because First Nations people have had to endure this since colonisation. It's so normalised for them. It's not normalised for me. It shouldn't be normalised for any migrant in this country.

Cultural diversity is under attack. It's under attack all around the world. There are some places where migrants, even though they've laid down roots and raised children, are being detained and locked up, and some are being deported. That anti-immigrant sentiment may have been normalised once upon a time in our history. And that history wasn't that long ago. It was completely normalised when the White Australia policy was operating in this country. That was revoked in 1973 by a Labor prime minister, Gough Whitlam. Since then, successive governments—Liberal and Labor—have embraced multiculturalism. It's been a pillar of our national economy. Multiculturalism is now woven into the fabric of our country. Once upon a time it was probably okay, historically, to attack diversity. It's certainly not okay now, not when one in two Australians have either been born overseas or have a parent who was born overseas.

I'm not here anymore to justify my existence, to prove my Australianness, to constantly wonder whether I belong or whether I'm pretending. I am here. I am Australian. I am a member of this federal parliament. I don't have to prove to any of you over there that I belong. I belong is what I'm saying. I stamp my foot down and I say I belong. I will wave that Australian flag. What I saw on the weekend was a betrayal. It was disgusting to see what they did to the Australian flag—the flag that our diggers fought under against Nazis.

Sure, we should be able to have a rational debate about migration. Sure, we should be able to do that, but rationality goes out the window when that argument is co-opted by Neo-Nazis, when anti-immigrant sentiment is the business model of One Nation and now the coalition. This place turns the dog whistle into a megaphone. And the people who are impacted are not people like me. It's not me. It's the little kid who's going to school, the kid who wears the hijab, the little Indian kid who plays footy or cricket on the weekend. It's their parents. It's those people who don't have the voice of Senator Ananda-Rajah in the nation's parliament. Those are the people who are impacted. The words spoken in this chamber ricochet around this country, tearing at our social fabric. The words get fired from here, and the impacts are not felt by anyone in this chamber because we're too privileged, but they are acutely felt by people outside the chamber in those communities right around the country.

To weaponise migration is beyond the pale in 2025. We are here. We are part of this country. We contribute. There isn't a single facet of our economy that doesn't depend on the blood, sweat and tears of immigrants. You can't walk into a hospital, an aged-care facility, a childcare facility or any business without seeing migrants. They hold up the sky. Hospitals are like the United Nations. So are aged-care facilities. So are childcare facilities.

Guess what? If you don't have any of those essential, key workers, your economy cannot function. We can't actually build the homes that we need, because the people who are building those homes need other people to look after their children while they are working. Those IT workers who come from places like India, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and so on underpin every single business and government agency in this country. If you take them away, everything grinds to a halt. So be careful what you wish for, One Nation. Be careful what you wish for. You go out there and blow that dog whistle, and the only people who get harmed are all of us—our country.

But you're right: we should be able to have a rational discussion about immigration. You're right: there aren't enough homes. There aren't enough homes not because of migrants; there aren't enough homes because successive governments over the last 40 years have not been building enough homes. It's been utterly neglected. It caught up with us over the pandemic.

I'm exhausted. On the weekend, colleagues, my daughter decided to go into the city—yesterday, in Melbourne. I begged her. I pleaded with my 20-year-old daughter for her to not do that, because of what was going on on the streets of Melbourne. I do track my daughter on her phone. She doesn't like it, but I'm a helicopter mum. I make no apology about that. I did that, and I constantly watched her to make sure she was fine, and then I messaged her. When she was on the train she messaged me and she said, 'Mum, some of these Neo-Nazis are on the train.' I said: 'Go and seek help. Go and sit next to someone of authority. Go and find that person.' She was fine. This is 2025. This should not be happening in modern Australia.

There were people at these rallies who have legitimate grievances. They are concerned about housing. We as a government take those grievances seriously, which is why we are pulling every lever imaginable to solve the housing crisis. There are so many pillars to that portfolio, most of which were actually voted against by the coalition, who stand here and cry crocodile tears and blame migrants while still holding up housing supply. They voted against the Housing Australia Future Fund. They voted against Help to Buy. They then tried to move a disallowance motion last week into Build to Rent. Every step of the way they have blocked passage of housing supply. So don't come in here and pretend that we've all suddenly had amnesia on the Labor side. We haven't.

The bottom line is that the coalition love to pump up the tyres of migrants and multiculturalism. They turn up to citizenship ceremonies. They turn up to festivals, where they might eat a samosa, wear a turban or have a shawl put round their necks. That's multiculturalism, isn't it? Little do they know that migrants think that they are, deep down, a nasty party. Deep down, migrants know that the coalition—the Liberals and the Nationals—don't really like them. That's evident on their benches. Where are the migrants? Where are the people who look like me? I was the member for Higgins. Senator Collins is putting up her hand. Senator Collins, I would love to look like you, but I don't.

I'm not saying you do!

The Liberals and Nationals need to take a long, hard look at themselves. You've just had your backsides handed to you on a platter by the Australian people. They've rejected the direction you're moving in. You need to course-correct. You need to listen to the people, move back to the centre. It's important for this country that we have a decent opposition. It's important for this country that we have an alternative party that is worthy of government. But, if you're not able to do that, people like me will happily come and take your seats. Once we've finished with the Liberal seats, we'll move on to the National seats. One we're finished with the National seats, we'll move to the One Nation seats. All those communities have grievances that only a Labor government is addressing.

Stop using migrants as a political football. Migrants are not the problem; they are part of the solution. If there is a problem with infrastructure and housing then, as a parliament, let's work collaboratively and solve that.

The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Askew be agreed to. A division having being called, I remind honourable senators that, given it is past 6.30 pm, the division will be deferred until tomorrow.

There being no further contributions, the question before the chair is that the bill stand as printed.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I rise to speak in support of the Health Insurance (Pathology) (Fees) (Repeal) Bill 2025. I do so because the bill takes steps to improve our health system by removing fees imposed on the pathology sector for certain categories of applications. It directly responds to the findings of the 2022 health portfolio charging review, which made it clear that current fees were misaligned with the broader Commonwealth charging framework. This reform is both sensible and necessary. It provides meaningful relief for the pathology sector, reduces red tape and supports the efficient delivery of essential health services. By repealing these fees it helps ensure that laboratories can focus more on delivering high-quality accurate testing services without being bogged down by unnecessary administrative burdens. Let me be very clear: the coalition support this bill because we understand the crucial role pathology plays in our health system. Whether it be diagnosing cancers, managing chronic illness or detecting infections, accurate pathology services underpin nearly every element of modern health care. The bill will maintain stringent    accreditation and quality-assurance standards to ensure continued public confidence in Medicare-eligible pathology services. Importantly, this bill has the backing of key stakeholders in the pathology sector, including the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia, Australian Pathology and Public Pathology Australia.

While this is a positive step forwards, it does not make up for the broader failings of this government when it comes to Medicare. Under this government it has never been harder or more expensive to see your doctor. Let's look at the facts. Since Labor came to power Medicare bulk-billing has fallen by 11 per cent. GP bulk-billing has dropped from over 88 per cent to 77 per cent, a fall that equates to 40 million fewer GP visits in the past year alone. Out-of-pocket costs to see a GP have skyrocketed. According to the government's own national accounts these costs are the highest on record. More than 1.5 million Australians avoided seeing the doctor last year because they simply couldn't afford to go. This is a damning indictment of a government that promised to strengthen Medicare. Remember what the Prime Minister said in the election campaign? He looked every Australian in the eye and said:

Under Labor all you'll need is your Medicare card, not your credit card.

The reality of everyday Australians tells a very different story. Millions of Australians are pulling their credit card out to pay for essential health care, and those credit cards are being charged the highest amount on record. They are paying more than they've ever paid before. What's worse is that the department of health's own incoming government brief, released under FOI, estimated that nearly a quarter of GP clinics would not bulk-bill. The Prime Minister must have known this when he made his now infamous Medicare stunt campaign. At a time when Australians are struggling with the rising cost of living they're being forced to pay more to see a GP than they ever have before. In fact in the month of May, the month of the election, while the PM was travelling across the country with his Medicare card in his pocket, Australians paid a combined total of $166 million at the GP—just in that month. In the past year alone Australians paid more than $2 billion in out-of-pocket costs to see their GP. This is the Prime Minister's $2 billion lie.

While Labor treat Medicare like their political plaything, the coalition remains focused on ensuring families can get affordable and timely access to health care. We have a proud record on delivering Medicare. Funding increased every year under the coalition, growing from $18.6 billion in 2012-13 under Labor, to more than $30 billion in 2021-22. And bulk-billing was higher under the coalition; when we left office it sat at around 88 per cent. We also invested in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, listing 2,900 new or amended medicines, and made cheaper medicines a reality for thousands of Australians.

And we made mental health a national priority. Labor's track record on mental health, on the other hand, is a complete failure. They slashed Medicare funded mental-health sessions in half, against the advice of experts and their own reviews. They abolished the National Mental Health Commission. They've defunded the National Suicide Prevention Research Fund. And, under their watch, access to Medicare mental-health support has dropped to a 10-year low, while demand has never been higher.

So, once again, while we support this bill, Australians deserve better from their government. They deserve a government that tells the truth about Medicare and that actually delivers on its promises. The coalition will continue to hold the Anthony Albanese Labor government to account on Medicare, on the cost of living and on access to affordable care. We support this bill, but we will not be silent on the broader failures of this government, which are leaving Australians worse off. We will support the bill.

I rise to speak in strong support of the Health Insurance (Pathology) (Fees) (Repeal) Bill 2025. This is not just a technical adjustment to the Medicare schedule. This is about strengthening one of the cornerstones of our health system and making sure that it continues to deliver affordable and high quality care for Australians today but also for generations to come.

Pathology is the quiet achiever of modern medicine. It is often invisible to patients, but it's also absolutely critical to the decisions that doctors and specialists make every single day. Around 70 per cent of clinical decisions depend on pathology. That is in fact a staggering figure—seven out of 10 people. Whether it's confirming a diagnosis, managing a chronic condition or ruling out something more serious, pathology underpins the trust that we place, as Australians, in our health system. Think about the blood tests that guide diabetes management. Think about the cancer screenings that allow us to act early, when treatment is most effective. Think about the diagnostic tests that help us fight infections or respond quickly to outbreaks. Pathology is central to prevention, to early detection and to treatment. Without it, modern health care simply does not function.

Yet, for too long, the funding arrangements that support this essential work have been frozen in time. Some of the schedules that dictate the pathology services that are funded are decades old. They reflect models of care that absolutely do not exist anymore. They lock in inefficiencies. They create unnecessary red tape. And they place financial pressures on providers, and, ultimately, those pressures don't just sit with the providers; they land on patients, through delays, reduced access and the creeping fear that there may be, in fact, extra costs. This bill tackles that problem head-on. It repeals outdated schedules. It brings funding arrangements into line with modern clinical practices. And, most importantly, it ensures that Medicare is financially sustainable, so that patients can continue to access affordable care without the fear of being left behind.

I want to be very, very clear on this point. This legislation doesn't take services away. It does not make pathology less accessible. It does not undermine Medicare. In fact, it does the opposite. It protects access by making the system simpler, fairer and much more transparent. By removing outdated structures, we are making it easier for providers to navigate the system—one less prone to administrative confusion and far more capable of supporting high-quality patient care. And that's good for doctors, it's good for nurses and, most of all, it's good for all patients.

The timing of this reform matters. Our population is growing, and it's also ageing. More Australians are living longer with multiple chronic conditions that now require ongoing monitoring and management. The burden of chronic disease is rising, and, with that, so is the need for consistent, reliable and affordable pathology services. At the same time, Australians are facing increasing pressures on the cost of living and the complexity of health care. The reforms in this bill mean Medicare can continue to rise to meet those challenges. They allow us to direct resources where they are most effective, in prevention and early diagnosis. We all know that it's not just about good health policy; it's about good economic policy. Every dollar we spend preventing diseases saves much more down the track in hospital admissions, emergency care and lost productivity.

I want to acknowledge the process that has led to this legislation. This is not reform for reform's sake; it has been carefully considered and informed by extensive consultation. This has been led by providers, medical colleges, professional associations and patient advocates. They have all been at the table. Their expertise has shaped these changes, ensuring that what we legislate here is practical, evidence based and workable on the ground. That is how reform should be done—with respect, with rigour and with a focus on the outcomes that make a real difference to people's lives. At its heart, this isn't just about balance sheets or technical schedules; it's about people. It's about the mother who can get her test results quickly enough to start treatment early. It's about an older Australian whose chronic condition is managed so that they can remain independent and well in their own home. It's about a family that doesn't have to worry about whether they can afford a test that a doctor has ordered because Medicare is there to back them in. That is what this bill is protecting. That is what modernising Medicare means.

Medicare is one of the greatest achievements of our nation. It is built on the principle of fairness. Your access to health care should depend not on the size of your wallet but on your needs. It's about universality, it's about dignity and it's about knowing that when you or your loved ones need care, it will be there. Labor built Medicare, Labor has always defended Medicare and Labor will continue to strengthen Medicare because we believe that health care is a right, not a privilege. This bill is another chapter in that story, and it shows that we are not content to let Medicare stand still. We are making sure that it evolves with the times. We are making sure that it remains strong enough to face the challenges of the 21st century. We are making sure that it stays true to its founding principles of fairness, universality and access for all.

The choice before us is clear. If we fail to act, outdated funding structures will continue to waste resources and create inefficiencies. Patients will pay the price through longer waiting periods, reduced availability or creeping costs. But if we support this bill, we deliver a stronger Medicare—one that is simpler, fairer and better prepared to meet the health needs of all Australians. This is about practical reform. It's about commonsense reform. It is reform that is guided by our values here in Labor. I commend the Health Insurance (Pathology) (Fees) (Repeal) Bill 2025 to the Senate. It is the right step at the right time, and it is reform that strengthens Medicare for us today, for tomorrow and for the generations who will rely upon it after us.

I'm pleased to speak to the Health Insurance (Pathology) (Fees) (Repeal) Bill 2025. I lead my contribution by sharing that the Greens will be supporting this bill, as this bill will relieve some of the pressure that the pathology sector is currently experiencing. It will remove some small administrative fees—an important step, as the health portfolio charging review identified that administration fees had not been reviewed since they were initially introduced and that the fees cost more than the actual administrative cost of approving the relevant applications. However, this bill does not fully address the issues threatening bulk-billing of pathology services in Australia.

One of the things we can be so proud of in this country is that almost all pathology services are bulk-billed. Universal access is something that is much treasured by our community, and it must be maintained. I have spoken to pathologists across the country, and it is clear they are struggling to continue to provide bulk-billed services. This is because their Medicare rebate has been subject to a decade-long indexation freeze. Pathologists are raising the alarm. They couldn't be clearer that we have travelled far down the slippery slope towards an out-of-pocket cost system to access pathology services. Given the key role that pathology plays in diagnosis, in monitoring and in the management of health conditions, it is essential that pathology remains a bulk-billed service.

We are seeing people skipping regular appointments, prioritising their kids' appointments over their own health or not following up on test results because going to the doctor is too expensive. It is disgraceful that, in a cost-of-living crisis, when people are choosing between going to the doctor, paying rent and putting food on the table, the government think that this bill is enough to declare mission accomplished, enough to pat themselves on the back this evening for a good day's work. The Greens are pleased to see the government adopt part of our plan to incentivise bulk-billing more broadly, but that will not be enough alone. The RACGP surveyed 283 GPs in March, and 66 per cent said they would not change their bulk-billing rates at all as a result of the changes to bulk-billing incentives, while only six per cent said they would switch to fully bulk-billed.

The RACGP has been calling for a raise of the rebate for longer GP appointments in addition to bulk-billing incentive changes, saying this move would 'halve the out-of-pocket costs' for people who are not being bulk-billed. Yet this government has failed to support our community to access longer appointments. People with chronic illnesses, women, people with intellectual disabilities and so many other cohorts of people in our community benefit from increased access to longer appointments, and the changes put forward by this government are not going to make this happen. If the government were serious about cost-of-living relief, they would implement the entirety of the Greens plan to make sure everyone could see a GP for free, including raising rebates for appointments over 20 minutes.

In conclusion, the Greens will be supporting this bill, but we would like to see the government take serious action on affordable health care by keeping pathology bulk-billed and ensuring everyone can see the GP for free.

The Health Insurance (Pathology) (Fees) (Repeal) Bill 2025 removes the fees imposed on the pathology sector for certain categories of pathology applications. The coalition supports this bill. It is a response to the findings of the 2022 health portfolio charging review, addressing the misalignment of fees charged under the Health Insurance (Pathology) (Fees) Act with the charging framework, as well as providing fee relief and reducing administrative burden on the pathology sector. The bill will also maintain a high level of confidence in the accuracy of Medicare eligible pathology services by continuing to require service providers to meet requisite accreditation and quality assurance standards.

Medicare under Labor has been quite a significant problem. We all saw the rhetoric around the election campaign, but the coalition is very concerned about the disingenuous nature of that rhetoric, particularly as we know that the current state of bulk-billing is much more dire than the government would admit. Medicare bulk-billing has fallen 11 per cent under this government. It has fallen from 88 per cent to 77 per cent. There were 40 million fewer bulk-billed GP visits in the past year alone, and those that have to go—not just with their Medicare card but with their credit card—are actually paying more out of pocket. Not only are there less services being bulk-billed; when families or individuals are going to the doctor, the gap is higher when they have to pay that gap.

This data doesn't come from us. This data comes from the government's own national accounts. This is a sad reality of our current healthcare system. It forced more than 1½ million Australians to avoid seeing their GP last year, because they couldn't afford it. This was one of the regular things that I heard last year or over the past 12 months, particularly over the election campaign, when I was talking to people who were struggling with Australia's cost-of-living crisis. There were two things that they were telling me on repeat: that it was two expensive to go to the doctor and that they were making decisions about which medications they were going to have or if they would stretch out their medications because they were far too expensive.

I've spoken to a number of mums over the past year who have said, particularly as the winter cold, flu and respiratory illness season has been upon us, that they've had to make decisions about delaying their own medical appointments so they can actually afford to take each of their children to different medical appointments. I think when somebody has to actually delay their own medical treatment or their own medical investigations it's a very sad state of affairs. For a mum to have to do that, I think, is terribly unfair. Not only looking after your sick children but having to delay your own medical visits is unacceptable in my view.

Instead of being honest with Australians about this concerning situation, Anthony Albanese has been waving his Medicare card around as a disingenuous stunt to try and distract us all from his failures. I don't think that that's quite right, and I think that Australians see past that. They want to see some action. They don't want to see the Prime Minister waving around his Medicare card and saying, 'That's all you need.' Most people who have gone to the doctor over the past couple of years know that they needed their credit card as well as their Medicare card. I'm not sure why the Prime Minister isn't being open and transparent with Australians about the state of Medicare, but we are focused on ensuring that struggling families have timely and affordable access to the medical treatments that they need and to their local GP.

When I talk about the Prime Minister and his rhetoric around only needing your Medicare card, not your credit card, this wasn't something he just said once or twice. He actually said that 71 times. On 71 separate occasions he has said to Australians, 'You just need your Medicare card. You don't need your credit card,' when the lived reality of Australians is very different to that.

In addition to that the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing's incoming government brief, released under freedom of information, estimates that a quarter of GP clinics across our country will not bulk-bill, despite all of the Albanese Labor government's promises. So it's 25 per cent of clinics won't provide bulk-billing at all. This data from the health department shows that millions of Australians will absolutely still need their credit card as well as their Medicare card when they go to see their GP. The Minister for Health and Ageing, Mark Butler, has now tried to backtrack from the Prime Minister's promises by saying they never said they would be 100 per cent bulk-billing. I'm not sure how you can on the one hand say, 'All you need is your Medicare card,' and then, on the other hand, say, 'We actually never said there would be 100 per cent bulk-billing.' To me, they are the same thing. They're just different words. 'You only need your Medicare card' would be 100 per cent bulk-billing. But now Minister Butler is saying that the government never said that there would be 100 per cent bulk-billing. On that basis I'm not quite sure what 'You only need your Medicare card' actually means. The Prime Minister certainly said, many, many times, 'One card covers it all'—not your credit card, just your Medicare card. Either the Prime Minister was mistaken or it was a stunt. I'm not quite sure which is worse. I think it would probably be worse if it were a stunt. If it were an honest mistake and the Prime Minister stood up and said, 'I got that wrong; I was very wrong; you actually do need your credit card as well as your Medicare card,' then we could perhaps move on.

While the Prime Minister was out waving his Medicare card around during the election campaign and propagating what we can only assume are these false promises, Australians paid a combined $166 million in out-of-pocket costs at the GP in the month of May alone, and I'm assuming many of them used their credit card. Let me repeat that. During the month of May, during the election-campaign month—the election was on 3 May—Australians paid $166 million in out-of-pocket costs in visits to the GP. This was at the same time we had our prime minister holding up his Medicare card, saying, 'This is all you need.' Well, it's clear that in the month of May we also needed an extra $166 million.

In the past year Australians have paid more than $2 billion in out-of-pocket costs. That is more than $2 billion charged to Australians' credit cards or taken out of their bank accounts or charged to their debit cards or taken out of the piggy-bank—but not their Medicare cards. That $2 billion did not come from anybody's Medicare card, and they paid this to access essential health care at their doctor's office. I don't know what we can call this aside from a $2 billion lie. I don't know what we call it.

Ten years of neglect from a coalition government.

Pardon? I didn't hear.

Interjections are disorderly.

I might repeat it because I can't remember where I got to. That's more than $2 billion charged to Australians' credit cards over the past year. That's $2 billion that people had to pay out of their pockets over the past year because their Medicare card was not sufficient to pay for their visit to the doctor. I think any type of falsehood is egregious, but I think when it comes to falsehoods in relation to medical treatment, where it's something that people don't choose to do but something they have to do, is actually even more egregious.

Australians aren't stupid. They know that they need to have their credit card or debit card or some cash when they go to the GP because the Medicare card is not enough. But what the Prime Minister has done here is create false expectations in the minds of Australian families at a time when they are already struggling under a cost-of-living crisis. That is quite appalling because he's giving them false messaging at a time when they can least afford it. It's not on something they may like to buy or something they may like to spend their money on but on their health care, which is something that they need to spend their money on. But now they're having to make decisions on whether they can actually afford it or not. What he has proven by doing this is that he really does not understand the cost-of-living pressures that everyday Australians are under. That in itself is a very, very sad thing.

I finish by saying that the coalition's record on Medicare is something that we are very proud of. Medicare bulk-billing was higher under the coalition. Regardless of what those opposite want to say, the numbers don't lie—88 per cent is more than 77 per cent, whichever way you want to cut it. In the coalition's last year, 167.2 million free GP services were delivered. This is 61 million more than under the previous Labor government.

I would like to add a few words to the debate on the Health Insurance (Pathology) (Fees) (Repeal) Bill 2025. While the coalition does support the passing of this legislation and will support the bill passing through the Senate, I think it is worth putting on the record, from my perspective in Tasmania, the dishonesty that the government has managed the health portfolio with over the last three and a bit years. In fact, their approach to health in particular has followed the same path for a considerable period of time. We've had 'Mediscare' campaign after 'Mediscare' campaign perpetrated by the Labor party going back as far as 2016. The real problem is that they're prepared to run a scare campaign but they're not prepared to base it on fact.

The last campaign, where the Prime Minister stood up on 70-odd occasions and said the only thing that you will need to go to the GP is your Medicare card, demonstrates how low the Labor Party are prepared to go in misleading the Australian people with respect to health services. We know that 23 per cent of Australians will need more than their Medicare card, yet the Labor party, on 71 occasions, perpetrated the falsehood that all you would need when you went to the GP was your Medicare card. The Department of Health, Disability and Ageing have put on the public record that 23 per cent of Australians will need more than their Medicare card; they will have to produce their credit card as well. Yet this is not what the Labor Party say when they're standing up publicly.

They like to try to deflect the blame from themselves. They like to attribute the blame to the coalition. Yet the statistics are very clear that Medicare bulk-billing was 11 per cent higher under the coalition than it was under the Labor Party. They try to deflect the blame to somebody else, as they do in so many things. We heard this during question time today, when the Labor Party were talking about home care. They neglected, in any of their answers, to talk about the fact that the waiting list for home-care packages had dropped, from an unacceptable high of 129,000, down to 28,000—a reduction of over 100,000 people on the waiting list. The waiting time had dropped, from an unacceptably high number, to 30 to 90 days for a home-care package at any level. Under the coalition, someone looking for a high-needs package would get it within 30 days. None of that was mentioned by the government. Dishonestly, it was not mentioned by the government today under questioning. They try to pretend that the period of time where significant progress was made on home-care packages doesn't exist.

The great shame that the Labor Party should feel is that they squandered the hard work and the investment from the Australian people into home-care packages. The number of people on the waiting list got down to 28,000, and the waiting time was 30 to 90 days. There are now 87,000 people waiting. It has more than tripled under Labor because of their lack of investment. The waiting time has blown out, from 30 to 90 days, to 15 months for a level 4 home-care package.

It's outrageous. They continue to perpetrate the falsehood that they care about senior Australian people, yet their actions completely and utterly belie that. It's simply not true. They throw around phrases and clauses from the interim report and the aged-care royal commission, but they neglect to say in respect of the aged-care royal commission that the Labor Party still has not put on the record a full response to the royal commission. They still have not done that, and they won't. They don't have the courage and they don't have the moral fibre to stand up on the fact that their complete failure on home-care packages has seen the waiting list blow out more than threefold, from 28,000 to over 87,000. Then we learned last week that there are 120,000 people who are waiting for an assessment, which means those waiting for home-care packages number over 200,000 people. It is an absolute outrage that that is occurring.

But we see that all through the Labor Party's management of the health system. We've seen that all along. They're not prepared to stand up and take responsibility for their own failures. They refuse to acknowledge that the bulk-billing rate has dropped from 88 per cent to 77 per cent under their watch. They try and blame it on someone else. They try and deflect to somewhere else. It's a continuation that they perpetrate as part of what they're doing.

Then they had the gall to go to the election making the promise that the only thing that you'd need when going to the GP is your Medicare card, not your credit card. That's a promise they made 71 times, and yet they know that it is not true. There were no qualifications around the promise. There's plenty of evidence to demonstrate that the commitment was, 'All you will need to go to the GP is your Medicare card, not your credit card.' But, even as the Labor Party said that, they knew it wasn't true, and now there's every excuse under the sun as to why it's not the case.

The coalition has a very proud record with respect to supporting high-quality medications going into the Australian health system. In fact, we undertook a major review of medications available on the PBS, and we listed more quickly than the Labor Party has a whole range of medicines. We shouldn't forget that the last time they were in government they stopped listing because they ran out of money because they can't manage a budget. We are seeing the spending. Australians should be very, very cautious about the unbridled spending. The government don't want any guardrails. They don't want any discipline placed around the way they spend the Australian people's taxes. They just want to keep on rolling it up. That's what they do—spend. And, of course, then they will come after more of your money. Spend and tax—that's what the Labor Party do.

With respect to the Health Insurance (Pathology) (Fees) (Repeal) Bill 2025, while the opposition support this particular piece of legislation, we offer a sincere word of caution to the Australian people. We need to be very, very careful when the Labor Party are speaking in respect to the health system and the promises that they make with respect to the health system because there is a sordid trail of broken promises from this government of broken promises in relation to health, aged care and energy prices. The list goes on and on.

In relation to being open and honest with the Australian people, we heard earlier in the day that the pricing for the NDIS has been sought by this chamber, and the government won't release it. They promised to be an open and transparent government. How's that going? I can tell you my constituents who are concerned about what's happening with the NDIS don't believe that that's the case. They are very concerned about what's going on. Quite frankly, releasing that information is fundamental to the trust the Australian people have in the NDIS system in the same way it is with releasing hospital costs done by the same organisation and also in the same way that the costings assessed for the aged-care system need to be released so that people can understand what the assessment is and then benchmark that against what's actually being supported through the system.

This history of broken promises from the Labor Party, this litany of broken promises from the government of broken promises, needs to be well and truly understood by the Australian people. The coalition will continue to do what we've always done: work responsibly with regard to measures that are brought into this place, making sure that the government is put under pressure to be open and transparent where they should be with costings for the review of NDIS payments and other things, including aged care. In that context, we'll also support this piece of legislation, and I'm pleased to put my contribution in that context onto the record tonight.

It is interesting to hear coalition senators try and rewrite their own history in relation to Medicare, because the truth—and I think the Australian public know this—is that, when we came to government in 2022, it had never been harder or more expensive to find a doctor, bulk-billing was in freefall and it was after a decade of cuts and neglect. It is why we came to government determined to strengthen Medicare. In the first term of parliament, we delivered more doctors, more bulk-billing and cheaper medicines. We opened 87 Medicare urgent care clinics. The truth is that Labor established Medicare and it is only Labor that can be relied upon to protect it.

That, of course, provides context for the bill that's before the chamber at the moment, but the Health Insurance (Pathology) (Fees) (Repeal) Bill 2025 is rather more specific than many of the contributions in what has been a wide-ranging debate. I thank senators for their contributions. The bill before us relates to the fees imposed on the pathology sector for certain categories of pathology applications. This bill will reform the pathology charging arrangements applying to those categories. The Health Insurance Act 1973 requires Medicare-eligible pathology services to be rendered by or on behalf of an approved pathology practitioner in an accredited pathology laboratory operated by an approved pathology authority. Under these arrangements, a practitioner is required to sign an undertaking to the minister that they will comply with the requirements of the legislation and certain administrative arrangements and pay an acceptance fee to become an approved practitioner. The proprietary laboratory must sign an undertaking and pay an acceptance fee to become an approved authority, and a laboratory premises may be approved as an accredited laboratory by the minister after an application has been submitted with relevant supporting documentation and the accreditation fee has been paid. The accreditation requirements impose obligations on approved practitioners, accredited laboratories and approved authorities to undertake to meet or to demonstrate compliance with quality-assurance standards for pathology services provided under Medicare.

The Health Insurance (Pathology) (Fees) Act 1991 specifies the fees which must be paid for the acceptance and approval of approved practitioner, approved authority and accredited laboratory applications. The approval of these applications allows the providers of pathology services to be identified in the Services Australia billing system as approved providers of Medicare-eligible services. The current pathology charging arrangements were reviewed as part of the 2022 Health portfolio charging review, which identified that these arrangements do not align with the Australian government's charging framework. Removing the fees applied to the three categories of applications through the repeal of the pathology fees act will resolve this misalignment with the charging framework. It will also provide the pathology sector with fee relief and a reduced administrative burden; however, it will preserve the high level of confidence in the accuracy of Medicare-eligible pathology services by retaining administrative requirements, including accreditation obligations.

I thank senators for their contributions to the debate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I am following on from my contribution last week. Now, as a result of the government's failure to provide flexibility to implement their reform, older Australians are being denied their rights and have been denied the care that they've been assessed as needing by this government. Because of their failure to consider transitional provisions, the government were forced into an embarrassing backflip to delay the implementation of the Aged Care Act 2024. While the Albanese government will claim their delay was the result of consultation with the sector to provide them with time, the truth is it was the government that wasn't ready. The government's steadfast commitment to this chamber in November last year that all government systems would be ready by 1 July was nothing but politics. These bills here today, the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 and the Aged Care (Accommodation Payment Security) Levy Amendment Bill 2025, prove exactly that.

These bills prove that the government's decision to vote down all the amendments moved by the coalition in relation to transition provisions was nothing more than a political stunt because, without these bills today, critical information cannot be shared between government departments to ensure the reforms can be implemented. This was confirmed in the Senate inquiry on 8 August. Department officials confirmed that, without these bills in front of us today, elements of the Aged Care Act 2024 could not be enacted. Most concerningly, this government was aware of the need for the legislation changes as early as January this year. They did nothing about it until June. Clearly this government lied at the election about its commitment to supporting older Australians, as this transition has been anything but supportive of those who rely on the system.

The Albanese government refused to admit they were not ready to transition to their new aged-care system and framework that they'd celebrated so loudly. Then, when they were forced to do an embarrassing backflip on the start date for their reforms following the election, the Albanese Labor government continued to use the sector as a scapegoat, stating that the deferral of Support at Home was appropriate to give more time for aged-care providers to prepare their clients, support their workforce and get their systems ready for change. But the Senate inquiry into these bills confirmed that existing legislation was not adequate to implement aged-care reforms and that it was the government who required more time to get their systems ready for change, not the sector.

Even more shocking is the evidence we heard last Friday in which the department confirmed that more than 121,000 older Australians are waiting to be assessed for care. The department refused to provide updated figures on how many vulnerable older Australians are waiting for the care they've been assessed as needing. We know this figure is more than 87,000 from data provided in March, but experts suggest this number has skyrocketed to more than 100,000 people. While the minister continues to claim that the sector weren't ready, peak bodies, providers and advocacy groups unanimously told the Senate Community Affairs References Committee on Friday that the sector is absolutely ready to provide that care and provide it now. Most importantly, the department confirmed that there are no barriers to the release of additional home-care packages beyond it being the minister's decision. The department is ready and the sector is ready, but the government continue to withhold critical aged-care packages without any reasonable excuse.

The inquiry highlighted that, within existing legislation, the government is not able to implement the no-worse off principle. Through our persistent negotiations on the act, the coalition achieved significant improvements to the government's proposed reforms that will protect the interests of older Australians and future generations. One of the most critical outcomes of our efforts was the introduction of grandfathering arrangements. These arrangements guarantee that Australians who are already in the residential aged-care system, on a home-care package or assessed as waiting for their allocated home-care package will not see any change to their existing arrangements. But the government could not implement this critical policy without this bill, the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, which we are debating today, because this bill creates the necessary legislation to exempt existing residents from payment obligations of the new act. Specifically, item 77 and item 183 insert sections 275A and 285A respectively into the Aged Care Act 2024. Without these provisions, the no-worse-off principle cannot be implemented within the rules. This is a clear failure of the government to implement their promised reform and this is a clear example of the contempt of this government because the Senate inquiry provided confirmation that the government knew of this error as early as January. The government didn't just fail to deliver legislation to implement the no-worse-off principle. They failed to ensure that older Australians could enter new services agreements with informed consent, because, yet again, without the bill we are debating today, and to quote departmental officials:

… the transition of the information from the old act to the new act wouldn't have been able to occur …

Again, the government was aware of this as early as January this year. But here we are in August, after a federal election, with another broken promise from the Albanese Labor government.

ICT readiness was consistently raised throughout the inquiry as an area of concern, given many department builds are yet to be operational. This prompts the question: how was the government ever going to be ready for 1 July 2025 if internal ICT remains incomplete?

It's no secret that we are the party of hardworking Australians. That is why we also advocated for a lower taper rate towards care contributions to ensure those who have worked hard and saved for their retirement are dealt a fairer deal under this government. We doubled down on a fairer deal for all Australians and held the government to account on their commitment to remain the majority funder of aged care. We fought for the maintenance of a lifetime cap on care contributions and we fought to remove the Labor government's introduction of arbitrary caps on access to gardening and cleaning—caps the coalition did not want to see implemented during a cost-of-living crisis. Item 20 of this bill removes the ridiculous caps imposed by Labor's government, including in primary legislation, and affirms the amendment as moved by the coalition during debate of the Aged Care Act last year.

The most egregious aspect of the government's delay on the aged-care reforms is the impact on older Australians who need essential home-care services. Anthony Albanese and his government have abandoned older Australians who need support to stay living independently in their own homes. They promised to deliver 83,000 packages from 1 July 2025. But they have broken this promise, leaving more than 87,000 older Australians waiting for a home-care package and without the care that they've been assessed as needing. This is an appalling decision by the government, and the coalition absolutely condemns the government for the skyrocketing waitlists and wait times that they have overseen and for their refusal to provide the promised packages.

The waitlist for home-care packages has almost tripled in the last two years under Labor's watch. Many vulnerable older Australians are waiting more than a year to access the care they've been assessed as needing. This is nothing short of a national crisis. Minister Rae must urgently deliver the promised packages and address this skyrocketing waitlist as a matter of absolute priority, because older Australians deserve access to the care they need to stay independent in their own homes for longer. Home-care providers also deserve the certainty of knowing how many packages will be released over the coming months so that they can plan their workforce, so they're ready to support the older Australians in their care.

Under this Labor government, over 87,597 older Australians are currently waiting on the national priority system for a home-care place they have been assessed as needing, and that was back in March. We don't know how many people are waiting now, because the government won't tell us. There are 121,596 older Australians waiting to be assessed for a home-care place. Therefore, overall, more than 200,000 older Australians are waiting to access home-care support under Labor. Labor has released zero new home-care places this financial year. Labor only released 41,215 home-care places over their entire first term in government. This compares to the 123,000 additional home-care packages that the former government committed to in our last term of government. The most vulnerable older Australians are now waiting up to 15 months for access to home care packages they have been assessed as needing, compared to between three and six months under the former coalition government.

The coalition remains absolutely committed to an aged-care system that provides dignity, choice and control to Australians. As this legislation is essential for the delivery of the Aged Care Act, the coalition will not seek to delay the passage of this bill, because without the passage of this bill the Aged Care Rules can not be registered, and we know how essential the final release of supported legislation is to ensuring a smooth transition. That is why this bill must be passed without delay to ensure older Australians can finally receive the care this government has promised them and has failed to deliver.

Older Australians deserve better than another broken promise and more delay by the Albanese Labor government. I therefore foreshadow a second reading amendment which I will move in in my name and other second reading amendments that will be moved in other coalition senators' names in recognition of the outstanding information still required for the sector to implement these reforms in a timely manner. We all know that if the government had been truly ready for a 1 July start date, this information would already be finalised and it would have been published. Other amendments in relation to the concerns raised throughout the inquiry will also be moved by the coalition, most particularly regarding the absolutely disgraceful blow-out of the number of people on the waitlist and the time that they are waiting. We will seek to make sure that there is some remedy for older Australians who are continuing to wait for home-care packages. Quite sadly, and quite frankly, some of them are dying while they're waiting for the care that they've been promised by this government.

The coalition condemns this government's clear decision to put politics above the rights of older Australians. We condemn the government for preventing older Australians getting care because they simply will not release the packages that we know the sector is ready and capable to deliver and we know from the department's advice that the department is ready and capable to deliver. But, as I said, we will not stand in the way of this legislation. We will not stand in the way of this bill passing, because Australians deserve the rights based system that they have been promised for such a long time.

On the record, we want Australians to understand that this is a government that promised to put the care back into aged care in 2022. They continued to make promises to older Australians throughout their first term of government, but in the process of the last three years the government have abjectly failed older Australians as we've seen wait times and waitlists blow out. As I said, we will not stand in the way of this legislation, because we understand its importance. We will hold the government to account for the delivery of the Aged Care Act starting on 1 November, as you have promised Australians, and we will stand ready to condemn you again if you do not have the act staff on 1 November. I move:

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

(a) immediately register the Aged Care Rules upon Royal Assent of these bills,

(b) immediately publish a release schedule for Support at Home places to ensure the aged care sector can adequately plan and scale up the workforce,

(c) immediately release the final Support at Home Manual to ensure sector readiness for 1 November 2025,

(d) undertake further consultation on care management fee caps and service delivery, including with clinicians, to ensure no older Australian sees a reduction in the quality of care as a result of the Government's decision to halve the value of care management,

(e) expedite the design of the program to replace the Commonwealth Home Support Program to prevent the challenges associated with rushed policy implementation as seen with the Aged Care Act 2024 , and

(f) acknowledge the regulatory and financial burden placed on the sector as a result of the Government's decision to delay the implementation of the Aged Care Act".

I rise to speak on the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 and Aged Care (Accommodation Payment Security) Levy Amendment Bill 2025. There are over 3 million Australians currently over the age of 70, and it's crucial that we get the policy settings right in the aged care space.

The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, which released its final report in March 2021, shocked Australians to their core. It shocked them because of the failings of the Liberal government over almost 11 years of neglect. So to have the opposition now lecture us about aged care—you had five failed aged-care ministers because not one of them had any interest in aged care. For you to come in here and try to rewrite history, with your record on aged care—I mean, it's beyond belief that you would have the gall to come in here and mislead the Australian people. I remember only too well that the Liberal-National coalition government at that time called the royal commission into your own failings. That's the reality. It wasn't anyone else. It was the Liberals calling for a royal commission into their own failings because they had no idea, they did not have a competent minister and they didn't know how to regulate and reform the aged care sector.

The Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 will make technical, transitional and consequential changes to support the commencement of the Aged Care Act 2024. The first recommendation of the royal commission was the development of a new aged-care act to put the rights of older people at the very centre of their care. The Albanese Labor government is ensuring that this is implemented and will be transformative for the sector and for senior Australians. I acknowledge tonight the contribution over a very long period of time of Minister Butler and Minister Wells in their work in this portfolio—and also, I might add, Shayne Neumann, a former shadow minister for aged care. I acknowledge the new Minister for Aged Care and Seniors, Minister Rae. He recognises the work that has been achieved and knows there is still much more we can do as a government to improve the sector. I think we can all agree that, regardless of the failings of the past, we must all work together for the wellbeing and dignity of senior Australians.

The Aged Care Act 2024, which commences on 1 November 2025, replaces the Aged Care Act 1997. It will deliver on its recommendation and establish a new rights based framework for the delivery of aged care in Australia. This new legal framework builds on Labor's achievements in the last term of government, including 24/7 nursing in aged-care homes, with a registered nurse on site in aged care more than 99 per cent of the time; mandatory care minutes, with an additional 6.8 million minutes of care provided every single day; and a $17.7 billion investment in higher wages for aged-care workers. Where were the opposition over the 11 years we were crying out for people to work in aged care? They were nowhere to be seen because they didn't care. They didn't respect, and they still don't respect, those people who work in aged care, looking after some of the most vulnerable people in our communities.

Mandatory care minutes, with an additional 6.8 million minutes of care provided every single day, make a huge difference to those older Australians. Around 306,000 people are assessed as needing a home-care package today compared to fewer than 200,000 people five years ago. They're the figures; they don't lie. The new act puts the dignity of older Australians first and foremost with a statement of rights underpinned by Australia's obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

As a former shadow assistant minister for aged care, I understand how important it is that we get this generational reform right because it will serve Australians for years to come. As Minister Rae has stated, this is why the Albanese Labor government chose to defer the start of the Aged Care Act 2024 and the new Support at Home care package—because we must provide more time for aged-care providers to prepare their clients, support their workforce and get the systems ready for this significant reform. Therefore, this bill will provide further support for the Albanese Labor government's ambition to transform the experience of older Australians receiving care, wherever they reside across the country.

The bill also includes amendments to the Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2024 and other legislation that supports the aged-care system. The bill allows for transitional change to ensure that subsidies are paid correctly to support the provisions of funded aged care to all.

Older Australians are now receiving an additional 6.8 million minutes of care every single day, 2.5 million of which are delivered by qualified, registered nurses because of our vision for this sector. I remember that the sector, older Australians around the country and their families were calling out for more registered nurses—and what did those opposite, when they were in government for almost 11 years, do? Nothing—nothing to support those working in aged care, nothing to encourage more registered nurses. Care minutes and related measures were introduced in response to recommendations of the royal commission to ensure that older people in aged-care homes receive the dedicated care time that we all know they need and deserve. This means more one-on-one time so residents receive the emotional connection they deserve.

The bill also contains amendments to support the continuation of accommodation bond arrangements, which means that a bond is paid in order for you to enter residential care and receive care in a residential setting, made under the 1997 act for people who entered care before 2008. The amendments also include a new civil penalty provision comparable to the existing accommodation payments framework under the new act. The bill also provides for greater transparency and clarity. The updated provisions will support means testing arrangements under the new framework for financial contributions.

The protection of personal information and the regulation of its use and disclosure, consistent with both Australian law and international standards, remain a key priority. Under the new act, this information is protected, and the act provides substantial penalties for misuse. Amendments will also reform the Star Ratings program. The introduction of this program has given older Australians and their loved ones more information about residential aged-care homes. But, based on public consultation and feedback, amendments will be made to better utilise compliance information in determining and publishing a registered provider's compliance with their obligations under the law.

This new bill also introduces a requirement that the Aged Care Quality Standards are reviewed every five years to ensure that the standards of care that we all expect for older Australians are regularly considered against and aligned with best practice. The bill will also make consequential changes to legislation that references the Commonwealth aged-care system. These amendments will ensure that funded aged-care services are provided in a manner consistent with other Commonwealth legislation. Amendments will ensure that existing exemptions to the application of the GST remain in place for aged-care services.

I'm very proud of what our government has implemented over the course of the last term of government and what we will now build upon. This is about nation-building reforms. This is about supporting seniors and older Australians in this country to provide them with the best care possible. For too long—well over a decade; almost 11 years—the previous government neglected older Australians. Don't think that the Australian people don't remember the terrible things that were exposed during the royal commission. I've never experienced a government that's had to call a royal commission into its own failings. It was extraordinary. They'd run out of ideas, they'd run out of ministers and they just didn't understand the system. It was Labor who, prior to that that, restarted the foundations, under Minister Mark Butler at that time. We recognised, when we started to fix it, that the system was broken. But what did those opposite do when they came in? They did absolutely nothing. They never supported a pay raise for workers in this sector, even though they knew that the demand for workers was outstripping the number who wanted to work. And we experienced, through COVID, the result of those workers being so underpaid that they had to go from aged-care home to aged-care home, which actually helped to spread COVID, and that's why so many in residential care died during that time. So, to have a former failed minister come in here and a lecture us about what we haven't done, when we lived through the experience of what he did, and his priorities—I really don't think I have to go into it. I would have thought aged care and being minister for aged care were far more important than any sporting event during COVID.

So I'm not going to stand here in my contribution and allow those opposite to try and rewrite history, because it has always been Labor that has led reform in the aged-care sector. It will always be Labor that supports those people who work in the care economy, just as we have in early childhood education. Those opposite talk a lot and they have crocodile tears, but the reality is that, when they're on the government benches, they fail to support those workers.

What we're about as a government is building up this workforce and recognising this workforce. We're actually respecting older Australians, and we want to ensure that we provide the best possible world-leading care in this sector. We will fight for that every single day. Bear in mind that we don't just have to clean up the mess in aged care that those opposite left behind. We've had to tackle inflation. We've brought down interest rates. We're supporting workers. We're addressing the cost of living. So we do have ambition, but we work with the sector, with unions and with older Australians to ensure that we provide world's best practice when it comes to aged care. That's why, in this sector, people look to Australia to see what we're doing.

I don't take any glee in reminding people of the failure of those opposite in nine years. How many was it? Five ministers who failed, and not one of them was actually interested in aged care. I don't take any glee in that, because I actually care about this sector, I care about older Australians and I care about workers. But, at the same time, I'm also not going to sit here when there's a contribution on that side trying to again rewrite history and not acknowledge their own failures. Not once has anyone on that side apologised to the Australian community for their failures—not even when people died in nursing homes unnecessarily because of the failures of that government. So, if you're going to be genuine and you want to work with us and pass this legislation, that's great, but it does not absolve you from the mess you left behind and the misfortune that too many Australians have to wait very long periods of time to get home-care packages. We don't have a magic wand. We can't fix your mess overnight.

I think I'll just start by saying there are people dying now waiting for home-care packages. There have been 5,000 older Australians who have died waiting for their home-care packages that were approved.

The coalition will not stand in the way of the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 and the related bill moving through and being approved, because it is necessary and it is overdue. It is essential to delivering the Aged Care Act 2024 and implementing the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, which was instituted under the former coalition government. The coalition supports aged care reform. We support a system that delivers dignity, safety and quality care to older Australians. What we do not support is a reform process that is rushed and poorly planned and leaves vulnerable Australians behind.

This government's handling of aged-care reform has been nothing short of chaotic. The Aged Care Act 2024 was Labor's package. It wasn't co-designed with the coalition, and from the outset we warned that reform of this scale could not be implemented in a matter of months. We moved amendments to ensure transitional arrangements for the Home Care Packages Program, allowing it to commence without delay. Labor voted against them. The government has now been forced to delay implementation to 1 November, which is a far cry from the target of 1 July. This is not a minor adjustment; it is a failure of governance. More than 87,000 older Australians are waiting for a home-care package at their approved level. Many have been waiting for more than 15 months—and this figure doesn't include those still waiting to be assessed, which is about 120,000 older Australians. Together, it is a staggering—

Senator Blyth, I'm sorry to interrupt. It being eight o'clock, we'll now move to the adjournment. You will be in continuation when the debate resumes.

Debate interrupted.

I rise today, during Women's Health Week, to speak on a matter that touches every family in every community in every corner of our nation: the health and wellbeing of Australian women. Women's Health Week is more than a campaign; it is a call to action. It is a reminder that women's health must be prioritised, protected and properly funded. It is a time to listen to women, to learn from their experiences and to lead with compassion and purpose.

I know firsthand the strength and resilience of our women—mothers, daughters, sisters, carers, workers and leaders. But I also know the quiet struggles many face when it comes to accessing timely, affordable and respectful health care. For too long, women's health has been treated as an afterthought. It has been underfunded, underresearched and, too often, misunderstood.

That's why I am proud to support the work this government is doing to improve women's health outcomes. These are not just policy announcements. They are a promise to Australian women that their health matters. In last year's federal budget, the Albanese Labor government delivered targeted investment to improve access to care for women with complex gynaecological conditions. This included new Medicare rebates for longer consultations with gynaecologists, funding to improve menopause treatment, expanded access to midwifery services and free period products for First Nations women and girls.

We have also taken important steps in reproductive health. For decades women have shouldered the financial burden of managing their fertility. This government has changed that. We have listened to what Australian women want. We have listed new oral contraceptives on the PBS, saving women hundreds of dollars each year. We've increased Medicare rebates for IUDs and implants. We are also trialling pharmacy access for contraceptives and uncomplicated urinary tract infection treatments, benefiting thousands of women, particularly in regional and rural communities. These reforms are about choice, equity and dignity. They are about giving women control over their health, without the financial penalties.

Menopause is another area where silence has reigned for too long. Women have been told to suffer quietly, to push through and to accept the discomfort, but that is no longer acceptable. We now have a Medicare rebate for menopause health assessments, national clinical guidelines, a public awareness campaign and new hormonal therapies listed on the PBS.

Endometriosis affects one in nine Australian women. It is painful, debilitating and, too often, undiagnosed or misdiagnosed. That's why we've expanded our network of endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics to dozens of locations around the country. These clinics now treat a broader range of conditions, including menopause.

I have spoken in this chamber before about the need to break the silence about gynaecological cancers. I have supported the Senate committee report Breaking the silence, which calls for better awareness and early detection and support for women facing these devastating diagnoses.

I also want to acknowledge the burden of chronic conditions—like arthritis, which disproportionately affects women. As a member of the Parliamentary Friends of Arthritis, I've worked alongside Arthritis Australia and heard directly from women living with this condition. Arthritis is one of the leading causes of pain and disability in Australia, with some seven million Australians being diagnosed with this disease. It is vital that we continue to invest in prevention, early intervention and support.

These reforms were shaped by the Senate inquiry, the National Women's Health Advisory Council and the voices of women across Australia. This is what good government looks like: listening, acting and delivering. That's why when you have the majority of your members of caucus as women, as we do, it changes government and it changes the nation. So I'm very proud to be part of this Labor government that is delivering not just for women, because women's health has an impact on their families and on their communities. I'm very proud to be part of this government and of the ministers with responsibility in this area for the leadership they have shown.

I rise to mark Tibet Lobby Day, which is happening in the Australian parliament today and tomorrow. This is a day when members of the Tibetan community who have carried both the pain of exile and the pride of their culture for so many decades remind us of what is at stake when freedom is denied.

This year Tibet Lobby Day coincides with the 90th birthday of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, a milestone in the life of a leader whose consistency and moral courage have inspired people across the globe. His story is intertwined with that of Tibet itself—a people who continue to fight for dignity, human rights and the right to preserve their identity in the face of overwhelming pressure.

The Tibetan experience is a stark reminder of what happens when sovereignty is curtailed. Since 1950 Tibetans have endured the steady erosion of their religious freedom, language and culture. Monasteries have been destroyed, traditions suppressed and dissent punished. Even the centuries' old tradition of identifying the next Dalai Lama has been targeted for political control and influence.

The disappearance of the 11th Panchen Lama in 1995, taken from his family as a six-year-old child, is a clear example of how almost all aspects of Tibetan life are being dominated. This is not simply a matter of religion; it is an assault on sovereignty itself. Repression continues today. Peaceful protest is criminalised, surveillance is ever present, and religious practice is restrained and denied. Tibetan children are separated from their families and placed in boarding schools where their language and identity are stripped away, with terrible consequences.

These are not distant problems or something we can dismiss as 'internal matters'. They are challenges to the core principles that underpin free societies. The right to live in dignity, the right to speak one's language, the right to practise one's faith, the right to chart's one's own course—these are universal.

Australia is fortunate to be a democracy and respects human rights. We enjoy the freedoms of speech, belief and association that Tibetans today are denied. But those freedoms we experience here in Australia come with responsibilities, because we cannot believe in democracy and sovereignty for ourselves and be indifferent when those same principles are threatened or denied abroad. That's why Tibet Lobby Day matters. It is not a symbolic exercise. It is a reminder that our parliament can and should use its voice on issues such as this and do so in a bipartisan—even tripartisan—manner.

That is why I joined colleagues from across the Senate this morning at a media conference to draw the attention of my colleagues to Tibet Lobby Day that is on today and tomorrow. It means supporting the preservation of the Tibetan language and religion in exile. It means ensuring that Tibetan Australians are recognised and valued as part of our national story. It means maintaining a respectful but open and frank dialogue with those nations who might choose to deny Tibetans their right to self-determination.

When Australia speaks up for Tibet, we are not only supporting a people in need; we are strengthening the values that underpin our own society and sovereignty. We are demonstrating that our democracy is not only something to be defended at home but also something to be advanced abroad. On Tibet Lobby Day 2025, let us recommit ourselves to those values: democracy, sovereignty, freedom and human dignity for all. On this the 90th birthday celebration of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, let us be reminded that true strength is to be found not in domination but in dignity and, of course, enduring hope.

I rise to talk about blood oil. Twenty years ago Australians were horrified to learn that the diamond in their engagement ring could be a blood diamond. Blood diamonds, also known as conflict diamonds, are used to fund rebel groups and wars in Africa. Today, Australians will also be horrified to learn that the petrol they are putting in their cars may be from blood oil—that is, Russian oil that makes its way to Australia through a third party.

Russia pays for their military build-up and attacks on Ukraine from its fuel exports. Countries which buy oil products refined from Russian crude oil are enabling this ongoing invasion. The biggest buyer of Russian blood oil refined by India is—yep, you guessed it—Australia. The government talks tough, telling us it is imposing sanctions on Russia. Those sanctions include an embargo and price caps on Russian oil products. The government boasts about measures it is taking to put costs on Russia for its illegal and immoral invasion of Ukraine. But underneath all the tough talk is a loophole Australia is exploiting. You guessed it: we can keep buying Russian blood oil.

Australia and Australian companies are prohibited from buying or importing oil or refined petroleum products from Russia. The loophole is that Australia and Australian companies are importing Russian oil products which are refined from Russian crude oil in India. The oil products we are buying include diesel, gasoline, gas oil and jet fuel. Basically, we avoid the sanctions to get the blood oil through the back door.

When we cut through all the spin about being tough on Russia, the truth is that Australian laws do not prohibit the import of laundered blood oil. India buys the crude on the cheap from Russia, refines it and then sells it on to us. The big winners are Russia and India. The losers in this greasy little transaction are the people of Ukraine. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is illegal and it's absolutely immoral. But isn't enabling the invasion equally immoral? Laundering this blood oil through a third country doesn't make it any less grubby.

Speaking of grubby, the question is how much are the importers of oil products making from this, and exactly how transparent are the likes of BP, ExxonMobil and Ampol when it comes to their supply chains? I reckon they're about as transparent and slippery as the Russian crude oil itself. Our Russian sanctions regime applies to Australian registered companies, but companies can get a permit to avoid the sanctions—how's that? The vague rules on permits, along with the Indian loophole, allow these companies to say, 'Look; no Russian oil on my hands,' when in fact they're up to their elbows in grease.

To rub oil into the wound, the amount we are giving Russia to wage war is twice what we are giving Ukraine to defend itself. Of course fuel security is critical for Australia, but at what price? And can we have fuel security without relying on Russian blood oil?

The answer is we don't need to rely on blood oil. We can ban all imports from Indian refineries without any significant inflationary or supply pressure here. In 2024, our imports of diesel from the Indian refineries were only 20 per cent of the total imports. Since the 2023 invasion we have imported about $3.7 billion of Russian crude in oil products from these refineries. That has put $1.8 billion in tax revenue in Putin's pocket. Stopping imports of oil products from these refineries would give Putin a punch in the financial nose, but our imports of Russian blood oil products from Indian refineries are increasing each year. The more we import, the more reliant we are likely to become, and that's very risky.

The 2023 Defence Strategic Review talks about needing a more robust fuel posture. Russia cannot be relied on to deliver a robust fuel posture or energy resilience. Russia cannot be relied on, full stop. What we can rely on are our strong domestic resource capabilities. The strategic review identified the need to leverage our minerals and petroleum resources infrastructure to achieve resilience. As an alternative to keeping our hands filthy with Russian blood oil, national energy resilience might require using infrastructure that is already being decommissioned.

In flexing its sanction muscles the government talks about the need to support stability in global energy markets, but at what price? And how does filling the Kremlin's tax coffers to the order of $1.8 billion help global energy markets? It has certainly propped up the price of Russian oil and has helped to increase the volume of oil Russia sells globally. In fact, Australia has done so well to prop up the Russian oil market that we've fallen to first place among the buyers. What a disgrace. A fight against missiles, drones and tanks, all of which are paid for with the money from the sale of blood oil—that is the true price of a system which allows the big petroleum companies to operate behind opaque supply chains. It is time we washed this blood off our hands.

I want to begin by acknowledging that it is Women's Health Week. What a week to acknowledge the meaningful change our government has made towards protecting victims of financial abuse. Devastatingly, a major threat to women's health is domestic violence. That's why we endeavoured last year in our inquiry into financial abuse to properly recognise economic control as a form of domestic violence, and Labor want to increase the level of support for victims. Women already face major barriers in achieving economic equality, whether that's accessing equal pay at their workplace or having a say in financial decisions in their home. It's beyond unfair that they're so disproportionately impacted by such insidious forms of domestic abuse.

I was proud in the last parliament as Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services to conduct that inquiry and publish our unanimous report, with 61 recommendations, titled Financial abuse: an insidious form of domestic violence. What was clear to us is that the onus should not be on victims of financial abuse to rectify their own situation. We saw that too many financial institutions had systems that protected perpetrators and made it challenging or impossible for victims to escape situations of coercive economic control. By empowering financial institutions to initiate relevant checks, to ensure equal access to joint accounts and to establish greater transparency when operating shared accounts, there is space for intervention in highly coercive behaviours. Sharing the responsibility for preventing financial abuse is critical to protecting victims. For too long, systems have enabled perpetrators to control and weaponise finances. For too long, women have bravely escaped abusive situations only to be left with a future swamped in partner-acquired debt—sometimes immense debts. For too long, good Australians have ignored financial abuse as a form of insidious domestic violence.

Labor has recognised that having victim and advocate involvement in designing legislation reform is invaluable to making a legitimate change. Crimes like financial abuse are so subtle to those outside the relationship that to recognise when they're occurring has actually been a long-term challenge. It's been far too easy for perpetrators to exploit current institutional systems, and the evidence is that, without legislation informed by victims, it's hard to catch and respond to these behaviours where they are occurring.

Like most forms of domestic violence, financial abuse disproportionately affects the most vulnerable. It's not okay that our First Nations people—Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders—are disproportionately targeted by financial abuse. So are the elderly and, tragically, those with disabilities. People shouldn't have to carry these horrific experiences with them their whole life. Everyone deserves to have and experience financial freedom and to live a life that's safe, and their ability to do this shouldn't be taken away by abhorrent crimes.

We've taken necessary steps to uphold our obligations to victims of financial abuse. There is much more to do, but we've already begun. Sadly, survivors can be abused even if they have escaped their situation. In fact, we know the most dangerous time for a domestic violence victim is not during the relationship but in the time after leaving. How terrifying to leave a domestic violence situation and know not only that the perpetrator has unmitigated access to your financial accounts but also that the choices you made under duress might place you in significant debt or legal trouble. That's why Labor's recent reform to empower Services Australia to waive debts that have resulted through coercive control will help victims-survivors to recover and ensure that our social systems are not complicit in such horrendous abuse. This was one of those very serious recommendations by the committee in the unanimous report with the 61 recommendations—for the government, not just financial institutions, to look at our systems and see where we are enabling. We have to change our structures.

I want to sincerely thank the Minister for Social Services, Tanya Plibersek. This action is what authentic leadership and action in the national interest looks like, and it's happened very quickly on the back of good work done by senators who are united in our service of the nation. It's past time that we protect victims and stop conniving perpetrators from weaponising financial institutions and social security measures, and we will continue to act to protect victims of financial abuse.

As someone who worked in university administration for more than two decades, I've seen higher education from the inside. What I see now is a system in decline, and artificial intelligence is simply the latest development to expose its flaws. AI cheating is rampant across our universities. Students can now progress through entire degrees without even opening a textbook, attending a lecture or developing any real understanding of their discipline. With a few well-phrased prompts, AI can produce polished essays, pass online quizzes and even generate original research papers. The safeguards that universities boast of—detection software and academic integrity codes—are in truth little more than window-dressing. The result is that a student can now emerge on graduation day, cap and gown in place, with a degree certificate in hand and yet know almost nothing of substance about their field. For families who have worked hard and saved to put their children through university, this is nothing short of a scandal.

But here is the uncomfortable truth: perhaps this is not entirely a bad thing. Long before AI arrived, universities were already failing in their most basic responsibility—teaching proper foundational concepts. For years I saw curricula stripped of the rigorous, knowledge based content that once defined the great traditions of higher learning. In its place we have witnessed an obsession with ideological conformity. Courses that once challenged students with history, philosophy, science and literature have too often become platforms for fashionable dogma. This is not merely my personal impression; there is evidence that students who have passed through this system often emerge less intellectually flexible than those who have not. Rather than learning to debate, to question or to weigh evidence, they are taught to repeat. The paradox is that, in this age of information abundance, many graduates think more rigidly than ever before.

Instead of the open minds that higher education once promised, we now see cohorts of students who treat dissenting views as threats to be silenced. If students are turning to AI, it is partly because they have been given fewer opportunities to engage with ideas worth wrestling with. Once, a university essay might have asked a student to grapple with Plato's Republic, Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations or Darwin's On the Origin of Species. Today it is more likely to ask for a reflection on the student's lived experience or a predictable denunciation of supposed sins of Western civilisation. That is the deepest tragedy.

Universities have allowed themselves to become degree factories. They are no longer temples of learning and experience but expensive bureaucracies selling credentials, not knowledge. Degrees are marketed as tickets to a job rather than as the cultivation of an educated mind. Universities know that as long as employers demand degrees, students will keep paying, regardless of the quality of the education they receive.

It is convenient to blame AI for this collapse, but the real decline began long before. There are fields that require deep learning and that contribute to society like the economy, medicine, engineering, teaching, science and law. They also provide the skills and knowledge that a nation needs to prosper. By contrast, degrees that are little more than ideological training camps should be funded only by those who choose to take them.

Universities themselves must also rediscover their mission. They must once again become places where the pursuit of truth is valued above fashionable politics, where young minds are trained to think, to reason, to argue and to disagree without fear. That means defending free inquiry, restoring a curriculum built around genuine intellectual traditions and refusing to treat students as customers buying a piece of paper.

AI will not disappear, nor should it. Like the calculator or the word processor before it, AI will become a tool of professional life. But if universities cannot adapt by rediscovering the essence of education, then AI will expose them as obsolete. A university that does not teach, that does not value truth and that does not demand intellectual effort is no university at all. AI cheating is not the cause of the problem; it is the symptom. The real disease is a university culture that has abandoned knowledge in favour of ideology. Unless we change course, we will continue pouring billions into a system that produces neither wisdom nor skill—and that is the ultimate academic fraud.

I recently met His Excellency Jose Ramos-Horta, the President of East Timor. We talked of Tony Stewart, the youngest of the Balibo Five, and his murder in the small crossroads town of Balibo, East Timor, on 16 October 1975. He was 21 years old. The events happened before I was born, but my parents shared the story with me, knowing it through their friendship with Anne E Stewart, younger sister of Tony and a well-known storyteller. Today Anne is in the chamber as we head to the 50th anniversary of the murder of her brother and his colleagues. No-one has been brought to justice or said sorry to the family in all this time.

To honour her brother, Tony, and to tell her family's story, she has published a collection of poems and prose, Crossroads: My Stories of Balibo. Almost every aspect of the events surrounding the murders, from the appalling duplicity of the Australian government's response to the devastating lifelong consequences for that family, is detailed. It is moving and deeply disturbing. Anne E, a dear friend and the Shannie—our nickname for grandmother—to my children, has written a moving account of small moments in time that tell the story and honour her brother. Quoting her parents, Anne shared:

The only contact we had with the Department of Foreign Affairs was when some fellow rang up and said…that he hoped we realised that we would have to pay for the body to be brought back to Australia.

That just about finished us off.

… tacit approval had been given by the Australian Government to the invasion

In one of Anne's poems, titled 'Gough', she writes:

Pompous pissant Gough

Gave the green light to Suharto's invasion

…we'll do absolutely nothing.

This was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald three days before the invasion. And here, in the hallowed halls of parliament, with axis to the national War Memorial, I quote from the poem entitled 'Family Lore':

We weren't told about his funeral until it was over

Anthony John Stewart

Loved son of Noel and June

R.I.P.

Inscribed on the headstone

in a Jakarta cemetery

Fake funeral held December 5th 1975

Woolcott and Whitlam's duplicity

Is part of our lore

Buried

The charred remains of five men

Collected from their hasty pyre in Balibo

Was it the Square? The Crossroads?

Or near the Chinese house

Where they died

Days later the fire

Like shards of pottery from an archaeological dig

their bones,

remnants raked and shovelled together

only enough for one coffin.

Years later some of the families wanted to exhume

Those fragments of five lives

Mum said "It's probably only chicken bones"

She'd always wondered

Reading the words of a World War 1 artist

Who'd written

The saddest thing on the battlefield

Was to hear grown men

In their last moments

Crying out for their mothers

Was there a faint call in that crossroads town under the banyan tree

"Mum"

We have let this family down. It wasn't until 2007, as written in the poem 'Whispering Down the Line, the Truth':

Pinch, Deputy Coroner, said 'deliberate'

They weren't caught in crossfire, as the Indonesians had proclaimed and the Australian government had accepted. From the same poem:

In 2014

An invitation to a briefing with the Australian Federal Police

who announced

"They were abandoning the enquiry,

After 1868 days of gathering evidence

…they had the names of

Those responsible for the slaughter

But hadn't interviewed one person in Indonesia

We were white with rage

I speak of this today to remind you of the importance of storytelling. Anne recorded many of my late father's, Rod May's, stories, and if she hadn't this knowledge would have been lost. But Anne assures me that amongst all of the clouds, there have been rainbows—the East Timor friendship network having just celebrated 25 years; Old rockers the Dili Allstars having received the Order of Timor-Leste; the work of the Balibo House Trust; the boite world music community, who commemorated 50 years of Timorese refugees in Australia; and the Alma nuns, who I have met and who have so much to teach us about gratitude and compassion.

I'm thankful for Anne's moving testimony, which has uncovered the true story from inside a family who lost a beloved son and brother. With 50 to 60 wars happening across the world today, I think of the collective grief that so many have endured and will endure.

Senate adjourned at 20 : 29