If there's no objection, the meetings are authorised.

I think I have to withdraw for calling people racists for being racist.

Senator Thorpe, you simply withdraw comments you made yesterday without repeating the offence.

Hang on a minute, Senator Thorpe. You need to be genuine in the withdrawal—

I'm not being genuine, but I'll withdraw because that's what the colony wants me to do.

Senator Thorpe, that is not appropriate. You simply need to stand and withdraw the comments you made yesterday without repeating them.

I withdraw.

Thank you, Senator Thorpe.

I remind the Senate that in fact it was this government that initiated the process of developing Australia's first-ever comprehensive assessment of the risks posed by climate change across the country and a plan for how Australia can adapt. It is this government, not the previous government nor any of the parties represented in this place, that commenced that work and has that work underway. The movers of this OPD know that the NCRA is being finalised and will be shortly released. They know that but are proceeding with this in what can only be described as a political stunt, complete with already drafted motions and media releases.

I'd just say in relation to this kind of behaviour that what it does is diminish the Senate and diminish the power of the Senate by misusing, at industrial scale, over and over and over again these kinds of processes in a way which should be designed—I'll give you the tip for the way that you do it: you try and do it in a way that has impact. What this will have is zero impact because it doesn't have the gravity, the moral seriousness, that you are trying to confect.

As the Senate is aware, from the public comments made by the minister, both the National Climate Risk Assessment and the National Adaptation Plan will be released in September following the conclusion of cabinet deliberations. Consistent with our position on all of the motions related to this request, as Minister Bowen has already made clear, the reports referenced in this motion are being used to inform government decisions at cabinet level now. They have not been previously released or published and a decision has not been made yet on some aspects of the deliberations. The release prior to the finalisation of cabinet process would inevitably negatively impact those deliberations.

These aren't new principles. They're not principles that the government has made up. They are basic cabinet governance Westminster principles that you would imagine every senator would understand. As Minister Bowen has said on a number of occasions, when the government has completed those relevant deliberations, the reports will be released. The minister continues to claim public interest immunity in relation to the reports for the reasons that I've mentioned and those set out in his letter.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

After burying it for nine months, Greens pressure and this Senate has ordered Labor to release the National climate risk assessment report. Brave whistleblowers who have seen the climate risk report say that it details a future where we face a world on track for three degrees of warming, which means 50-degree days in Sydney and Melbourne. It means homes within five kilometres of the coast, which applies to many of us, facing regular flooding and inundation. It means much of the country stuck in drought, leading to crop shortages and price spikes for essentials, and all coral reefs dead.

The government has claimed cabinet confidentiality as the reason for hiding this report, but a document that informs cabinet is not a document that reveals cabinet deliberations. So there is no legitimate reason to keep hiding this climate risk report. It's a cover-up from a government that is increasingly revealing itself as anti-transparent. Labor must announce Australia's 2035 climate target this month, but they are hiding the true impacts of climate change from the public. The government have said that they will release this at the same time as their 2035 climate targets—later this month—but not before.

People need to know the true impacts of what awaits them before the government announces the new climate targets. Those targets must be science based, and the science says that what is needed is net zero by 2035 to keep us safe from turbocharged natural disasters and to ensure a prosperous economy. A low target favours coal and gas business profits—those same folk who donate to the government's re-election coffers—but modelling from Deloitte released last week shows that a higher target is actually better for the economy and benefits every other business and household in the country. Deloitte's modelling shows that Australia's GDP would be $370 billion better off by 2035 with a 75 per cent emissions reduction target than with a 65 per cent target. It's good for business, it's good for the community and it's good for nature, which sustains our life. It's clear that this Labor government wants to roll out the red carpet for the fossil fuel industry, whether it's for Woodside, with a mega gas project approval just after the election, or by not holding Santos to account for leaking methane for 19 years.

The refusal to accept the risks of climate change means that we can have an environment minister who says he doesn't think it's a good idea to consider the climate when issuing approvals under the environment laws. Clearly, he urgently needs to read the climate risk report, and definitely before he approves the thermal coalmine extension proposal in Mudgee currently on his decision-making table. That extension would result in massive land clearing, putting threatened species, like koalas and swift parrots, further at risk. It would extract an extra 18.8 million tonnes of thermal coal and extend the mine's life to 2035. Approving that coalmine—yet another one—would be yet another betrayal from a Labor government that claims to be serious about climate action but just keeps approving coal and gas projects. If this government were serious about action on climate and the environment, it would stop approving coal and gas projects and end the subsidies—the free public money—that Australia gives to those dirty industries. People are already feeling the impacts of the climate crisis. Natural disasters that are turbocharged by coal and gas are wreaking havoc on community safety and on biodiversity and nature. If our nation is about to be signed onto a plan for 2½ or three degrees of warming, Australians deserve an honest conversation about what that means for them.

Climate change is here, and we can either build the Australian economy through clean energy, advanced local manufacturing and secure, well-paid jobs or stick our heads in the sand and continue to do the bidding of the fossil fuel industry. The science says we need to get to net zero by 2035, and the only reason for the government hiding this climate risk report is that they don't want people to have the information they need to work out that this government's 2035 target is going to be inadequate and will not keep them safe. The 2035 target needs to be based on science and not fossil fuel lobbying, or we will be consigned to live out the terrifying future that is documented in this hidden report that's described as 'dire' and 'extremely confronting'.

I make my remarks in reference to the minister's comments about notice of motion 129, an order for the production of documents, specifically clauses (a)(iii) and (iv). This is about hiding, and the minister simply reinforced that with his lack of data.

Let's see why I've come to that conclusion. What's the core climate claim? Climate alarmists claim that carbon dioxide from human use of hydrocarbon fuels—coal, oil and natural gas—and from farming animals for food is raising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, which, they claim, will raise the temperature, leading to catastrophic warming in some distant, unspecified time. That's the basis for claimed solutions that will have devastating impacts on society. These include taxing and controlling farming for food to stop the raising of animals; stealing property rights to control land use and control citizens; taxing and controlling energy—every type of energy; and pursuing UN Sustainable Development Goals to control every aspect of people's lifestyle and life—what we eat, energy, travel, finances and homes. This is all claimed to be based on science. What science? When done properly—and I hope the Greens are paying attention—science investigates and explains our physical world. It's absolutely essential. Science is the systematic, objective study of our physical world through observation, experimentation and testing of theories against the empirical data—hard data and logical points proving cause and effect. Scientific proof needs data and logical points proving cause and effect. Graduate engineers like me are trained in science because we apply the science. We understand scientific proof because it prevents us killing people—it helps us keep people safe. My science training includes geology, atmospheric gases and statistics—three of the most important topics of climate science.

Let's define the problem. Every person, business and employer uses and relies on electricity, petrol and diesel at home and at work. Australia has gone from having the most affordable power in the world to having one of the world's highest power prices. The key to global competitive advantage is having the lowest price. Firstly, consider parliament and what it's done. From 1996 to 2007, John Howard's Liberal-National government committed to complying with the UN Kyoto protocol, which led to Mr Howard's solar and wind Renewable Energy Target, his national electricity market—which is really a national bureaucratic racket—and stealing farmers property rights, and his party was the first major party to promise a carbon dioxide tax policy. This was all claimed by his government to be based on climate science. Yet, in 2013, six years after he'd been booted from office, Mr Howard admitted in distant London that on the topic of climate science he is 'agnostic'. He did not have the science, and he admitted it six years after he claimed he had it.

Since then, the LNP, the Liberal-National coalition, has introduced every major climate and energy policy. Labor then accelerated each. As a senator, I wrote letters to 10 members of parliament, and they all confirmed, in writing, they had never been given scientific proof of climate change. I wrote letters to another 19 senators who advocate cutting carbon dioxide from human activity. Four replied, and none provided scientific proof. The Greens and others refuse to debate me. I asked Senator Larissa Waters in 2010, 2016 and repeatedly from 2019 to debate me. She won't front up.

Senator Waters is a lawyer and makes many false and unsubstantiated claims, and misrepresents the climate. She's never provided scientific proof. Instead, we see climate alarmists invoking so-called experts and other logical fallacies. They use emotion—especially fear and catchy slogans. They have no scientific proof. Those are the characteristics of every Greens speech. They repeatedly lie, misrepresent and sideline science with personal attacks.

Senator Roberts, I'll ask you to withdraw that comment.

I withdraw. So let's see why they have no scientific proof. Firstly, CSIRO admits that it has never provided empirical data and logical scientific proof. In their first three-hour presentation to me in 2016, CSIRO's climate chief stated that CSIRO has never said that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger. He said, 'Determination of danger is a matter for the public and politicians.' This was from one of the presentations. The second one was also a three-hour presentation. They confirmed that today's temperatures are not unprecedented. There's no substance and no basis. That's what Senator Ayres is hiding.

I rise to respond to the attendance by the minister, which I would characterise as arrogant and disingenuous. How are we here? How have we ended up in a position where the very people living on the front line of the climate crisis are being denied access to the truth? The public, farmers, families, First Nations communities and coastal towns are being kept in the dark about the risks that they are living through every single day. It may have escaped the government that we can no longer speak about the climate crisis in future tense. It is not a far-off threat and it is happening right now.

Drought is ravaging Victorian farmers, destroying harvests and livelihoods. Floods, cyclones and record-breaking rainfalls are hammering communities from Queensland to Western Australia. And, in the Torres Strait, communities are watching their homes and sacred sites being swallowed by rising seas and are facing the terrifying reality that their culture and existence are at risk. We are already seeing climate displacement. We are already witnessing mass coral bleaching and reef destruction. We are already watching species disappear, biodiversity collapse and ecosystems unravel. This is the lived reality of climate change in this country, yet, while it all unfolds, the government thinks it's acceptable to withhold a report that details the very risks that Australians are breathing and surviving every day.

The refusal to release the National climate risk assessment is an insult. It's an insult to the climate scientists who have poured their expertise into this report. It's an insult to the communities across the country who are already facing climate catastrophe. And it is an insult to the Australian people, who rightly expect this chamber to do its job as a house of review. Let's be very clear. This is not just a climate scandal; it is a crisis of democracy. And the Albanese government has a worse track record at responding to OPDs than the Morrison government. That is a shameful indictment.

This government's track record on transparency is abysmal. Public interest immunity claims are being used indiscriminately, without oversight or independence, to block the release of documents that the public has a right to see. Why this secrecy? Why this culture of cover-up? We have a pretty good indication of why. The fingerprints of the fossil fuel industry are absolutely everywhere. Their capture of our democracy is so pervasive that, if they were handed a pen and paper to draft out our climate environment laws themselves, they probably wouldn't even blink. Successive governments have bent over backwards for gas and coal lobbyists who bankroll campaigns and glide effortlessly through the revolving door between ministerial offices and boardrooms. That is the state of our democracy. Public interest is sold out to corporate interest, transparency is traded for secrecy and accountability is traded for profit.

Every hour, every day and every minute that this report remains hidden, public trust erodes further. But, Minister, it's not too late. Trust can be mended and confidence can be rebuilt, but you'd better get to work. Release the National climate risk assessment report, give the public the information that they need and deserve to understand the risks that we face, and, most importantly, share what the government plans to do about it.

This could be the last week before we see those 2035 targets. We deserve to know the risks we're facing beforehand. Let those plans and those targets be worthy of this moment—bold climate targets, no new coal and gas approvals, an end to the toxic ties between industry lobbyists and our democracy. I challenge you to please release that donation data imminently so we can understand that, when we see those targets—I hope they're strong and what the science demands—they're not influenced by dirty fossil fuel donations to your party. The choice is yours: continue to shield the fossil fuel industry and betray the public or put people and the planet first.

We're debating this today because the Labor government has made secrecy its default setting, and I am really concerned that the contribution from the minister reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the function of this chamber. I would refer the minister to page 665 of Odgers' Australian Senate Practice, which states that the Senate should reject the proposition 'that anything with a connection to cabinet is confidential'.

It goes on to say:

… it has to be established that disclosure of the document would reveal cabinet deliberations. The claim cannot be made simply because a document has the word "cabinet" in or on it.

Quite clearly, providing the risk assessment would not reveal cabinet deliberations.

But, to go back to the subject of the assessment, we're just weeks out from the government setting our 2035 emissions target, and the government is still hiding the National climate risk assessment. This report isn't some bureaucratic box tick. This shows which communities will face unbearable heat, which coastlines we'll lose and which parts of our economy will buckle under climate pressure. Insiders have called its findings dire and diabolical, yet the government is keeping it locked away and keeping Australians in the dark about the risks to their homes, their livelihoods and their safety. How can people judge whether the 2035 target is strong enough if they can't even see the facts?

Worryingly, the withholding of the risk assessment is part of a wider secrecy agenda that we're seeing from the Albanese government. Let's remember that, when the numbers were crunched, the last parliament had the second-most-secretive government in the last 30 years. Only one in four FOI requests are now granted in full; that is the lowest on record. The average FOI review wait time is 15.5 months. Today we've learnt that they plan to make it even harder to lodge an FOI request, reducing transparency below the basement level.

But, not to be limited to FOI, the government has shown disregard for this chamber. Compliance with Senate orders for the production of documents has collapsed to less than a third. Again, to be more secretive than the Morrison government, a government where the Prime Minister had five secret ministries, is quite an achievement from the Albanese Labor government.

Australians know what's at stake. We've lived through the Black Summer, through the Lismore floods and through towns running out of water, and we cannot prepare for what's coming if the government keeps us blindfolded. It is clearly in the public interest for this information to be made public. Remember who you work for. You work for the Australian people. How do we have a government that has such contempt for Australians and the Senate when it comes to information that it is gathering in our name? I urge the government to turn course on this.

I'm inviting all Canberrans and any of my Senate colleagues that might be in Canberra to a town hall on transparency at Canberra College, in Phillip, from 5.30 pm on 16 September. We need to have an honest conversation about what it means when you have a government that refuses to be transparent, when you have a government that seems to forget who it's actually in here to work for and when you have a government that is stifling the ability of the Senate to actually be the house of review and to hold the government to account. It seems like the Senate is simply an inconvenience for a government that has a whopping majority in the House but does not have a majority in the Senate.

So I urge the Albanese Labor government to think about the legacy they want to leave. Do you want people looking back and saying, 'That was "Antitransparency Albo"'? Is that really what you want? Because that's what you're on course for. You're the second-most secretive government on record, and we keep having to have these debates as a Senate trying to simply force you to release documents that the Senate is ordering you to release. It doesn't cut it, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to continue to put pressure on this government to comply with Senate orders.

I invite people listening to this debate to ask themselves a question. The question I'd like people to ask themselves is: why is this parliament and, in particular, this Senate so abjectly failing in its responsibilities in regard to climate change, and, specifically, which group of people in this Senate are most responsible for this chamber failing in its responsibilities to help deliver a safe climate? People might think it's someone like Senator Roberts, who is a climate change denier. I'm sure he wouldn't mind me saying that. It's riddled in all of his speeches. But it's not Senator Roberts who is most responsible for the failings of this chamber to take climate change policy seriously. Is it the coalition? No, it's not the coalition. Even though they abjectly failed to take climate change seriously when they were in government, we all know that's what we're going to get with the coalition.

I'll tell you which group of people it is in this chamber that are most responsible for our collective failures. It is the mob sitting in government at the moment, the Australian Labor Party. Let me tell you why. Just as they do across the full range of progressive issues in this country, they take the hopes, the dreams and the aspirations of progressive people and people who want strong climate action, they absorb those hopes and those aspirations and they do next to nothing. In doing so, they are the biggest blockers of climate action as they are the biggest blockers of true progressive action in this country. They can gab up a storm and they can say, 'We're taking climate change seriously,' or, 'We've got strong policies in place to reduce our country's emissions,' but the actual reality is that that is a load of rubbish.

They are still publicly subsidising the burning of fossil fuels. They are still rampantly approving new coal and gas projects. They are facilitating fossil fuel corporations to lie about their greenhouse gas emissions. They've got a woefully inadequate 43 per cent emissions reduction target by 2030, and they're about to announce another woefully inadequate target in regard to Australia's 2035 target. Mark my words: it will not be anywhere near what we need to do to meet our Paris obligations of delivering a safe climate for humanity. This is a government that talks up a storm on the one hand and is abjectly failing in reality to deliver strong climate policy on the other hand. They won't even release a report to inform Australians about the risks to our society from climate change.

Climate change is not just the biggest economic risk facing Australia. It's not just the biggest national security risk facing Australia. It is not just the biggest risk to our society. It is the biggest risk to literally everything. We should be doing everything we can in every area all the time to reduce our emissions and take a global leadership position on climate change. But what is the Labor Party doing? Just as they do across a range of other progressive issues, they are absorbing all the hopes, aspirations and dreams of progressive Australia and of the people who want a strong response to the greatest challenge facing humanity at the moment, which is the twin crises of climate and biodiversity collapse, and they are doing nothing with them. In that way, the Australian Labor Party is the biggest blocker to progressive reform in this country and the biggest blocker to strong climate policy. It's not Senator Roberts and Senator Hanson. It's not the Liberals, who have abjectly failed. It is the Australian Labor Party. Shape up. Shape up and do better.

I seek leave to make a five-minute statement in response to Senator Faruqi's motion from Monday 1 September regarding social cohesion.

Sorry, Senator Hanson. We just need to finish the item we're on at the moment, which has a hard market of 12:36. Do you wish to speak to this motion?

Yes, I will speak to this motion on climate change because I think it's very important. You talk about the science. We've signed up to the Paris Agreement without any real debate on the implications and impact it would have in our country. We're heading down the path of global emissions. People should know that our emissions are one per cent of total world emissions. Australia is at one per cent of carbon dioxide emissions. Carbon dioxide is a necessary gas, at 0.04 per cent, and therefore it is necessary for growth. If we don't have it, we have no growth whatsoever. So what we're doing is heading down a path of destroying our economy and putting pressure on the cost of living for ordinary Australians. This is what it's all about.

We've lost over 1,400 manufacturing companies since 2023 that have become insolvent. We've lost 30,000 small businesses that have become insolvent. With them have gone jobs. I speak to manufacturing industries, and they're saying they cannot afford the electricity prices driven by this climate change BS that's being pushed by the Labor Party, whose policies are destroying us even further, including their failure on green hydrogen. Some reports say that the money that has gone out the door in subsidies they have given to these companies in Australia amounts to $29 billion. When I investigated this, my estimation is that around $50 billion plus in subsidies have been handed out to companies and everyone who wants to jump on the bandwagon.

I also want to inform the Australian people that this has been an absolute scam that has brainwashed kids in the education system on how climate change is happening. If you oppose it you're called a climate change denier. They talk about the science. Do you know that Senator Roberts would be the most knowledgeable in this area of anyone in this chamber who can debate the issues? Since 2016, he has been asking Senator Waters to have a debate. She won't debate him. They will not debate him—

Because they don't know what they're talking about. They don't understand the science of the whole lot. They don't understand it. What do they have to fear from having a debate? You can't have a real debate. The public need to know what is going on here—the science. You've got a lot of people making a lot of money out of it, at the expense of the Australian people. Why are we chasing our tails trying to get carbon emissions down in our country, which are only one per cent, yet you have China that doesn't have to adhere to it until 2060 and India until 2070 because they are classified as developing nations? China has one of the biggest militaries in the whole world, and it is a developing nation! Most of our imports come from China, a developing nation. Yet we are destroying our economy to appease them on this. That's what I think is ridiculous, because the debate has not been had.

My concern is the cost of living for Australians. I hear from farmers. They can't afford the cost of electricity anymore. The irrigators, the dairy farmers—all these people—can't afford the cost of it. Now, I'll tell you what's going to happen next. We're going to lose a lot of our farming industry. They're going after the farmers out there, because that's 14 per cent of carbon emissions, and they've got to rein it in even more to come up with what they want to do: 43 per cent by 2035, with the carbon emissions of 2030, and then eventually 82 per cent. Other countries around the world—Spain and Portugal—have their lights out. We've had blackouts in this country since we've moved away from the dispatchable power of coal-fired power stations. Please don't think that this is what the climate emissions are. You can build coal-fired power stations now that are over 90 per cent emissions-free. That's not the problem. Why the hell are we digging up our coal and sending it overseas to China, India and other countries to burn to deliver cheap power to their own countries and we're not doing it ourselves? We have been absolute fools! People have been dragged along with this scam and the reduction in our cost of living—that's affecting all of us.

Let's have an open, honest debate and let the people know exactly what is happening in this country, because they've used it for political gain. They don't give a damn about Australian people out there and what they are suffering. It just amazes me. Shame on the whole lot of you. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

I seek leave to make a five-minute statement in response to Senator Faruqi's motion from Monday 1 September regarding social cohesion.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in my name, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from making a statement.

I was on the speakers' list yesterday, but I was blocked and denied the right to speak. On Sunday, One Nation senators and the member for Kennedy were the only members in this parliament who defied the far left and the mainstream media to stand with many thousands of Australians protesting against mass migration. Yesterday, the hateful Greens tried to force the Senate to condemn these everyday Australians for marching under their national flag.

I have a point of order on relevance. Senator Hanson needs to mount an argument as to why standing orders should be suspended. That is the motion she has put. In fact, she is not mounting that kind of an argument. She's engaging in a political attack which is not relevant to the question before the chair.

I would think, on the surface, that these speeches are always wide-ranging, but I will give Senator Hanson the opportunity to continue, and I will monitor.

They were wanting to shut down the voice of Australians, because thousands of Australians were marching in unison to stand up for their flag and country and against mass migration. The motion that was moved yesterday was disgraceful. They claimed these Australians were led by Neo-Nazis and far-right extremists. They claimed these peaceful demonstrations were rampages and even claimed that the country would never be safe unless these everyday, normal, ordinary Australians were forced forever silent. I don't think anything illustrates the hypocrisy and ignorance of the hateful Greens better than the motion. They fall over themselves to encourage and attend protests in support of Middle Eastern terrorism.

I have a point of order two matters: firstly, once again, on relevance—Senator Hanson is not addressing urgency and whether or not the standing orders should be suspended; secondly, standing order 193(3) prevents personal reflection on other members of this chamber, and Senator Hanson is clearly in breach of that standing order.

Senator McKim, to address your point of order, I don't see a problem, but I'll consult the clerk. Senator Hanson, you have the call, but I would let you know that, if you dig a bit deeper and reflect on senators, I will have to address that.

I never named anyone.

No, you didn't.

Gee, it hurts when you actually call them out. In reflecting on the last comments, Senator McKim was quite happy to have, you know—the Greens are constantly having a go at One Nation all the time. The whole fact is that they are very concerned about this. They are delighted to join calls for the destruction of Israel. They deliberately ignore how these ugly, violent protests target Jewish Australians and have led directly to rising antisemitism in this country, and that's because they are putting this disgusting agenda. When Australians exercise their right to express their opposition to the Greens' radical far-left agenda, as they did on Sunday, the Greens play the victim. It's because the Greens despise the very freedoms that Australians exercised on Sunday and want those freedoms taken away from the Australian people.

Sorry, Senator Hanson; I will ask you to resume your seat. Senator McKim on a point of order?

Again, it's 193(3), on reflecting on other members. You were very clear in your direction that you gave to Senator Hanson, saying that if she continued to do that you'd need to pull her up. Well, she is continuing to do that, and I invite you to pull her up.

Senator McKim, I did listen intently to Senator Hanson, and I heard her refer to a political party. I didn't hear any senators named. Sitting in this chair many times, I've heard many senators reflect on parties in this chamber without actually attacking a senator personally. Senator McKim, I don't see a point of order. I will give Senator Hanson the call.

Thank you very much. Well, again, it's alright to have a go at the Labor Party over the climate change, and mention the Labor Party, but you don't like to cop it back. The fact—why I'm saying this—is that all the leaders of the political party had their say yesterday with regard to Senator Faruqi's notice of motion, but I was denied that right, because you shut it down. They purposely did it. That's why I'm going to have my say today on behalf of the Australian people.

And you're only doing it all the time just to run down the time—through you, the chair—because Senator McKim doesn't want me to get my message out to the Australian people, so they're using this all the time to shut down my time for saying what I need to say.

Senator Hanson, I will ask you to resume your seat. Senator McKim on a point of order?

Yes, on 193(3): Senator Hanson has (a) directly named me and (b) impugned a motive to my actions which is untrue, and I ask you to require her to withdraw that.

Senator McKim, once again, I don't see the issue you are raising. You are, like me, a long-time warrior in this chamber who quite often has good debates across the chamber. I didn't hear anything from Senator Hanson that I thought would be out of order. I will go back to Senator Hanson to give her the call, and I'd just say that she has two minutes and 16 seconds left. So, it's not long now.

Thank you. Well, to them it must have seemed horrifying, to see so many Australian flags on display in support of a strong, united nation, and the hateful Greens are deliberately misinforming and misrepresenting the Australians who marched peacefully on Sunday. They have the gall the insult Australians standing for Australia. They've dragged out all of the usual tropes and insults to marginalise and dismiss people who love their country and who don't support the Marxist, anti-Australian agenda being forced on them without their consent.

Australians are still free to oppose the Greens and their radical agenda. Australians are still free to oppose Labor's record immigration, driving them into homelessness. Australians are still free to oppose multiculturalism and demand a society that it cohesive and unified. Australians are still free to fly their national flag—and I encourage them: put it out there. However, I've heard the Australian Defence Force discourage serving members from marching under that flag on Sunday. They're asked to fight under it but discouraged from marching with it. The Greens just hate that Australians have these freedoms, so they lash out in hatred at people who exercise them.

One Nation senators were proud to stand with ordinary Australians who have been silenced and disenfranchised and who just want to be heard and represented. The majority of Australians don't want Labor's record high level of immigration. I hope you realise that. They see the rents going up, the longer lines to inspect rentals, and the Australians forced to live in tents and cars on the streets. The see the protests in support of terrorism, and they see the Greens encouraging them. They see the good values that built and defended this nation being eroded before their eyes. They see the very character and identity of Australia being perverted.

We want our country back. They want their country back. And, as they said to me, they were so proud to see that at least a member of parliament actually turned up, and not by myself; I was accompanied by Senator Roberts and Senator Tyron Whitten. The Australian people were so proud to see that we took the time. The others didn't turn up, because—do you know what?—they know how much they hate you, because of the policies you're imposing on them. (Time expired)

In the interest of the chamber moving on with things that actually matter for Australian people, I move:

That the motion now be put.

Question agreed to.

The question now is to suspend standing orders.

Question negatived.

I have two further questions and then I'm done. This banking guarantee created for the Australian banks in the Pacific Islands creates a very significant precedent. Wollongong law professor Andy Schmulow, a very impressive person, made a submission to the 2024 RRAT inquiry into bank branch closures—and a very impressive submission it was. His submission cited Reserve Bank Australia figures that indicate that our banks save $3.6 billion a year in funding costs thanks to the taxpayer funded guarantee on bank deposits, a guarantee that was hiked up from $250,000 per account to $1 million per account during the global financial crisis. Do you know how many banks opted out of that guarantee at the time? None. Not one. They all embraced it. They all accepted it. The acceptance of that benefit creates a reciprocal obligation on our banks to give back to the community social licence, the community that has saved them, and continues to save them, $3.6 billion every year.

Minister, this bill creates a new policy, which is that any bank which accepts a bank guarantee from the Australian government must pay a premium to the taxpayers for that guarantee. This is funded by the reduced borrowing costs they receive from the guarantee; is that correct? I'll have the second part of this question after your answer and then I'll be finished.

No.

Minister, if it is good to ask the Pacific banks, which include the ANZ, for a premium for the guarantee, why hasn't your government asked for the same premium from the same banks for their Australian banking guarantee? The Australian taxpayers, everyday men and women of this country, deserve their fair share of the extra profit that their guarantee creates, which could be over $1 billion a year of revenue for your government. These are the world's most profitable banks. The taxpayers are subsidising their borrowing costs. So why don't you ask for a fee for their services in Australia because of the guarantee in Australia?

The guarantee is not a subsidy, nor is it a bailout. It's in the national interest.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

by leave—I ask to have my name recorded in the Journals as opposing this bill.

Many have been waiting over 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 200,000 Australians waiting for their approved package or for an assessment. This bill is proof that the government was not ready. It confirms what we heard in the Senate inquiry—that without this legislation critical elements of the Aged Care Act 2024 cannot be enacted. Department officials admitted that legislative change was needed as early as January, yet the government continued to promise readiness by 1 July, a promise they could not keep.

Despite this the coalition will not seek to delay the passage of this bill, because without it the aged-care rules cannot be registered and the reforms cannot proceed. Australians deserve better than another broken promise. Importantly this bill provides the framework for grandfathering arrangements, ensuring that those already in residential aged care on a home-care package or waiting for one will not see changes to their existing arrangements. This upholds the no-worse-off principle and protects the rights of older Australians. We also fought for fairer contribution caps. We advocated for a lower taker rate and the maintenance of a lifetime cap on care contributions. We oppose Labor's arbitrary caps on access to cleaning and gardening, caps that this bill now removes from the primary legislation. During a cost-of-living crisis these services are not luxuries; they are necessities.

Aged-care reform is not just about legislation; it is about people. It is about the grandmother who needs help to stay in her home, the veteran who deserves respect in his final years and the carer who is stretched to breaking point. This government has failed to deliver on its promises. The delay in home-care packages is a national crisis. The waitlist has tripled under Labor's watch. Minister Rae must urgently deliver the promised 83,000 packages and provide certainty to providers planning for workforce demands. The coalition supports this bill with amendments. We will continue to hold the government accountable, demand transparency and advocate for those who have been left behind. Older Australians deserve better than another broken promise, and we will not support a process that puts politics before people.

(Quorum formed)

I rise to speak on the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 and the associated bill. These bills and the Aged Care Act 2024 should be about responding to the findings of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. The stories that emerged in the course of that inquiry were sickening. That governments let aged care in this country degrade to the point where human rights abuses were a feature of the system is a stain on this country. The way we treat and care for older people matters deeply, and while attempts at reform have been made I hold serious concerns, as I did last year, that we will soon be bearing witness to more mistreatment under a system that prioritises profit over people.

The aged-care royal commission's final report found that, for too long, legislation had focused on the funding requirements of aged-care providers rather than the genuine care needs of older people. The royal commission's final report recommended that a new aged-care act be developed to put the rights of older people at the very centre of their care. It is the view of the Greens that the government has chosen to pursue a new act without due regard for myriad other aspects of the royal commission report, specifically those that relate to the dangers of financialisation of care and the prioritisation of providers' interests over those of older people.

The Greens welcome aspects of the main bill that seek to address valid community concerns, including removing the ability for the rules to prescribe caps for cleaning and gardening services. Likewise, many aspects of the main bill make technical changes to the Aged Care Act 2024 that are necessary for the proper functioning of Australia's new aged-care system.

The Greens hold concerns with some aspects of the main bill that appear to be designed to optimise the abilities of providers to charge aged-care recipients fees rather than ensure that vulnerable older people are not facing unreasonable costs. As has been raised in several submissions, the amendment on how cancellation policies are enacted risks older people being charged no-show fees for circumstances that are unavoidable such as emergency admissions to hospital.

The shameful evidence we saw throughout the royal commission showed that the sector lacked serious regulation. We are concerned that, without enforceable rights, this regulation remains too relaxed to prevent another royal commission. There should also be far greater scrutiny over the proposed ability for the minister to make decisions under a Henry VIII rulemaking power. While the establishment of a new system holds risks, and it is arguable that the minister must be able to act to ensure the continuity of service, greater scrutiny is required to ensure that rules are made in the interests of older people.

The Greens appreciate and deeply value the input of First Nations groups to this inquiry. As stated by NATSIAC, the design of the new aged-care system has raised significant concerns regarding its cultural responsiveness, its equity protections and the inclusion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander governance, voice and data rights in both design and delivery. Stakeholders have also raised concerns that the bills do not act to ensure that payments received under redress schemes, including those related to stolen generations schemes or civil payments received through court cases for sexual abuse, are excluded under income and asset tests.

While the Greens support the wealthy paying their fair share, opening the door to an expanded user-pays model risks only serving to increase the profits of the private providers that are already robbing older Australians blind. If more emphasis on user-pays approaches is the answer, then we're asking the wrong question. The government needs to be responsible for funding an accessible system for all Australians who need it. The continuing rationing of care and a growing divide in financial incentives for providers to accept residents unable to afford a refundable accommodation deposit are cause for serious concern.

In their submission to this inquiry, Uniting NSW.ACT stated:

From 1 November, residents that meet the means testing thresholds will be required to contribute more toward their accommodation. However, this may incentivise providers (especially those under financial strain) to prioritise residents who can pay more, potentially disadvantaging those without means.

This lack of action on the broader crisis in aged care was noted during the passage of the Aged Care Act 2024, with these bills doing little to address the fundamental structures in place that led to the royal commission.

I'm also deeply concerned at the fact that this government has refused to release any further home-care packages despite the overwhelming evidence that this is harming older people. The government's decision to delay the commencement of the new Support at Home program until 1 November 2025 while also withholding the release of any additional home-care packages is unconscionable. The official waitlist of people already in receipt of a home-care package shows over 87,000 people are waiting for care for which they have been assessed. Last week department officials made available new data revealing that 121,596 people as at the end of July are awaiting an ACAT assessment. This suggests that the effective total number of people awaiting home care is already over 200,000 people long.

Officials also revealed that no new home-care packages have been released since 1 July. Under this system, you have to wait for someone else to die or move into residential aged care before you can get support at home. That is unconscionable. The Greens are calling on Labor to urgently release enough home-care packages for everyone who needs one, and they could do it this week. There is literally no reason why the government cannot release more packages aside from the stubbornness of a minister who is out of his depth and a Labor Party that can never admit when they are wrong.

Expect testimony shows the Commonwealth Home Support Program is unlikely to be able to meet increased demand for Support at Home prior to 1 November 2025. That's why I am steadfast in my call, along with my Greens colleagues, for the government to release more home-care packages as a matter of urgency and work toward a high-quality, affordable aged-care system that is universal and needs based, characterised by quality support, nursing and personal care, whether in your own home, residential care or hospital.

Older people are not commodities. They must be treated with respect, dignity and care. The Greens welcome small changes and technical improvements, but we do not expect the reforms made by this government to prevent or even meaningfully delay the onset of a state of rolling crisis in Australia's aged-care system. As aged-care expert Professor Kathy Eagar AM stated in her submission to the aged-care bill 2024 inquiry:

My overarching comment is that the new Aged Care Act simply entrenches the existing aged care system, albeit with minor wording and technical changes. To describe this as the biggest reform in decades is simply misguided. The changes being proposed are marginal improvements on the status quo. Any marginal improvement is welcome. But these changes do not address the fundamental problems underlying aged care. It is inevitable that aged care will be back in crisis within a few years.

With an ageing population, the scale of care delivery is not matching the growing demand. Delays to programs that support care at home as well as the rationing of residential aged care have very real effects on older people and their loved ones that care for them. Quality of life deteriorates, people not receiving care at home become more susceptible to illness and injury, and residential aged care becomes not a place of care and respect but a waiting room for those reaching the end of their lives. The key driver for aged-care reform should never be budget repair or provider profitability. It must be to improve care, quality and enforcement in the sector after the shocking revelations of the royal commission. The elderly are not commodities; they are human beings. It should be an obligation of any moral society for the government to ensure that older people can get the care they need at the time they need it.

I, too, would like to contribute to this debate on the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 and the Aged Care (Accommodation Payment Security) Levy Amendment Bill 2025. I rise today to speak on behalf of the millions of older Australians, particularly those in Tasmania, who are being left behind by a government that promised reform but continues to deliver confusion and delays.

The Aged Care Act 2024 was supposed to be the Albanese Labor government's signature reform. It was rushed through this place last year. What was delivered was a piece of legislation without the foresight or necessary consultation that long-term reforms demand. And now, less than 12 months later, we find ourselves debating a bill that amends 325 items to that very piece of rushed-through legislation. This isn't refinement; it's repair. It is precisely why we referred these bills to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, so that they would receive the appropriate level of scrutiny these changes deserve.

We remain increasingly concerned about and disappointed by the lack of transparency this Labor government has shown to the Australian public through their entire process of attempted reform of the aged-care sector. Key stakeholders—including Ageing Australia, the largest aged-care peak body—were excluded from public hearings. Services Australia was barred from giving public evidence. And the Law Council of Australia described the consultation process as 'unreasonably and significantly limiting the ability for peak bodies to meaningfully consult with their membership'.

During the recent inquiry, it became clear that the government's legislative framework was not ready to support its own reform package. As Ms Amy Laffan from the department of health stated, without these amendments older Australians could not sign service agreements prior to 1 July 2025. This is not a minor oversight; it's a fundamental flaw that could have left thousands of older Australians in limbo. Yet, despite identifying these issues as early as January, no action was taken until after the federal election. The Deputy Secretary for Ageing and Aged Care, Ms Sonja Stewart, confirmed that it was always intended that there would be amending legislation as early as January this year. This lack of preparedness has been compounded by poor communication. There has been no meaningful public education campaign to inform older Australians and their families about these changes.

The bill before us today includes technical and transitional amendments to support the implementation of the Albanese government's Aged Care Act 2024. These include ensuring correct payment of aged-care subsidies; providing for interim services during high-demand periods; allowing access to unspent funds; clarifying information-sharing between the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing and Services Australia; introducing substantial penalties for misuse of personal information; and requiring five-yearly reviews of the Aged Care Quality Standards. These are all welcome changes, but they are just a further admission that the original act was not ready.

While the coalition did not co-design these reforms, we did fight tooth and nail to improve them. With the passage of the Aged Care Act in 2024 during the last parliament, the coalition upheld our commitment to rights based legislation to guarantee a world-class aged-care system into the future. Through our persistent negotiations, 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 to protect those already receiving care. These arrangements guarantee that Australians who are already in residential aged care, on a home-care package or assessed as to be waiting for their allocated home-care package, will not see any changes to their existing arrangements, and this bill provides for the essential framework to ensure that the no-worse-off principle can be implemented.

It's no secret that we are the party for hardworking Australians, and that is why we also advocated for a lower taper rate towards care contributions, to ensure that those who've worked hard and saved for retirement aren't penalised 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 cleaning and gardening, services that are not luxuries but lifelines for elderly Australians trying to stay independent. This bill removes the ridiculous caps imposed by this Labor government from the primary legislation.

We are here today because the Albanese government's original legislation was flawed. It's necessary because the government's promise to be ready by 1 July 2025 has proven, like many of its promises, to be nothing more than words. They promised that the department of health and ageing was ready, that Services Australia was ready, but this bill proves exactly the opposite. This legislation proves that the government's decision to vote down all amendments moved by the coalition in relation to transition timelines was nothing more than politics. Without this bill, critical information cannot be shared between government departments to ensure the reforms can be implemented. Without this bill, elements of the Aged Care Act 2024 cannot be constitutionally enacted.

How can the Albanese government claim readiness while it's scrambling to fix its own reforms? How can it promise transparency while withholding the very rules that providers need to prepare, and how can it celebrate while 87,000 older Australians wait—some for over a year—for the home-care packages they've already been assessed as needing? These are not just numbers, these are people. According to the government's own figures, in the last financial year alone, 3,383 older Australians died and 7,380 were forced into residential aged care while waiting for their approved home-care packages. These are people who wanted to stay in their homes, who applied for help, who were assessed as needing it and who never received it.

For Tasmania, getting these changes right couldn't be more important. We are home to Australia's fastest ageing population, with the number of Tasmanians aged over 85 expected to nearly double by 2033, from 13,000 to almost 25,000. Our median age is already 41.7, well above the national average, and our average incomes are lower than comparative states, meaning affordability is crucial. In regional Tasmania the challenge is even greater. The population of those aged over 85 is growing faster in the regions than in Hobart, with this cohort projected to increase by 88 per cent over the next decade.

I've had the opportunity to visit aged-care facilities in every corner of our state, from urban centres to remote communities. What I've seen is a sector that is deeply committed to caring for older Australians but one that is also under immense strain. Providers are grappling with workforce shortages, rising operational costs and a growing regulatory burden. Many are struggling to meet new compliance standards while continuing to deliver high-quality care. Even exemplary providers, like the community-led aged-care service Toosey Aged and Community Care service in Longford, Tasmania, are feeling the pressure. These organisations are models of innovation and compassion, yet they too face uncertainty as they prepare for new legislative requirements. We must ensure that the rollout of this new framework does not come at the expense of service continuity or workforce stability. The government must work closely with providers, communities and the broader sector to ensure readiness. That includes transparent communication, practical guidance and ongoing consultation.

The bill also introduces automated processes for classification, prioritisation and means testing. While efficiency is incredibly important, automation must be approached with caution. Technology should not replace human judgement, and trust in these systems is not built overnight. Older Australians, especially those with complex needs, deserve more than a digital check box; they deserve personalised and compassionate care. If this system is to work, it must be accessible. That means real people answering phones, real offices providing assistance and real support for those navigating a complex and, often, overwhelming system.

My colleague Senator Ruston has rightly said that aged-care reform must be about dignity and clarity. It must be about ensuring timely access to care, especially in regional and remote communities, and it must be about fixing the system at its source, not just patching it up after the fact. I want to acknowledge the work Senator Ruston as shadow minister for health and aged care has done to improve the original legislation and the advocacy she continues here to further improve upon these bills. The coalition supports these bills because they contain the safeguards we fought for last year, but we will not let the government escape scrutiny, because these reforms are too important for us as a parliament not to get right. You only have to stand in the shoes of the millions of Australians navigating the aged-care system for the first time—for their families and for the patients themselves—to feel the sense of bewilderment, confusion and loss of independence. It will never be an easy process, but the government can make it more bearable because every older Australian deserves dignity, respect and access to the care they need, not just in principle but in practice.

The coalition does not seek to delay the passage of these bills, but we will move amendments to ensure sector readiness, transparency and fairness. I also foreshadow a second reading amendment which has been circulated in the chamber in my name. We urge the government to immediately publish the Support at Home release plan and the final manual, and to register the aged-care rules upon royal assent. Older Australians deserve better, providers deserve clarity, and parliament deserves accountability.

I rise today to speak on the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 and the related bill. Firstly, I want to recognise the government for their work in overhauling our aged-care system in line with recommendations from the royal commission. In particular, I want to recognise Minister Butler; the former Minister for Aged Care, Minister Wells; the hundreds of people at the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing; and all involved in the sector and at advocacy organisations for the delivery of these huge changes, the biggest in a generation.

It is mostly thankless work, but we should remember that the government, working with the Senate—and I'd like to acknowledge Senator Ruston and Senator Allman-Payne—delivered a rights based act and a fundamental rebalancing of the system to ensure people are given the ability to remain at home for as long as they would like. I supported the new Aged Care Act in the last parliament. I was grateful to work with both the government and the opposition at the time on a number of constructive amendments to the bill.

Change of this magnitude is obviously difficult. Clearly there were always going to be challenges in coordinating the delivery of care to hundreds of thousands of older Australians across a country as large as ours. However, when things do go wrong, I don't think it is too much to ask for our government to be upfront about what has happened and to work with the parliament, the sector and the community on solutions to those challenges. Clearly, something has gone wrong in the delivery of the new act—that's obvious because we're here today talking about an amendment that will switch on the act, after the act was supposed to be switched on on 1 July. I'm concerned that the government has not been honest about the reasons for this. I believe that older Australians have been left on the hook to pay for the mistakes that have been made.

I'd like to spend a little bit of time talking about my understanding of the purpose of this bill, home-care packages and, most importantly, why the Senate should take action now to get some desperately needed care to people sitting on the government's waiting list. Before I get to the details, I want to read some stories that have been shared with me by people in my community about their experiences waiting for home care. It's easy to throw out the numbers, but every single number represents an Australian.

This is from Kelly:

My mum is 92. She had a stroke last year and is on a Level 2 package now. We get two hours of care per week, but our GP says we need at least three hours of care, five days a week. I work full time at a hospital myself. I lost $20,000 last year in income. I am the only child left to look after her. Seven falls since last July and rapid memory loss and confusion. My heart breaks each time I leave her to go to work as she looks like a lost child but I need to work. I am super tired, stressed & worried. Mum is declining & I am terrified I will lose her before help comes.

This from Belinda:

My 77 year old mother moved to Canberra this year—just as she was diagnosed with Alzheimer's and vascular dementia. Since diagnosis, we have been waiting on a reassessment, which MyAgedCare said would take 2-4 weeks. It has now been over three months.

The answering machine of the aged care assessment service says "don't leave a message, we're too busy to listen and reassessments are taking over 6 months.

In the meantime, my mother's mental and physical health are declining rapidly and my sister and I are struggling to support her while also working.

This is from Hilary:

We have been waiting for a review assessment to increase care to a higher package for my 91 year old mother-in-law since it was requested in February 2024—

February last year—

She lives alone and is becoming increasingly frail and has worsening dementia. It's becoming unsafe and is causing increasing strain and stress on the family trying to support her.

This is from Jacqui:

For 14 years I've cared for Mum who is 94, blind and frail. I have now been diagnosed with cancer. We have been waiting for 10 months for a Level 3 package, medium priority. Nothing speeds it up—not my struggle with cancer, nor her three falls that led to hospitalisation.

This is from Kelly:

My father was granted a Level 3 home care package in November 2024.

We waited over 6 months for him to be assessed in the first place so after more than a year and a half, he is still waiting for assistance.

He has Alzheimers and has regular falls at home.

We have started looking at Nursing Homes in his area as I really don't know how much longer he can stay at home without assistance. This is incredibly frustrating and makes me really angry when these packages are meant to assist people to stay in their homes but they are not being provided.

Every single one of those numbers being thrown around is a person and a family that is affected, like the Canberrans who have written to me about their situation. They just don't square with some of the talking points we've heard from the minister about 2,000 packages being released every week. Those are recycled packages. Those are people who are either dying or going into aged care. They talk about everyone who's a high priority being seen very quickly. We know just how hard it is to actually be classified as high priority when you have people who are at medium priority and their primary caregiver has cancer themselves.

We know that 87,000 people are on the waitlist now. On Friday, officers at the department not once but twice said that they would tell the Senate yesterday how many people were waiting in June 2025. That hasn't happened. To our earlier debate about the way that the Labor government is treating the Senate, I have grave concerns about the level of secrecy and the withholding of information the Senate asks for and the Senate even demands and moves motions to compel the government to release.

The other thing we found out on Friday was that there are 120,000 people waiting for an assessment. That's 120,000 people on the waiting list to get on to the waitlist. Clearly, this is a huge challenge that we are facing. So in June I wrote to the government, alongside other crossbench senators and MPs, asking for the government to release 20,000 home-care packages. Everything that the minister has said about the reasons why the government can't do that have been debunked by experts; by the sector, who say they have more capacity than 20,000 right now; and by the department, who themselves said that there is nothing stopping the government from releasing 20,000 packages. They even told me that they have actually modelled what it would cost to release 20,000 packages now. This is a decision of government to delay the release of any additional home-care packages until 1 November, when they get rebranded as Support at Home.

I join my colleagues in the Senate in saying that I won't be delaying the bill. I'm glad we finally got to it. This clearly needs to pass for Support at Home to commence in November, but the Senate does have a right to make really sensible amendments. I foreshadow that I'll be moving an amendment that would see the release of 20,000 new home-care packages. We all know it can be done. The department has said as much. We know that they can be provided. Providers have said publicly that they have capacity, and we know that there is need. This is urgent. This is the opportunity for the government to change the lives of 20,000 older Australians and, in most cases, change the lives of their families. I urge the government: this is an opportunity to do the right thing, to do the thing that the evidence suggests we need to do leading up to 1 November and to do the thing that is in the best interests of older Australians. You'll have an opportunity when other senators and I move amendments to the main bill.

Yet again, I rise in this place to support bills that have only come about through Labor mismanagement and delays. I rise to contribute to the debate on the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 and the associated bill. The main bill is essential to the delivery of aged care, the Aged Care Act 2024 and ultimately the implementation of recommendations from the aged-care royal commission, an inquiry instituted under the former coalition government. The coalition supports this legislation. Our support, however, comes with the recognition that it is yet another example of the Albanese government playing catch-up, fixing their own mistakes and trying to cover up their own lack of preparedness.

The Aged Care Act 2024 was Labor's package of reforms. It was not a co-designed act. This government rammed it through without regard to the sector, consumers, carers or the opposition—sounds pretty familiar for Labor. As a consequence, the government has been forced to introduce bills to amend more than 325 items in its own legislation. The coalition always knew that reform of this magnitude could not be implemented in a matter of months. It is why we moved amendments to ensure that the existing Home Care Packages Program could exist on a transitional basis without the need for amendment to the Aged Care Act or delay in its enactment. Our amendment created flexibility, protected older Australians and ensured the promised 83,000 new packages could commence on 1 July 2025. But what did Labor do? They voted it down. Now older Australians have been left worse off and still waiting to access reformed programs and services.

When the coalition was last in government, wait times dropped to under two months. Under the Albanese government's incompetence, they have blown out to nearly 16 weeks. This is the story of Labor's denial, delay and broken promises. The government's refusal to listen has had real, tangible consequences. Older Australians have been denied the care they were assessed as needing because Labor failed to provide the flexibility required for a safe and timely transition into improved care and service options.

Despite repeated assurances that all systems would be ready by 1 July 2025, the truth is that this government was nowhere near ready. This additional delay until 1 November 2025 is a direct result of the government trying to rush through another piece of poorly considered, revised legislation, and these bills prove it. A few months makes a big difference when you're living with the consequences of Labor's failure.

With this delay, departments cannot share critical information and key elements of the act cannot be enacted. Departmental officials admitted as much in the Senate inquiry. They confirmed that the government knew as early as January that legislative change would be required. Yet the government misled Australians through the election campaign, insisting everything was on track. Nothing could have been further from the truth, and now we see the result—an embarrassing backflip, a change of minister, a delayed reform start date and, worse, an attempt to shift blame onto providers and the workforce.

This government has difficulty with understanding that it has held government for three years. It is the Labor government that is accountable here. Minister Rae has said the deferral was about giving more time to providers to prepare, but the evidence was clear: the sector was ready and the Labor government was not.

Debate interrupted.

We shall now proceed to two-minute statements.

I love our flag. I love our country. And 3 September is National Flag Day. National Flag Day celebrates the first time our nation's flag was flown, on 3 September 1901. Our flag is our foremost symbol. It is an expression of Australian identity, unity and pride. So I want to take this opportunity to reflect on the nature of our nation and what Australia represents for those of us who are lucky enough to call this place home.

Australia is the most perfectly imperfect nation in the world. And, whether you're a recent arrival to its shores or have been here since the Dreamtime, Australia strives to provide a fair go for all. Our treasured values, based on Judaeo-Christian foundations, include a commitment to the rule of law, parliamentary democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly and a mutual respect for the rights and freedoms of the individual. We are a nation that promotes tolerance and compassion, and we are welcoming of new Australians who wish to live by these values.

Unfortunately, under this current Labor government, we are observing a gradual degradation of these values. Extremism is on the rise in our streets and members of our communities do not feel safe. Far-left Islamic-terrorist sympathisers and violent Neo-Nazis do not represent us or our values. We have lost too many men and women fighting these extremist causes to allow the far left or the far right to raise their fists in Australia. We cannot stand idly by and allow extremism of any kind to take root. We should honour our flag and we should remember those who have died for our flag. We should—

Thank you, Senator.

Homeownership shouldn't be a far-fetched dream, out of sight and out of reach. It never used to be. For generations of Australians, owning your own home was part of building a secure future, raising a family and putting down roots in your community. But, for too many today, that dream has slipped further and further away. It doesn't matter how much they've saved, how many avocado toasts they've cut out of their budget or how hard they've worked. The reality is that, for young Australians especially, buying a home has felt impossible. And, while Australians were struggling, what did the coalition do while they were in government? Nothing. For nearly a decade, the coalition sat on their hands, ignored concerns, cut programs and made it harder for ordinary Australians to get ahead. They left renters behind and they left first home buyers behind.

We know that not everyone has the bank of mum and dad. That's why the Albanese Labor government is stepping in and making it easier to buy your first home. From next month, first home buyers will be able to enter the market with just a five per cent deposit and without paying lenders mortgage insurance. That means thousands of dollars will be saved not only upfront on a loan but also over the life of the loan. And we're reserving places exclusively for first home buyers, giving them priority access and a fair chance to break into the market. Our government is dedicated to helping with the cost of living and to helping more Australians own their own home, because, unlike those opposite, we believe the great Australian dream can be realised.

Women's Health Week is Australia's largest national health campaign, dedicated to the health and wellbeing of women, girls and gender-diverse people. Medical misogyny means that women's health is often neglected. And, for many of us juggling work, family and care, finding the time to prioritise our health concerns frequently falls to the bottom of the to-do list.

Once we find time, we must jump through hoops for proper diagnoses and treatments for things like menopause, endometriosis and migraines or to have our pain taken seriously. We must travel hundreds of kilometres to access abortion services or even, in some cases, to give birth. The most common person experiencing chronic pain is a woman in the peak of her working years. This gendered aspect of pain and pain management exacerbates the gender pay gap through lost work and it places an enormous financial burden on women.

The Greens took a plan to the last election to make women's health care more affordable, accessible and inclusive, including 12 days of paid gender-inclusive reproductive health leave each year, free contraceptives and period products, free public abortion care, increased Medicare rebates for IVF and for them to be accessible to all LGBTQIA+ people and a doubling of the number of allied health visits for women's chronic pain management from five to 10.

Women's health needs to be taken seriously at every stage of women's lives. Last year's Senate inquiry into perimenopause and menopause delivered a consensus report with strong recommendations around workplace policy, improvements to education and access to treatments. If the government would like to give women something to truly celebrate this Women's Health Week, adopting those recommendations would be a good start—and so would reproductive healthcare leave, while you're at it.

My hometown of Launceston certainly has its fair share of culinary delights. In 2021 the city of Launceston was named a UNESCO city of gastronomy. I am sure there are many here who have attended our iconic three-day food festival, Festivale, which brings together a wide range of producers to City Park in central Launceston. On a more local scale, Launceston also boasts the popular weekly growers and makers market, Harvest Market, in the city. It regularly hosts World Street Eats in nearby Civic Square, which offers a variety of international foods, reflecting our community's growing multiculturalism.

But bubbling under the surface of the UNESCO city of gastronomy application was the promise of something new to Tasmania, FermentHQ, a fermentation hub that underpins the local start-up culture, bringing together small entrepreneurs who want to make things like sourdough, kimchi, yoghurt and kombucha, just to name a few, in a collaborative environment with all the tools needed for fermentation. FermentHQ was first conceptualised in 2016, and on 2 August this year the building was officially opened in Legana's industrial precinct. The brainchild of dynamic local businesswoman and restaurateur Kim Seagram, FermentHQ is a labour of love that will bring together food innovators, small producers, entrepreneurs and lovers of fermented food. This exciting global-first facility will have a future of cutting-edge research and development, hands-on training and the potential for agritourism adventures. It provides a space where innovators can test and produce their products in collaborative way, engaging with others and leasing small offices to assist in the development of their products.

The former federal member for Bass, Bridget Archer, secured funding of $7½ million for this critical project under the Building Better Regions Fund. As a proud supporter of this concept since its first announcement, I congratulate Kim and everyone instrumental in bringing FermentHQ to life. I can't wait to see the fermentation industry build and thrive in Tasmania— (Time expired)

Thank you for highlighting the success of Tasmanians leading the way.

We always seek to strike the right balance in this place between standing up against hate and giving more oxygen to hateful acts. But I also want to rise to join in the condemnation of marches that took place across the country, including in Townsville. Townsville is home to 5,500 defence personnel and over 8,000 veterans and 15,000 defence families. That's why, throughout the year, there are many occasions when the community commemorates the fallen who have died standing up for Australian values and standing up against the kinds of ideologies upheld by Neo-Nazis. It's probably why we've seen such a damning condemnation of the politicians who stood next to Neo-Nazis on the weekend.

The Townsville Bulletin, not exactly a left-leaning, progressive publication, made a very important contribution today. I want to read some of their editorial. The Townsville Bulletin writes: 'For any politician, being within spitting distance of such abhorrent ideologies is not just unfortunate; it is a serious failure of judgement. While legitimate concerns about immigration policy can be debated, allowing such discussions to be associated with groups advocating for racial purity is a catastrophic misstep.' Admitting you are wrong is a strong show of character, but political leadership also requires foresight and a refusal to legitimise, even by proximity, those who practice this kind of dangerous extremism. Australian values are important. Australian values include standing up against disharmony, disunity and division. Mateship means standing next to each other, not standing next to neo-Nazis. That used to be a bipartisan position. I hope that will continue, but, unfortunately, that's not what we saw in this place yesterday.

I want to continue to raise concerns about health care here in the ACT. Currently, over half of people on the public waitlist for orthopaedic surgery have waited longer than they should have in Canberra. In Canberra, it will set you back $193 for a 60-minute appointment with a psychiatrist. In Victoria, the average is just $93. Bulk-billing rates to see a GP are still at an all-time low, at 56 per cent, with an average of $60. The bulk-billing rate for an MRI has absolutely plummeted here in Canberra, from 80 per cent a couple of years ago to around 40 per cent, the lowest in the country. We need to do better for Canberrans, and I urge the Labor government: you made some great promises when it comes to Medicare—90 per cent of GP visits being bulk-build. That has to apply to the ACT, and we need specific plans to deal with the workforce shortages and the other challenges here in Canberra.

On the west of Canberra, we have almost 10,000 hectares of undeveloped land—the western edge. It's a beautiful area that is really high in biodiversity and Ngunnawal history. It is owned by the government and contains box gum woodland temperate grasslands. Only a couple of percent, and sometimes less, of temperate grasslands is left in this country. There is an incredible opportunity for people in the ACT to work with First Nations people to develop something great and actually set aside the western edge for First Nations management and for future generations of Canberrans to enjoy. There's a movie night on Tuesday 7 October at 7 pm at the Vault, on Dairy Road, where The Western Edge, a film I worked on with a local filmmaker, will be shown. I encourage Canberrans to come along.

I rise in the Australian Senate to acknowledge the remarkable work of No Limits Perth. This not-for-profit has been providing critical emergency support to vulnerable people in Perth's northern suburbs for the past decade. It's a part of the world very close to my heart. Founded in 2015 by Janine Wood, Belinda Hawes and Debbie Jordaan, No Limits Perth was created to meet a pressing need for apprehensive support services offered without judgement or prejudice. From food, furniture and hygiene items to emergency accommodation, its help extends to survivors of domestic violence, those affected by natural disasters, the elderly, the homeless and families experiencing illness or financial hardship. At its heart, No Limits Perth embodies the true spirit of community: kindness given freely without expectation.

Earlier this month, No Limits Perth held their annual high tea fundraiser, an afternoon of generosity and community spirit. The event was made possible by guests, partners and sponsors and by hardworking volunteers, who give up so much of their time and energy. A special mention to Kathy, Leanne and Belinda and to the students and teachers from Woodvale Secondary College, Ashdale Secondary College and Kingsway Christian College, as well as Helen from the Hepburn Centre and the emcee, Samantha Choyce. At the centre of it all is Peg, 86 years young, now a finalist in the 2025 Whitford Westfield Local Heroes competition. Peg embodies everything No Limits Perth stands for, and her tireless volunteering is an inspiration to everyone.

No Limits Perth is a shining example of how community spirit changes lives. I congratulate it on its work and commend it to the Senate.

I recently had the great pleasure of visiting the Burra Community School. It's a great school, and I spoke to the students there about the role of parliament and what we do in this place. But I also spoke to them about how they can have their voice heard, how they can get involved in the decisions that shape the future of this country, which is so important. I'm always really gripped by the enthusiasm and the dedication of the students, who ask such interesting questions.

They were interested in how decisions are made, they had seen clips of people in here shouting at each other, but they'd also seen the outcome of good decisions, decisions that they supported, and were really interested in how all that played out. They also were quite interested in food options in parliament and they wanted to really know if these chairs are actually as comfortable as they look. Unfortunately, I did have to point out that maybe they are not. But it was a really great conversation, and it gives me so much faith in the future when I see schools like the Burra Community School, in South Australia, investing so heavily and ensuring that those students can understand the world that they live in, understand how to influence their surroundings, how to be a part of their community and shape decisions. It was really delightful.

I want to thank the students and staff of Burra Community School, in that great community of Burra, for having me and for being so generous with their time and their humour and for asking such great questions. The future is safe in their hands. I can see some great leaders coming through for the future.

Yesterday I had the privilege of meeting with members of Australia's Tibetan community. I thanked them for their time. They spoke bravely to me and told me profound stories of personal and cultural loss and spoke about their hopes for self-determination and freedom for the people of Tibet.

Right now, Tibet remains under the authoritarian rule of the Chinese government and people there are denied freedom of movement, freedom of religion and freedom of expression. The Chinese government also continues to interfere in the cultural and spiritual life of Tibetans, including preparations for the future succession of the Dalai Lama. We have to be clear: any Dalai Lama appointed by the Chinese government has no legitimacy and any Chinese government interference in the choice of the new Dalai Lama is unacceptable.

Australia cannot stay silent on these issues. Silence risks being interpreted as acquiescence to authoritarianism. As a democracy with strong commitments to human rights and to a fair rules based international order, we have a responsibility to act. That means declaring that Tibet's status remains unresolved and supporting the Tibetan people's right to self-determination. It means encouraging genuine dialogue between China and the Tibetan leadership and it means funding cultural preservation and advocacy, particularly in exiled communities who are working to keep their traditions alive. A principled stand from Australia would bring us into line with many in the international community, including the United States, and with international law. The Tibetan freedom people deserve freedom, whether they are here in Australia or in Tibet. (Time expired)

A year ago this month, I addressed the chamber in a speech much like this one. I sought to raise issues that were affecting young Australians in a language they were familiar with. I've come back to the Senate to, once again, argue the views of Gen Z and Gen Alpha.

With that said, to the sigmas of Australia, the goofy ahh government is still capping. But is anyone surprised? When a rizzless, auraless unc prime minister is running a show, a chopped government is what follows. It seems like, every day, they're asking: 'Twin, can I borrow a dollar? Twin?' It's so performative I'm surprised there isn't a 'Minister for Labubus' or a 'Parliamentary Secretary for Dubai Chocolate'.

One of the issues I've been tweaking about lately is AI safety. Australia has the potential to be peak at implementing this technology safely, but, at the moment, there's more AI slop than a Deloitte report—ICL TS PMO SM, wilted rose emoji. Whenever the government talk about AI, they tell us the incredible productivity lift it offers—@grok, is this true? Like speed doing a backflip, the attitude is gurt, but only the dangerous part.

Our government, like Tung Tung Tung Sahur, needs to wield a big stick. To all the industry insiders who suggest that AI should be allowed to train on copyrighted material for free, I only have one thing to say: SYDAU. Some new gens think what I'm doing is clip farming, but I'll keep rage baiting until they crash out. So, Sigmas, keep hopeposting, keep mewing and keep doing it your best, twin. Those who know. Oh, and—Six Seven!

The essence of democracy is transparency. Freedom of information laws are not an inconvenience for governments; they are the lifeblood of accountability. Yet this federal Labor government, the least transparent since Keating, is now planning to restrict freedom of information requests. The very tool that allows citizens, journalists and parliamentarians to scrutinise decisions and spending is being weakened by those who most fear its light. A government that says 'Trust us' is a government that deserves the least trust of all. No government should ever ask the people to hand over blind faith.

History shows that secrecy is the companion of mismanagement, waste and, too often, corruption. And the parallels here are striking. In Victoria, under Daniel Andrews, the Labor Party perfected the art of secrecy—documents withheld, decisions made behind closed doors, accountability treated as optional. The culture of secrecy left Victorians in the dark and undermined public trust. Now, Prime Minister Albanese and his federal Labor Party are following the same path.

This is not the Australia that our democracy was built on. Australians deserve a government that is open to scrutiny, not one that hides behind locked cabinets and closed doors. Transparency does not weaken governments; it strengthens them by ensuring that decisions can withstand public inspection. If Labor believes its decisions are sound, then it should welcome scrutiny, not fear it. Freedom of information is freedom itself, and this parliament must defend it.

Thank you, Senator. I'll just remind you to use the former premiers' correct title in the future.

There's a quote from Gandhi which reads: 'First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.' I was reminded of that quote last Thursday when Prime Minister Albanese said of me in the House of Representatives: 'Senator Roberts thinks that build to rent is part of the World Economic Forum's agenda'—cue the spooky music— before calling this 'a conspiracy theory'. Now, I can understand, after One Nation doubled our senators in the last election, why the Prime Minister would feel the need to move from ignore to ridicule. In trying to engage in ridicule, the Prime Minister only managed to engage in misinformation.

The truth is the World Economic Forum opinion leader, who originated their mission statement 'You'll own nothing and be happy', is the same person who used the stage at the annual World Economic Forum meeting in Davos to call for an end to single-family homeownership. Danish politician Ida Auken advanced his idea as part of the West's sustainable urban policy, or SUB—as in subhuman. SUB is where the Albanese government took the name and many elements of its nature-positive plan, after meeting with the new World Economic Forum co-chair, BlackRock's Larry Fink. Our Prime Minister should really be better informed on WEF's evil agenda—or perhaps he is informed.

One thing's clear: the world's predatory billionaires have no trouble getting time with our Prime Minister. The people who can't are everyday Australians, including our hardworking farmers who put food on our table and who we need more than ever to feed the millions of new Labor arrivals—our farmers who contributed $72 billion in exports last year to feed and clothe the world. No wonder the Prime Minister was booed and heckled while on stage at last week's Bendigo bush summit and then filmed being chased out of town in the company of farmers on tractors.

Labor is no longer the party of the worker. It's the party of predatory billionaires destroying our country for profit, power and control. We're going to need more tractors.

Today I'm going to use my time to read a message sent to me from a constituent responding to the government's announcement of the Thriving Kids program and the planned NDIS eligibility changes.

I'm an Autistic and ADHD parent of multiple neurodivergent young people, as well as an NDIS behaviour support practitioner.

Had I received in childhood, the therapies and supports now being denied, my trajectory would have been utterly different.

I am living proof of what happens when support is withheld.

The therapy and support I finally found in mid-adulthood gave me stability, identity, and confidence—the very foundations I needed and deserved as a child.

Stripping autistic kids of support is not frugality; it is a policy choice that will cause irreparable generational harm.

This is just one of the many stories shared with me since the government's announcement.

Autistic kids grow into autistic adults because autism is life long. The NDIS was meant to provide individualised support, but time and time again we have seen nuance stripped away. These decisions shape lives. They have the power to build futures or to break them. Disabled people are fighting to be heard. It is time for this government to get its fingers out of its ears.

Tasmania's West Coast is reeling after Bendigo Bank Queenstown announced its branch closure. The entire region will be left without a single physical banking institution. We have already heard local MPs calling on Bendigo to reverse its decision, and that really annoys me because this isn't Bendigo's job to fix. We don't rely on the private sector to provide essential services to vulnerable people. We don't leave it to the market to give people basic education or life-saving health care. The private sector needs profit, and it's not always profitable to invest in small communities. The government does not have that same kind of profit pressure. So MPs waving their fists at Bendigo Bank really should be waving their fists at themselves, if that's anatomically possible. The message this sends is brutal. If you live outside Hobart or Launceston, lower your expectations. Don't expect a bank. Don't expect a reliable doctor. Don't expect equal access to education. When you complain, you'll be told to move to the city.

West Coasters aren't asking for the world; they want the same standards of access to essential services as their counterparts in Hobart or Launceston. They want to be able to see a doctor, access a bank or send their children to a good school that offers genuine opportunities. They're not greedy for wanting it; politicians are lazy for denying it to them. Banks sustain local economies. Every small business, every shop, every saver, everyone will have a harder time accessing cash if this goes ahead. To the West Coast I say you're not wrong to demand access to the services the rest of the state takes for granted. Managed decline is not inevitable. It is a deliberate political choice. Remember who is making it.

I rise for my two minutes to just make a comment. I am in receipt of a press release from a very decent human being, Mr Michael McCormack, the member for Riverina. I say that with the greatest of respect. Mr McCormack has come out and said:

Australia will grind to a halt if we lose trucks.

I just want to say to Mr McCormack: 'Congratulations, Mr McCormack! Welcome to the party. Great to have you on the transport family tree. Hooray!' It took me years and years and years in opposition to get through to Mr McCormack, saying: 'Mr McCormack, we really to need to shine a very bright light in every dark corner of the transport industry to show all the bad things that are going on. Margins are being squashed, the top of the supply chain is killing us, ABNs are killing us. Can I get your help as the minister?' I said I was going to move a private senator's bill to do a Senate inquiry into the road transport industry.

Unfortunately, Mr McCormack—I did say he is a very decent person—did not support me. In fact, I brought it to this chamber when I was on that side of the chamber. I put it on the floor. I sought support from the Australian Labor Party—tick. The Greens, thank you very much—tick. All the crossbench—there were a lot more on the crossbench than we have now—ticked off on it and said: 'Go for it, Glenn. Why don't we do that?' Guess what Mr McCormack did. You're not going to believe this. He instructed every member of the coalition to vote against Sterle's private member's bill to actually listen to the road transport industry and say: 'What are your issues? How can we help? You're nine per cent of GDP.' We all love truckies. Yeah, right! As long as you can get a photo in a fluorescent vest in a truck with some bling on it, you love truckies. Guess what, ladies and gentlemen? I sincerely welcome Mr McCormack, and I really hope he has a whisper to his shadow spokesperson and gets her in the tent to start loving the trucking industry.

We're now moving to question time.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors, Senator McAllister. We have heard from many South Australians who have contacted coalition offices in desperate need of home-care support. A husband and wife in their late 80s who live in the Yorke Peninsula are unable to access services in their community. This gentleman lives with leukaemia and was assessed for care two years ago but is unable to access services due to insufficient funding in the region. Minister, will you apologise to the older Australians of the Yorke Peninsula for failing to support their ageing community?

Senator Blyth raises a case of a constituent in her electorate, and I thank her for doing so because these stories are always important. I repeat the offer that I made yesterday to Senator Askew that, where there is an individual who is experiencing particular circumstances, including the kind that Senator Blyth raises today, Senator Blyth, like all senators, is of course welcome to raise that directly with Minister Rae. I know he will want to hear about that person's experience.

More broadly, this points to the significance of the reforms that have been legislated through this parliament and are shortly to commence. We owe a great deal to older Australians and we owe them dignity and respect. Our government promised to lift the standard of aged care, and that is what our reforms are doing. And there is more work to do. We've been clear about that. This task is ongoing. But it is important to remember that older Australians will benefit from the steps that have already been taken by the government and the steps that we intend to take as we implement the aged-care reforms.

Over the last three years, we have started to turn around very significant challenges in this sector. We've had to compress a lot of reform into that three-year period because not very much was done in the decade that preceded it. Our government has invested $5.6 billion in a reform package which represents the greatest improvement to aged care in 30 years. We are delivering registered nurses on site in aged care more than 99 per cent of the time and more direct care to over— (Time expired)

Senator Blyth, first supplementary?

Minister, Brian from Geelong lives in the Deputy Prime Minister's electorate. He was recently approved for a level 2 home-care package but due to further health issues now requires reassessment. He is now part of the more than 120,000 older Australians waiting to be assessed for a home-care package. Overall, he could be waiting longer than two years to receive the support he needs. Will you commit to immediately releasing new home-care packages and progressing assessments— (Time expired)

In the first part of Senator Blyth's question, she speaks about assessments and she raises the case of a person who is seeking an assessment. Again, I thank her for raising that matter. I acknowledge the challenges that people are facing. It is why, as I indicated in my answer to Senator Blyth's primary question, we are pursuing the reforms that we are pursuing, because older Australians do need to get the care that they need.

As part of that, we are reforming the way that assessment takes place. In the past, there were many pathways into assessment because we do need people to have an opportunity to be assessed so that we can understand the care that they require.

The Royal Commission told us that we need a single assessment process, and that is exactly what we are delivering. We are rolling out a new aged-care assessment system. It will be quicker and will reduce wait times and improve the experience— (Time expired)

Senator Blyth, a second supplementary?

Will you commit to immediately releasing new home-care packages and progressing assessments so that people like Brian can get the support that they need?

As I indicated in my answer to Senator Blyth's earlier questions, and, indeed, over the course of questioning yesterday, aged-care reform is a very high priority for this government. We made substantial advances during the last term, and there is more to do this term—as has been made clear by Minister Butler, by Minister Rae—

Sorry, Minister McAllister; please resume your seat. Senator Ruston?

On direct relevance, President: Senator Blyth's question was very clear—about the releasing of home-care packages. I'm wondering whether you could bring the minister to that point.

The minister is being relevant to the question, thank you, Senator Ruston. Minister McAllister, please continue.

The senator asks about support for older people who need care at home. We are committed to delivering support, and indeed on 1 November a new program will be introduced—one that was navigated through this parliament with the support of those opposite, and we acknowledge that. It is part of a broader strategy by our government to increase the care available and the quality of care available to older Australians. We owe them that, and we are determined to do so.

I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the gallery of the Australian Political Exchange Council's 9th delegation from the Republic of Korea, led by Ms Jee-hye Park. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and in particular to the Senate.

Honourable senators: Hear, hear!

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. In its first term, the Albanese Labor government delivered cost-of-living relief to Australians that was focused on meeting the needs of Australians. How is the Albanese Labor government building on its first-term record to continue delivering cost-of-living relief for Australians?

I thank Senator O'Neill for the question and for her focus, always, on cost-of-living relief and how to make sure we live in a fairer society. We have been focused, as a government, on delivering for Australians, through cost-of-living relief for people doing it tough; a tax cut for every taxpayer, with more to come; energy rebates for every household; and stronger Medicare. While those opposite, of course, continue to be focused on themselves, we are focused on delivering for Australians: passing legislation to cut HECS debt by 20 per cent—a change that will benefit three million Australians—and passing legislation to protect the penalty rates and overtime rates of award-reliant Australian workers.

Now, we all remember the low wages being a deliberate design feature of the coalition's economic policy. In contrast, on this side, this government, the Albanese Labor government, has advocated every single year since our first election for increases to the minimum wage, supporting increases for almost three million working Australians.

And of course, last night, cheaper medicines passed this Senate, measures that are saving another $200 million every year for Australians—on top of the $1.5 billion they are not paying at the pharmacy counter, from our efforts last term. We hear too many stories of Australians going to pharmacies and having to choose which script to fill because they can't afford them also. We have acted. We are making medicines cheaper, and that is what this government is all about: delivering—delivering for Australians.

Senator O'Neill, a first supplementary?

Thank you, Minister, for that fulsome response. At last month's Economic Reform Roundtable, the Treasurer said that the government's focus remains on lifting living standards to leave Australians better off. What actions has the Albanese Labor government already taken to drive reforms that will leave Australians better off?

Senator O'Neill, as you rightly point out, the Economic Reform Roundtable is all about delivering for Australians so we can keep working to lift living standards and keep working to create more opportunities for Australians. Together, Australians have made substantial progress on the economy. Inflation is down, debt is down, interest rates are falling and unemployment is low. The economy is growing, real wages are up, more than 1.1 million jobs have been created and, of course, the gender pay gap is at a record low.

In some areas, where the Economic Reform Roundtable demonstrated considerable consensus, we have already taken action. Last week, the Treasurer and Senator Farrell announced that we will abolish a further 500 nuisance tariffs on top of the 457 abolished in July last year, and we announced that we are reducing complexity and red tape in the construction code to get houses built quicker.

Senator O'Neill, second supplementary?

How is the Albanese Labor government focused on delivering the better future Australians voted for in May? Why is it important to deliver on these priorities, and what stands in the way?

Thank you, Senator O'Neill. That is a very good question. We're focused on cost-of-living relief and building a better future for Australians. Those opposite, the Liberals and Nationals, are focused on fighting amongst themselves. Of course, it's the same old fight over and over again. In one corner, we have Senator Hume urging you all to 'embrace net zero', and, in the other corner, we have Mr Joyce with the support of Senators Canavan and Antic trying to hold the record for climate change denial. Meanwhile, Senator Cash and Mr Hastie are just waiting for this round to be over. If we turn to housing, it's groundhog day with Senator Bragg trying to block Labor from building more houses and then claiming not enough houses are being built. While those opposite fight amongst themselves and work to divide Australians, we're getting on with the job of delivering for Australians.

LIDDLE () (): My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator McCarthy, and it is on Australians you have not delivered for. Since the Albanese government was elected in 2022, six Closing the Gap outcomes have regressed. Youth detention is up 11 per cent, suicide is up 9.4 per cent, adult incarceration is up 3.5 per cent, preschool attendance is down 2.6 per cent and 1.2 per cent fewer children commencing school are developmentally 'on track'. With these terrible outcomes only getting worse under Labor, why has the government shut the door on accountability by removing a standalone day for cross-portfolio Indigenous matters at the next supplementary budget estimates?

I thank the senator for her question. I would certainly reject outright that the Senate doesn't have an opportunity to ask questions on Closing the Gap. In fact, the Senate now has multiple opportunities to ask questions on Closing the Gap. They can go and ask questions on health, in terms of the health minister's role. They can ask about housing in the housing minister's role. They can ask about justice in the justice minister's role.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Sorry, Minister McCarthy, could you resume your seat. Order across the chamber, particularly on my left!

In fact, I am absolutely thrilled to see the opposition wanting to become involved in seeing those targets drop and being a part of scrutinising every department that you should. That's what this is about. I have travelled across the country talking to the cabinet ministers in those particular jurisdictions about Indigenous affairs, and we know and we've taken it back to our cabinets—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Clearly, the other side don't want to listen.

I have a point of order. I wonder if the interjections, which have been continuous from Senators McKenzie, Cash and Liddle, could cease for a moment.

As you no doubt heard, I have been calling the chamber to order. I have particularly called those on my left to order. I remind people that Minister McCarthy has the right to be heard in silence.

This matter is so serious in terms of First Nations people in this country. What is shameful here today is the politicising by the opposition when they have a very real opportunity to do their job and actually attend all of the estimates every single day to ask the very questions that First Nations people in this country expect of this parliament.

Senator Liddle, first supplementary?

Well, 1,254 organisations failed to fulfil mandatory reporting requirements under regulator ORIC in the 2023-24 financial year. Noncompliance is a fairly good indicator that something's not right. Recently, Wellington Aboriginal Corporation Health Service was put under special administration for the second time in four years and joins the queue with so many others. Australians should know why your government and its bureaucrats didn't act on these matters earlier. What are you trying to hide?

It's clear to see where the coalition are going on this; it is very clear to see. On the one hand they feign interest—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Minister McCarthy, please resume your seat. Order on my left! The minister will be heard in silence.

On the one hand they feign interest in closing the gap and the targets for First Nations people in this country.

Opposition senators interjecting—

It is very true that you feign interest in this. On the one hand you do that, and then you wonder why we ask for further scrutiny across the Senate estimates for every single one of you. Every single one of you can turn up and ask those questions. In fact, I'm going to monitor how many of you actually turn up and ask questions.

In fact, I'll go even further; I'm going to go back and find out how many of you actually asked questions, Senator Cash, on closing the gap.

Senator Liddle, second supplementary?

Your binning of a standalone day focused on Indigenous Australians and the Murray-Darling Basin Plan matters is astounding at a time when you have shut your eyes and closed your ears on South Australia's algal bloom crisis and failed to act on Indigenous lives that are not improving. Does the Albanese government know what it's doing, and will the Minister for Indigenous Australians be at the table to answer questions regarding Indigenous matters when we ask them?

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Before I call the minister, I'm going to remind people that the minister has the right to be heard in silence, and that is what I expect. Minister McCarthy.

Senator Liddle, if that's the nub of your concern—that you won't be able to see me at estimates—I can tell you now that I will be at estimates, and you will be very able to ask me questions. In fact, I not only sit answering questions around Indigenous issues—

Honourable senators interjecting—

I remind senators that I asked for order!

I sit and answer questions on health, on aged care, on local government, on regional governments—

Minister McCarthy, please resume your seat. I think that was you, Senator Nampijinpa Price; apologies in advance if it wasn't. I have asked for silence, and that is what I expect. Minister McCarthy.

They've got form. I'm here answering—

Minister McCarthy, please resume your seat. Senator Henderson?

President, just to clarify, to correct the record: that was actually me making concerns about Indigenous boarding schools and the cuts to Indigenous boarding schools—

Senator Henderson!

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! I'm waiting for order! Thank you, Senator Ayres! Order! I take question time seriously. When I ask for silence, that is what I expect. My apologies, Senator Nampijinpa Price. Senator Henderson, you stood up with right intentions, but, no, then you proceeded to launch into some statement which you were not entitled to make. It's not a joke when I call for order, and, when you completely disregard that, it's disrespectful to me. Minister McCarthy, please continue.

The issue of closing the gap and reducing those targets is incredibly important for First Nations people in this country, and I do call on the Senate and all Senators to take part and give the scrutiny that's required.

President, with your indulgence, I also acknowledge the delegation from South Korea and say I enjoyed my chat with them the other day and their interest in climate change and climate policy.

My question is to the Minister for the Environment, Minister Watt. Minister, new research published in the journal Nature, 'Emerging evidence of abrupt changes in the Antarctic environment', on Thursday 21 August has shown that Antarctica is at risk of abrupt and potentially irreversible changes to the continent's ice, ocean and ecosystems, which will have profound implications for Australia and the planet unless urgent action is taken to curb global greenhouse gas emissions. Minister, have you read this new report, and do you acknowledge the very worrying changes this new research highlights?

Thanks, Senator Whish-Wilson. I am aware of those reports and I saw them reported, I think, last week. I think all Australians, I would hope, would be very concerned about those developments when it comes to the Antarctic. We are seeing very worrying signs about the impact of climate change on Antarctica as we are seeing similar signs evidenced on the environment generally in Australia and the world as a whole. I'm sure Senator Whish-Wilson, as a Tasmanian senator, is well aware of the investment that the government continues to make in Antarctic research and in funding programs to do with Antarctica; but, again, the evidence that we are seeing highlights again the need for us to continue taking action on climate change both as a country and as a globe.

I recognise that Senator Whish-Wilson probably doesn't support the actions that our government is taking, but the reality is that this is the first government that Australia has had for a very long time that has taken climate change action seriously. It's why we increased the targets on emissions. It's why we've managed to reduce emissions.

Emissions are up—so are power prices.

I see Senator Canavan perpetuating the falsehood that other members of his party have been perpetuating this week by claiming that emissions are going up or actually are flatlining when actually the facts, something that Senator Canavan is never keen to recognise, show that Australia is tracking well to meet our 2030 climate pollution target, with new quarterly emissions data showing that emissions fell by 6.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in the year to March 2025. I know it doesn't really suit Senator Canavan and all the other guests on 'Sky after dark' to actually talk about facts, data and evidence about climate emissions, but our policies are bringing them down, and we want to do more.

Senator Whish-Wilson, first supplementary?

Minister, will the government heed the call of the 20 Australian and global scientists who published this paper, including Dr Petra Heil from the Australian Antarctic division in Hobart, that stabilising the Earth's climate with minimal overshoot of 1.5 degrees is critical? Are you confident your 2035 climate target will be ambitious enough to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate these very concerning broadscale changes in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean?

Thanks, Senator Whish-Wilson. What I can absolutely assure Senator Whish-Wilson and this chamber of is that the Albanese government will continue to take strong action on climate change. I think everyone is well aware that it won't be too much longer now before the government releases its intentions around 2035 emissions targets, and they will be more ambitious than the ones that we have in place at the moment. But the reality is that even the target we currently have, of a 43 per cent reduction by 2030, is far in advance of what we saw by the former government or any previous Australian government. I could remind Senator Whish-Wilson that there was another Australian government here once that tried to put in place a carbon pollution reduction scheme, but there was a party at the time that blocked that from happening. I've forgotten temporarily which party that was. It was the Liberals, but there was another party—ah, it was the Greens! I forgot. Imagine where we would be—ah, yes.

Senator Whish-Wilson, second supplementary?

I'm not sure why you do hate Julia Gillard so much in the Labor Party. Minister, you mentioned the importance of science and investing in science, but one of our premier Antarctic science institutions, the Australian Centre for Excellence in Antarctic Science, based in Hobart is running out of funding. You've been written to by every crossbench MP and senator from Tasmania to ensure that that funding continues. Minister, can you confirm today to the scientists in Hobart—many of whom have just been to the Antarctic—that you will have long-term funding in MYEFO or in this years budget?

Thanks, Senator Whish-Wilson. There are a number of senators who've contacted me about this issue regarding funding, most of whom are Labor Party senators from Tasmania, who have been very good advocates for their state and have been making the point to me—in fact, Senator Dowling did it only a few days ago, as have the other Tasmanian senators who've all raised this point with me. We are aware that the very important funding that has been provided by the federal government to that research centre is reaching the end. Of course that, along with many other programs across government, needs to be considered through a usual budget process, but we're very supportive and very proud of the research that's been undertaken by those scientists, and I thank them for their important work. It is important that we have science informing government decision-making about the management of Tasmania. I recognise Senator Lambie, who's also written to me about this point.

Senator Whish-Wilson?

A point of order on relevance. Could the minister please confirm today to those scientists that their jobs will be funded?

The minister is being relevant to the question. Thank you, Senator Whish-Wilson.

As I said, in running a budget and making these decisions, we go through a budget process. We recognise the important work, and we'll consider that as soon as we possibly can. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Minister Gallagher. Since coming to government in May 2022, strengthening Medicare has been a central priority of the Albanese Labor government. We want Australians to have access to more bulk-billed visits to the doctor. We want Australians to be able to access urgent care when they need it. We want Australians to have access to cheaper medicines on the PBS. Why has the government prioritised funding for strengthening Medicare in the budget?

GALLAGHER (—) (): I thank Senator Anandah-Rajah for the question and also for her deep knowledge and experience in Australia's health system in her previous life as a specialist doctor working across public health matters. If anyone knows the importance of Medicare and investing in Medicare, it's Senator Ananda-Rajah. We have made it one of the Albanese government's key priorities to make sure that we are strengthening the public health system, particularly in the areas that we have responsibility for in primary care and in the price of medicines.

It was very clear that, when we came to government, we needed to do a lot of work to strengthen Medicare. We needed to bring it back from the brink of nine years of neglect under those opposite, where they had failed to invest, where they had ensured that indexation had been frozen to the point that many practitioners were unable to bulk-bill their patients anymore. What did that mean? It meant pensioners, it meant families, it meant children and it meant parents seeking help for their kids were having to pay more to see a doctor. We did prioritise this in finding additional room in the budget—one of my jobs—to make sure that we were able to resource these essential public services. We've increased investment in Medicare. We've seen the biggest increase in Medicare rebates—more in just two years than the former government did in nine years. I think that says everything about the priority that we place in Medicare.

Last year as a result of us tripling the bulk-billing incentive for pensioners, children and concession card holders, the biggest investment in bulk-billing in its history, more than nine out of 10 visits to the GP were free for people eligible for the incentive. We can see that it works, and we aren't stopping there. We've got more commitments to roll out from November, including the work that this Senate passed on cheaper medicines yesterday. (Time expired)

Senator Ananda-Rajah, first supplementary?

The PBS sits alongside Medicare as one of the foundations of Australia's health system. Making medicines cheaper for all Australians is essential to easing cost-of-living pressures and improving the health of Australians. Since coming to government what actions has the Albanese government taken to make medicines cheaper for all Australians?

I thank Senator Ananda-Rajah for the question. Again, this is one of those areas where we came to government and saw that not enough had been done to make sure people could afford their medicines. So it was about addressing Medicare and bulk-billing and also making sure that medicines are affordable, because we know that, when they're not, people don't take them and their health suffers.

The legislation that passed the parliament yesterday means that from the beginning of next year the general patient co-payment will be $25 for a PBS medicine. It has not been that low since 2004. That is a result of the legislation and the commitment we took to the last election to make sure people could afford their medicines. This built on the commitment we made in the previous term to bring the price of medicines down to $31.60 and now down to $25. And of course the other thing we did in the last term, which those opposite opposed, was 60-day prescribing, to make sure people can get two scripts for the price of one, and those opposite opposed it. (Time expired)

Senator Ananda-Rajah, second supplementary.

More bulk-billing, more urgent care clinics and cheaper medicines—all these primary care interventions work together to improve the health of Australians. How do these initiatives support the health of Australians? And how has the Albanese Labor government ensured that we are able to fund the health care Australians rely on?

I thank Senator Ananda-Rajah for the supplementary. Well, it's because the government has prioritised investment in and delivered on the things that matter for the Australian people. They care about their health care, they care about Medicare, they care about the price of medicines, they care about Medicare urgent care clinics and they care about getting access to out-of-hours care for non-urgent conditions. That is why we have worked together across the government to find room for these really important investments.

Those opposite criticise spending. They see it as wasteful when you invest in Medicare, when you invest in medicines. We see it in the positions they've taken. They tried to ridicule the Medicare urgent care clinics, until they all started sending letters asking for one in their electorates. I think that was the turning of the tide, when the letters came flooding in: 'Oh, could I have one of those things we don't like?' The Medicare urgent care clinics have been an important part, as have cheaper medicines, and this government will always prioritise Australians' health care. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. It comes from revelations that, despite sanctions that the government established in 2022 to stop the import of a range of Russian goods, Australia is importing products refined from Russian crude oil—or Russian blood oil, as it's being called. Over 10 years ago Australia was calling for blood diamonds to be included in the international definition 'conflict diamonds', and now we're accepting Russian blood oil. The centre for research on energy says that in dollar terms Australia has provided twice the support to Russia, by purchasing blood oil products, that we have to Ukraine in equipment and training to help them win the war. What has your government done to quantify the volume of Russian blood oil that's being imported into Australia and the associated financial assistance to Russia's war efforts?

Thank you, Senator Lambie. You're right that it's very important for us to do everything we can, with others in the international community, to impose a cost on Russia for its illegal and immoral invasion of Ukraine. Since we have been in government we have increased the number of sanctions. We've imposed strict sanctions and trade measures to restrict the import, purchase and transport of oil coming from or originating in Russia. I also announced in June our first sanctions against what is known as the Russian shadow fleet, which they established to try to avoid sanctions and other compliance measures to, again, help starve Russia's war machine of oil revenue. As a result of measures we've taken, direct imports of these products have fallen from $80 million, before Russia's invasion, to zero.

But the senator raises a very important point, which I have made public comment about, which is how to deal with energy products that come in via third countries, that are dealt with in other countries and then imported as refined petroleum and other products from third countries. Regrettably—and I have pursued this—we don't have in place the mechanisms, nor does the international community, to track and monitor all of the products into third countries, because they're not in place. We are currently looking at what other options we could utilise to put further pressure on Russia's oil revenue. There isn't, at this stage, a global tracing system nor any regulation or oversight in the third countries that we're describing. So it's a real-world problem—a real economic problem—but we do share the same objective you do, Senator, which is to try and starve Mr Putin of oil revenue. (Time expired)

Senator Lambie, first supplementary?

To stand with Ukraine, oppose the invasion, impose sanctions and allow the import of Russian blood oil—enemy oil—provided another country processes it or DFAT issues a sanctions permit, is beyond belief. By the letter of the law, it's legally okay, but, ethically and morally, it certainly is not. This isn't right and it's a low blow to Ukraine. Assuming you get regular reports, how many sanction permits have the department issued for Russian blood oil since 2022?

Again, Senator Lambie, I would say to you that, if we had the systems to try and identify it in third countries effectively, then of course we would want to try and utilise those systems. Those systems aren't in place, and this is a problem that all of our like-mindeds also face, including the European Union, which has announced an intention to do just this.

In relation to sanctions, I will need to take that on notice to determine what permits have been issued. You will recall that we have very broad economic sanctions on Russia, so permits, where required, would be across a number of areas, not just in relation to oil. But they are very restricted and they are only issued in accordance with the legislation and ministerial discretion, so I will— (Time expired)

Senator Lambie, second supplementary?

We've got laws that require companies to understand and take responsibility for their supply chains, prohibit slave labour and human exploitation and protect human rights. And, while we provide arms support to Ukraine with one hand, we also send money to their aggressor to destroy their country and kill their people. The hypocrisy of the situation is mind blowing. What options have the Albanese government been looking at to address the situation when it comes to blood oil?

Senator Lambie, you raised the responsibility of Australian firms to assure their supply chains, and I agree with you. In fact, one of the ways in which we can try and get around the fact that governments don't have access to a third-country-tracking system for oil is to actually say to companies, 'You need to do more to assure your supply chain,' just as we say, in relation to modern slavery, 'We want to make sure that modern slavery doesn't infect your supply chain.' So I certainly agree with you. I've made the statement publicly that companies should take responsibility for making sure that they don't in actuality get around international sanctions against Russia.

My question is to the Minister representing the Attorney-General, Senator Farrell. The government has announced new restrictions on the freedom of information, including higher fees for applicants. Given that the FOI system is already under strain, how can increasing costs for Australians seeking access to government documents possibly enhance transparency?

Thank you, Senator Pocock, for the question. I'd make the observation that the government is not proposing to increase costs for people who are seeking access to their own information.

That was part of the question. I'm simply answering the question, Senator Henderson. The freedom of information is a vital feature of our democracy.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Yes, you can laugh, Senator McKim, but it promotes accountability and transparency of government, it enables Australians to access their personal information and it supports the media—important media, here—in their role as the fourth estate. But, right now, the FOI Act is flawed and not working well for anybody, and our laws need to be updated. This week the Attorney-General will introduce important reforms into the parliament to improve the FOI system. It has three fundamental precepts, Senator Pocock: anonymous FOI requests are no longer going to be permitted, genuine FOI requests are prioritised, and taxpayers' money is saved on frivolous and automated requests. Listen to this, Senator Pocock: in 2024— (Time expired)

Senator David Pocock, first supplementary?

Minister, a recent report by the Centre for Public Integrity shows FOI requests granted in full have plunged, from 59 per cent under the Gillard government, to just 25 per cent under the Albanese government and outright refusals have nearly doubled over the same period. How can introducing fees that are likely to deter citizens and journalists be justified when the system is already failing to deliver transparency?

I thank Senator Pocock for his first supplementary question and his interest in this issue. You've quoted some figures there, Senator Pocock, but I'd like to quote some other figures. These relate to the fact that, in 2024, public servants spent more than one million hours processing FOI requests. If only those public servants could have been working on health, on the NDIS or on education, rather than focusing on answering frivolous FOI requests.

Senator Pocock, this is a really important reform because this is a transparent government. We are an open and transparent government. What you see is what you get. (Time expired)

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! I'm waiting for order!

Senator Shoebridge, order!

Honourable senators interjecting—

Across the chamber! I've called for order. I'm still waiting. So disrespectful towards me. Senator Pocock, second supplementary?

Thank you, Minister. Unfortunately, the stats show that your government is actually the second most secretive on record. Having spoken briefly to—

Government senators interjecting—

Order on my right! Please continue.

Having spoken briefly to Julian Leeser this morning, from the other place, and from what is happening on the crossbench, who is going to support this friendless bill that will crack down on transparency?

I thank Senator Pocock. I remember when we had the electoral reform legislation coming up in the last parliament. Everybody said, 'Look, that legislation is friendless,' and yet it passed the parliament. Senator Pocock, if you're seriously interested in transparency, and I—

Senator McKim, just be quiet for a little bit while I'm talking. You can learn something from this as well. If the crossbench, the Greens and the coalition are serious about getting genuine transparency, they'll be on board for these reforms. We can establish that these reforms are really, really important for continued transparency and the operation of government. They are sensible reforms. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher. I note that this is Women's Health Week, and I have noted a number of Labor senators mentioning this important occasion while talking about the government's work to promote women's health. I also note that women's health, safety, privacy and basic rights are being eroded in Australian courts thanks to the Gillard Labor government's change to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, which removed the definitions of women and men. Minister, what measures is the government taking to ensure women's health, safety, privacy and basic rights are being protected from trans activism?

I thank Senator Hanson for the question and for acknowledging the work that the Albanese Labor government has been doing in all of the areas that she's outlined: in women's health, in women's safety, in access to skills and training and in economic independence. That is the approach that we've been bringing to it.

In relation to the questions that Senator Hanson has raised, our job here is to make sure that, in health, in women's safety, in economic security, in good pay for jobs, in being able to work extra hours and in investing in early childhood education and care, those policies support everybody and support the whole economy. Gender inequality has been a feature of our country and a feature of our economy for too long. It's not about one person getting a set of rights above another person; it's about addressing areas of inequality and driving broader equality across the economy so that everyone benefits, and that is what we've seen from—

Senator Hanson?

My point of order goes to the basics of my question. I asked about safety, privacy and basic rights. The minister has not touched on that in any way whatsoever, and I didn't mention anything about what they're doing.

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

Well, I certainly heard Senator Hanson outlining a few of the areas that we have been working on, and we have been working on it. We do think that areas of women's health have been left unaddressed for too long. To not list a modern contraceptive pill for the last 20-odd years or new menopause treatments for the last 30 years is a problem, and it does need a government that's prepared to invest in it.

In relation to the question you have around the Sex Discrimination Act, which was in your first question, the Sex Discrimination Act makes it unlawful to discriminate on the basis of a range of protected attributes, including sex and gender identity. The government is not proposing to change that. (Time expired)

Senator Hanson, first supplementary?

Women's health and safety are particularly at risk from the intrusion of biological males in women's sport, and this has been acknowledged by the new President of the International Olympic Committee, Kirsty Coventry, in her push for a blanket ban on transgender women from female categories at the Olympics. Does the government support a ban on transgender athletes competing in female categories at future Olympics?

I thank Senator Hanson for that question, and I respond in the same way I've responded as she's raised this a number of times over the years where she's sought to demonise transgender people across this country: that is a matter that the sports organisations deal with. They deal with it appropriately, as the experts in that area. The issues you raise in my area of women's policy have not been raised with me as Minister for Women by any of the range of stakeholders I deal with on a day-to-day basis on addressing women's policy and driving gender equality. That's the position this government takes, it's the position we've taken when you've asked me before, and it'll be the position that we take in the future.

Senator Hanson, second supplementary?

Today One Nation senators proudly signed a pledge to protect women's rights in Australia at the request of Women Speak Tasmania. Minister, will the government acknowledge that the Gillard government's change to the Sex Discrimination Act is threatening Australian women's access to female-only spaces and female-only sports and directly impacting the health and wellbeing of Australian women?

Thank you, Senator Hanson. In terms of issues that have been raised with me, I'm not sure if that organisation you have spoken to has raised them with me. I don't recall that they have. We don't have any plans to change the Sex Discrimination Act. We believe in equality for all. We believe in respect and treating people respectfully, whatever their gender identity may be. That is something that I think those opposite used to support as well, although I'm not sure that they have continued with that position. That's the approach that I bring to women's policy. I'm about driving gender equality. I want every individual across this country to be treated equally regardless of the way that they identify. That is what I want, and that is what this government is focused on, whether it be in health, in education, in women's safety or in fighting against domestic and family violence. All of those areas are the focus, and that's how it will remain.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Ayres. The Albanese Labor government was re-elected with a renewed mandate to address climate change. Achieving Australia's climate targets requires significant investment in a new internationally competitive energy system and industrial capacity. Why is policy certainty essential for sending clear market signals to investors?

Thank you, Senator Whiteaker, for that question; it is a very good question, indeed. You're right. This government is making strong progress towards meeting Australia's climate targets. The government listened to what Australian voters said not just in 2025 but also in 2022 to every politician in Canberra. We listened, and we are delivering. They want Australia to do its part in stopping climate change both here and in terms of our contribution to international action. That means technical and industrial collaboration with our friends in North Asia, for example, including the Republic of Korea, who were just in the room.

Australians want an affordable and clean energy system. That requires private investment, and private investment requires confidence and certainty. You would have to have everything but confidence and certainty in what is going on over on the other side of this chamber and in the Liberal and National parties around the country.

We do that, broadly, within a framework of fiscal responsibility too, which is why we didn't go to the last election with a $600 billion plan for nuclear energy that Australia couldn't afford, that would never be delivered on time and that would force Australian industry offshore. Of course, what we saw over the miserable period of the Morrison, Abbott and Turnball governments was disinvestment in Australian industry and disinvestment in Australian electricity. We saw investment happening everywhere but in Australia because the government couldn't take a rational, science based, certain approach that provided investors with confidence. (Time expired)

Senator Whiteaker, first supplementary?

Thank you to the minister for that answer. Australia joined its international partners in committing to net zero by 2050. The Albanese Labor government has strengthened Australia's climate targets and has twice received a mandate to achieve them. Why does it matter whether Australia honours its international commitments?

I thank Senator Whiteaker for her first supplementary question. Senator Hume gets it. She said:

... capital markets right around the globe require certainty. We want to see more investment in Australia in this space, and if we don't have policy certainty we'll miss out on those capital flows.

Our international partners, domestic and foreign industry and investors watch Australia to see whether we can be relied upon. They watched when the coalition was in government. They saw Prime Minister Morrison and former energy minister Angus Taylor go to the Glasgow Conference of the Parties and commit Australia to net zero by 2050. Led by Mr Morrison and led by Mr Taylor, they were in there doing what was the right thing for Australia in our economic interest and committing Australia to a plan for net zero by 2050. Not much detail and a lot of press releases— (Time expired)

Senator Whiteaker, second supplementary?

Capital markets value policy certainty, and many of Australia's closest partners are also committed to climate action. What parts of the community would be affected if Australia abandoned its international commitments and adopted unclear and chaotic energy policies?

It's what Senator Scarr used to call economics 101, basically. He waves the textbook around. Senator Paterson said that the coalition's platform policy doesn't matter. There's a bit of a debate, I know, about whether they were in a rush to get to certainty or whether they wanted to have certainty later on. Senator Paterson said: 'Our position on this is academic. We're in opposition.' For something that's academic, there's a lot of focus. If you followed Senator Canavan and Mr Joyce's proposition, it would make regional Australia weaker and poorer with less investment and fewer good jobs. When they go out there, fighting against renewables developments and transmission lines hundreds of kilometres away from where they live, they are standing in the way of good blue-collar jobs and investment in the manufacturing industry and against the national interest. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Minister, last week Labor refused point-blank to rule out a spare bedroom tax.

Government senators interjecting—

Those opposite may laugh. You may laugh, but will you rule it out today, or do Australians need to keep their doors open for the bedroom inspectors?

It's the last question of this question time, and they've really gone to the bottom of the barrel, haven't they? 'Oh dear, what do we need for a backup? We'll go for the bedroom inspectors'—those very, very, very prevalent bedroom inspectors. Really? With all the issues that the nation faces, that the economy faces, that people face in terms of their cost of living, that we have in health, education, national security and foreign policy, they're going to ask about the bedroom inspectors. It's embarrassing.

On a point of order on direct relevance, I asked if the government will rule out a spare bedroom tax. Could the minister please answer the question.

Senator Henderson, I raised this with you last week. Do not go into statements. I've raised it every time you've asked a question, and I'm going to remind you again today. Simply come to your point of order. The minister is being relevant.

Senator, I can confirm to you that there are no plans for any bedroom inspectors in our government. Let me be very clear. I'm asked about tax measures, and I can confirm to you, Senator, that we will continue to make the tax system more efficient and fairer. We will implement our policy to give every single Australian a tax cut, and we will add to the tax cuts that we have already delivered. Let me remind you, Senator Henderson, if you're worried about tax, could you explain to us why you went to the election advocating for higher taxes for Australians? Most Australians would be very confused as to how the Liberal Party somehow turned from the party allegedly of low tax to the party of higher tax. We cut taxes for every Australian on 1 July 2024, and we will do it again from 1 July 2026 and 1 July 2027. That is Labor's tax policy.

Senator Henderson, first supplementary?

Why is it so hard for the Prime Minister to simply say the words 'there will be no spare bedroom tax under the government I lead'? Is it because you actually plan to bring one in? I say to the minister please answer the question.

Senator Ayres, in his answer, went to the fact that the coalition continue to engage in the internal debate that they've had for 15 years—and yet again we see it. They're still talking about carbon taxes. Most of these people weren't here for the carbon tax. It was a different parliament. The reality is that you and I both know that this is one of those questions that you're handed, and the sensible thing to do would have been to hand it back or rewrite it. Frankly, it is ridiculous, and I think, Senator, you know it.

Senator Henderson, second supplementary?

Minister, I note that you have still not ruled out a spare bedroom tax, and this is no laughing matter. If you really think this idea is as crazy as Australians do, why won't you just kill it off instead of keeping it alive in the shadows?

I'm happy to talk about what is a laughing matter and what is not. The coalition's economic policy is a laughing matter. The coalition's environmental policy is a laughing matter. The coalition's economic policy is a mess, and we know that the coalition's health policy is a laughing matter. The reality is this lot have not learned from the election. They still have not learned. Senator Henderson is on her feet again!

Honourable senators interjecting—

I have called senators out by their names enough. Quite frankly, you are being disrespectful, and I don't want to have to continue to do that for the next 33 seconds. If you can't listen in silence, there's the door.

I have a point of order on direct relevance. My question is: why won't the government rule out a spare bedroom tax? Could you ask the minister to be directly relevant?

Stop there, Senator Henderson. The minister is being directly relevant to your question.

I'm using your words. You talked about what was a laughing matter. Well, the coalition's economic policy and tax policy are laughing matters. The coalition's health policy is a laughing matter. The coalition's climate policy is laughably back where they were 20 years ago and 23 policies behind. Of course, their nuclear policy remains a laughing matter because some still support it. You are not a serious party of government, we are not listening to your voters and you are not listening to where Australians are.

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

Senators, during question time yesterday Minister Gallagher asked to review rulings about the quotation of coarse language and consider how they should apply, in relation to questions being asked by Senator McKenzie. President Parry made a statement to the Senate on the matter on 29 February 2016, which was adopted by President Ryan on 14 November 2019. Both statements recognise the very long practice of the Senate that quoting another source does not allow a senator to bypass the normal rules in relation to unparliamentary language.

President Parry indicated, firstly, that quoting something does not provide a shield for inappropriate language; secondly, that he was concerned about the language being used; and, thirdly, that he was also concerned about the rights of senators to express what they want to express. On balance, he determined that he would not require the withdrawal of the language used on that occasion.

President Ryan summarised President Parry's statement in this way:

If offensive language is used in relation to a protected person—

that is, in relation to senators and members and other persons mentioned in standing order 193—

it is completely out of order and will be required to be withdrawn. When no protected person is involved, however, and where a senator quoting such language maintains that it is strictly necessary to make the point, it makes it very difficult for the chair to prevent a senator from quoting such language or to require its withdrawal. This is the burden of President Parry's ruling of February 2016. If senators choose to enter this territory, they do so at their own responsibility.

I've tried to take the same approach here. Senators would have heard me ask Senator McKenzie to withdraw a word when she used it as an audible interjection, and I thank Senator McKenzie for withdrawing. But I allowed the use of the term as part of a quotation in Senator McKenzie's questions. I do wonder whether it was strictly necessary for Senator McKenzie to quote the term in each of her questions, when I consider that the senator made the point with her first quote. I intend to take the same approach as my predecessors and leave it to Senator McKenzie to consider her language on future occasions. In doing so, I also adopt the final part of President Ryan's statement, where he reminded senators:

… a point can be made and a particular word can be alluded to without actually using it.

Furthermore, I remind senators that people are watching and we regularly have large numbers of schoolchildren watching question time here. I urge senators to keep this in mind.

by leave—I move:

That the Senate directs the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee to hold a public hearing at 5 pm on 3 September 2025, of not less than two hours, for the purposes of hearing from officials from the Department of Home Affairs regarding the details of the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill 2025.

Question agreed to.

I move:

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

I'm not going to get into the bedroom tax; I think my colleagues will do that topic more justice than I can; my comedic timing is not as good as theirs! I want to touch on, particularly, the question asked by Senator Blyth and answered by Senator McAllister about the availability of aged-care packages and the amount of time people are waiting. Mindful of the President's ruling about the use of language, I'm not going to quote the Prime Minister directly from his statement at the Bush Summit in Ballarat on Friday, but he quite clearly told the audience there that he was 'not going to mislead people', to use a euphemism here. This is a situation where the government has continually been uneconomical with the truth and has not levelled with the Australian people about the availability of aged-care packages.

This is the Prime Minister back in March 2021. He said

We cannot be satisfied with a situation where older Australians are dying while waiting for their homecare packages.

But my colleague Senator Blyth just recounted an episode—and this is happening across the country, across all electorates, and senators and lower house MPs are hearing this from their communities—a contact that one of her colleagues had had from a Michael from Western Australia whose mother had been approved for a level 4 package back in November. Sadly, she passed away in March, having not received a package at all. The figures here are quite startling. This isn't an isolated case. We've got about 88,000 Australians who've been assessed as eligible for a home-care package but who are still waiting to receive that package. On top of that, we've got about 121,000 Australians who are still waiting to be assessed for a home-care package. That's some 200,000 Australians, a not insignificant number, a pretty large proportion of whom are elderly or needy who are waiting to be assessed for a home-care package or who have been assessed and are waiting to receive it.

The evidence suggests that, even once they've been assessed as eligible for a home-care package, people are waiting up to 15 months to access that service. Bear in mind that these are people in their 70s, 80s and sometimes 90s. Time is quite precious to them, and their ability to live independently and with dignity at home is often highly dependent on their ability to access help. That's what these home-care packages are meant to provide. According to My Aged Care's own website, if you are assessed as medium priority the estimated time for all packages at the moment is nine to 12 months—that is, once you've been assessed as eligible you're waiting at least another nine to 12 months. So it's not uncommon for people now to be spending up to two years from when they first expressed an interest in receiving a home-care package to when they actually receive some sort of support from the government

When the coalition was in government, once you were assessed as eligible, three to six months was the average wait time before you received it. I know this personally. My father was assessed as eligible for a home-care package. He received assistance within about three months. That was in part because the coalition delivered 123,000 additional home-care packages. But in their first term of government Labor have only released one-third as many new home-care packages—about 41,000. The result is that the waitlist for a home-care package has almost tripled in the last two years. It's gone from about 29,000 people waiting to about 87,000 people. That is also reliant on old data. We cannot get new data beyond 31 March because the government is refusing to provide data on how many people are waiting.

What's going on here is that the government has released far fewer home-care packages than the previous government. The government promised to deliver an additional 83,000 new home-care packages from 1 July. Not a single new one has been delivered. We had the relevant responsible minister Sam Rae claim last week that this was because the sector wasn't ready, but then we had sector peak bodies, providers, advocacy groups and the department all telling the Senate community affairs committee hearing last week that the sector is ready to provide that care now. I remind people that what the Prime Minister told people at Ballarat last week, last Friday, is not being honoured. People are not being levelled with here about access and availability of home-care packages. (Time expired)

I rise to take note of the questions from Senator Liddle. On this side of the chamber, our government is committed to taking action that delivers real change for First Nations people. We are delivering record funding in health, education and housing. That includes $842 million to fund essential services in remote communities. We are creating real jobs with decent conditions in remote Australia, addressing housing overcrowding and supporting healthy children and safe families. The accusation here is one of a lack of transparency and integrity. Well, I refute that. In this round of supplementary budget estimates, Indigenous issues will be part of every day of estimates—not a tack-on at the end but a part of every day of estimates. We've seen the cross-portfolio day roll out over the last number of years, certainly over the last term—I know I personally chaired the cross-portfolio water day—and it just became more and more irrelevant through that time, because we didn't have the right people turning up. At the last couple of estimates all we had was Senator Perin Davey, sitting there asking a whole bunch of questions. All power to Senator Davey, but they weren't exactly changing-the-world conversations, and they certainly weren't uncovering anything that everybody didn't know already. And the number of senators turning up just declined, declined, declined.

I'm now taking over as chair of Finance and Public Administration, which the Indigenous cross-portfolio day would have gone into. And I'm delighted to think that every single agency that turns up through the main body of estimates on the Finance and Public Administration Committee will be asked questions about Indigenous affairs. So I would just ask those on the other side: Who's coming? Who's going to turn up? Who's going to ask some questions? We can't wait. We're really looking forward to it. Let's see you at estimates. Maybe you're not sure what to ask about. Maybe I could help.

I've got a little list that I'd like to share with you, that you'd maybe like to look at. You need all the help you can get. There's our six-year partnership with the Northern Territory government and Aboriginal peak organisations in the NT to deliver those essential services I referenced earlier. You might want to ask about that. You might want to ask about the National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People. Or perhaps you'd like to know how things are going for the more than 300 enrolments in the First Nations Health Worker Traineeship Program. That's a pretty good program. You might be interested in some of that. Ask about our programs, our progress, the challenges we might be facing—a bit of scrutiny; have a little look—maybe the economic partnerships, even.

If you're still stuck, I've got a couple of others you might want to think about when you're preparing for estimates, because I'm sure you're all going to turn up, those on the opposite side of this chamber. You're going to turn up to every single portfolio, not just a separate day but every day, and that's the standard week, plus the extra week that we're going to have in December. There's plenty of time, so don't hold back. Come on down and ask the questions directly of the secretaries of every department, of the experts in all these areas who are going to sit at that table. Maybe you're interested in the nutrition workers for remote communities that are rolling out, or maybe the remote laundries, or maybe strengthening the Indigenous procurement policy, which is part of our whole aim to turbocharge First Nations businesses and build economic empowerment. That's something that's really important to us. We'd be delighted to talk about it at estimates.

Remote jobs.

Remote jobs—particularly remote jobs; that's exactly right, Senator Stewart. These are all things that we are well open to talking about. We would be delighted to talk about them. We have some serious challenges, and we are facing them head on. We invite you to actually turn up—walk into the room, turn up, ask some questions—because we are ready, willing and able to answer every single one of them.

Well, thank you, Senator Grogan, for the suggestions on questions we could ask at estimates, if we were provided the opportunity to do that. Maybe we could ask about the fact that youth detention is up by 11 per cent, suicide is up by 9.4 per cent, adult incarceration is up by 3.5 per cent, preschool attendance is down by 2.6 per cent, and there are 1.2 per cent fewer children commencing school developmentally on track. So many of the domains are not on track, as we know. And of course this issue usually requires, and has received, bipartisan support. But, again, what we're not seeing here is transparency of this government. We're not seeing the transparency that is required.

You say we could ask these questions across every portfolio. What about the minister? Is the minister omnipresent all of a sudden? Can she possibly be in every committee, all at the same time, so that questions can be answered by the minister, who is accountable—who at least is meant to be accountable—for these outcomes? Of course that's not possible. That's the purpose of having a separate section. If there was an allocation of genuine time throughout the week, then maybe that could happen, but it's not what you're making possible. It's not what you're enabling by this change—and it is a disgrace.

On the other matter, the lack of accountability, we had the great question from Senator Blyth on the home-care packages and the lack of places that are being made available to Australians who are on significant waiting lists. We know that there are 87,597 older Australians currently waiting on the national priority system for a home-care place they have been assessed as needing. In addition, there are another 121,596 older Australians who are waiting to be assessed for home-care places. That means that there are over 200,000 Australians currently waiting for access to home-care support under Labor.

This is an outrage. It's a rapid deterioration of the circumstances for these Australians, and the list is blowing out considerably—considerably beyond what you're accusing us of letting happen in maintaining this list when we were in government. This is an outrage. We heard that Minister Rae had a difficult day in the House of Representatives today. Well, anyone could judge him on that. In the other place today he said—and this is a terrible statistic: 4,812 Australians have died since May while waiting for a home-care place. That is 4,812 Australians, as well as those that love and care for them and are deeply disheartened and dismayed by the fact that their loved one could not receive the proper care that they needed. They were on a waiting list for too long and they died while sitting on that waiting list.

The government are culpable with this answer and this statistic, and they need to get things into gear. It is unacceptable that these waiting lists have ballooned. It's unacceptable that these waiting lists have expanded under this government, and something needs to be done. What we need here is a government that is accountable. We know that they are avoiding accountability. We're seeing it through every answer to every question that's put to them by those here on this side, and even—dare I say—by those at the end of the chamber. There is a lack of accountability. There is a lack of preparedness by this government to front up to the Australian people and be honest about the situation. Unfortunately, there's a lack of action. There's a lack of rubber actually hitting the road. It's disappointing that this is going on here in this country. Australians are experiencing extraordinary wait times—the waiting lists have exploded under this government, and, as I pointed out, it is an absolute tragedy that 4,812 people, as we learnt today, have passed away while waiting for a home-care package. It's totally unacceptable.

I rise to take note of responses to opposition questions. In the questions some individual cases were raised, and it is important that we do take the time to reflect on those circumstances, as Minister McAllister did. We also note that Minister Rae is very happy to receive those cases and look at those individual circumstances with the compassion that they deserve, but we shouldn't lose sight of the bigger picture at play here. Following the royal commission and everything we found out about aged care, we have now put in place the new Aged Care Act. It was passed with bipartisan support and it's a once-in-a-generation reset. Less than two months from today, on 1 November, it will take effect.

We have heard those distressing stories, and, to every family who's lived through those, we do extend our sympathies and compassion. And that's why we are acting. The answer is not to simply express regret; we need to fix the system so that those stories become less common, and that's what these reforms do. They ensure that people remain in their homes with dignity and access to care faster than has ever been possible in the past.

Let's look at the facts here. There are a lot of numbers being thrown around in this debate. If we look at the facts, yes, the number is too high. For the people waiting, it's always going to be too high, and I don't think anybody in this chamber could deny that. But things are moving. The government is allocating, on average, more than 2,000 home-care packages every single week, and that pipeline is being delivered and being improved in real time. For those who are assessed as highest priority—those who are most in need of aged care—the package is being allocated within a month. That's a concrete measure of progress.

Again, with all the numbers being thrown around, there is some conflation of the waitlists for packages and the time taken for assessments. They are different processes. It's important to note a key statistic: 99 per cent of those waiting for a package at their approved level are already receiving care. It's not at the right level, but they're not out of care. They are receiving care—99 per cent of them are—either through a lower-level package or through the Commonwealth Home Support Program. So the overwhelming majority are not without support while they wait. The median waiting time for an aged-care assessment is now down to 25 days from referral to completion of a support plan. And that timeline is trending down, under the new single assessment system.

Our goal is clear: a system that provides care with dignity, safety and compassion, that responds more quickly to people's needs and that gives older Australians confidence about the support they will receive. There was some shift in the timelines, from July to November, in terms of the implementation. There was obviously an election that delayed some progress there. We're implementing one of the biggest generational reforms we've ever seen in aged care, and it's important to take the time to get it right.

I know there's some confusion now, with the sector—or certain bodies within that sector—saying they're ready, but, if you look at the commentary from a few months ago, it was clear that many of the providers weren't ready, and I had many providers in Tasmania begging me, saying: 'Please take the message to Canberra that we just need a little bit more time to get our systems right.' The most important thing is that, when we implement this package, we do it properly and we deliver confidence and restore confidence in a system that hasn't done enough for older Australians in the past.

On 1 November, the new act takes effect. It's not just a date in the diary; it's the beginning of a better aged-care system—one that Australians can rely on.

On a less serious note, I was surprised—it felt like deja vu to be going back in time again to the goddamned spare bedroom tax. It's obviously getting a lot of clickbait online, this one. Next we'll be asking, 'Do we rule out taxing the doona, the bedside lamps and the pillows?' I think that, if only we could have a tax on coalition scare campaigns, we could raise a lot of revenue; maybe we'll put that idea into the next roundtable! Just to clarify: that's not an idea that came from the government. It has nothing to do with the government and it's not under any consideration. It wasn't even mentioned at the roundtable, and I think those opposite should know that because the shadow Treasurer was there for every minute of the discussion, and it's a characteristically dishonest conversation. (Time expired)

That's a good segue into taking note, because, despite all of those overtures about, 'We're not going to do it; there's no spare bedroom tax,' we still didn't actually get a no from the government; we didn't get it ruled out. I note that Senator Wong did not do that. I didn't have it, I must say, and it has been reported, so, whatever the postulation from the other side is, it was actually reported, and we have not had it ruled out. And it wasn't on my bingo card, I have to say. I know that this government loves to spend—we know that. We know they love to get their claws into your money—we know that as well. But I didn't see this one coming. Perhaps it was just a thought bubble, but, once again, it was not ruled out. However, what we did hear from the Treasurer was that the tax system is—I think he used the word 'imperfect' and skewed in favour of the older generations, which should be alarming language for any of the Australians who have saved for their retirement. We heard that language coming from that side of the chamber in a different era many times before, with the potential for grabs on superannuation, negative gearing—you name it.

This, after all, is a high-spending socialist government, and we know the old adage. I think it was Margaret Thatcher who said that the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money. So I thought to myself that we could come up with a couple of suggestions of things that might be considered at the next—what did we call it? The Economic Reform Roundtable was the language used. What about, for example, a pet tax? Australians love pets, and you could put on a sliding scale for pets. Pets produce carbon, so we don't like that. That's bad apparently. You could put on a sliding scale. It also achieves the other socialist goal of creating a miserable world, so that is something that could be considered.

What about a protest tax? We've seen that comfortably. Of course, you would have to be careful. You wouldn't want to tax Extinction Rebellion protests—just the ones where they take the Aussie flag. I thought about, possibly, an ambition levy, because nothing upsets socialists more than personal ambition, and taxing it would achieve the two-fold goal of knocking off people's hopes and dreams while also pumping money into the coffers. I think there could perhaps be conversation licensing fees. You could snuff out free speech—they love that! They are all into that at the moment. You could make yourself a nice little clip on the way through and consider a range of taxes on non-state-approved discussions on things like how proud we are of our country and history and give yourself a nice 25 per cent on top of that.

The point is that they're going to have to find ways to do it, because they're spending your money like it is going out of fashion. They are going to have to get creative. So they can laugh all they want about a spare bedroom tax. It's going to be something ludicrous.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers to questions I asked the Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher, about measures to ensure women's health, safety and security.

Changes to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 by the Gillard government in 2013 have created a legal minefield for our courts and gravely threaten rights that generations of Australian women have fought for. This highlights the critical importance of writing objective laws to ensure they are not so wildly open to interpretation. Legal definitions should not be subjective or ambiguous, or else Australians will be unable to conduct themselves with certainty that they are within the law.

As reported by the Australian newspaper last month, the danger of very subjective amendments to the STA has been highlighted by Sall Grover's appeal against a Federal Court judgement that she had indirectly discriminated against a trans woman. Janet Albrechtsen rightly asked: how can a person know about another person's sex or gender identity if the law plots an ambiguous scale? That's because the SDA doesn't define sex like it used to. It does attempt to define gender identity, but this definition is ridiculous:

… the gender-related identity, appearance or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of a person (whether by way of medical intervention or not), with or without regard to the person's designated sex at birth.

In Australia, it's apparent that a man can just identify as a woman and the SDA will recognise him as a woman. This is an appalling law that helps trans activists tread all over the rights that women have fought hard to achieve for decades. That's why One Nation aims to restore objective, biological definitions of women in the SDA to protect women's rights, safety, health and privacy.

Let me say this to the Labor Party, Greens and everyone: you protect women and quantify it when you are selecting your female candidates. You actually fight the pay gap. You fight domestic violence against women but not in sports changing rooms, safe spaces and toilets. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers to questions I asked the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator Watt, regarding climate change.

I would like to reflect today that Minister Watt provided an answer around a letter that he received from every crossbench MP in Tasmania as well as every Liberal senator, every lower house MP, including Independent Andrew Wilkie, and, of course, myself about nearly 30 jobs in Hobart in a critical Antarctic research centre—the Antarctic science institution, the Australian Centre for Excellence in Antarctic Science. Their funding runs out in just three months. It's not just a process we've been going through in recent months to get continuity for this funding; it's actually being going on for years.

These scientists are critical. They work on globally collaborative projects. They've just returned from the Nuyina's maiden ice voyage to Antarctica. We desperately need to see their jobs secured. This is not something that we're being political on. We've put the politics aside and we've tried to work with every MP of every political colour. I was pleased to hear Minister Watt, today, recognise he's had representations from his colleagues in the Australian Labor Party from Tasmania. I have also spoken to Minister Collins. She said she would endeavour to rally the troops to meet with Minister Watt. We'd certainly like to get a decision on this sooner rather than later to give those scientists certainty and also to give their projects certainty.

I began my question to Minister Watt on the most recent research published in the journal Nature about the collapse that we're seeing in the Antarctic ecosystem. Scientists are saying that, even though we're still technically below 1½ degrees of warming, some of these changes are already occurring and are possibly irreversible in our lifetime and potentially for many generations, even if we manage to get emissions under control, which I, sadly, am very cynical about whether that is going to be the case. Nevertheless, the question was directed to Minister Watt as to whether he was confident that his government's climate targets would meet the requirement to keep emissions capped to meet 1½ degrees in terms of Australia's contributions. Of course, he won't provide any detail on that, but it is a reminder to all of us that Australia has a very important leadership role to play globally in limiting our emissions and meeting our Paris Agreement protocols. We are one of the biggest exporters of climate change to the world. We are the biggest polluter per capita in the world. We have a really critical role to play. So we'll certainly be scrutinising, in the weeks to come, the government's response in putting out the new climate targets, because a lot of other policies will flow from those climate targets.

It'd be hard not to get into the politics in relation to Minister Watt's unnecessary response in which he brought up the CPRS and how the Greens voted against the CPRS. For those senators who aren't aware, because this was a long time ago, 'CPRS' means 'continue polluting regardless scheme'.

That's such a lie.

It was brought in by Prime Minister Rudd at the time and, of course, the Greens voted against a policy that was actually going to make emissions worse in this country.

Senator Wong, on a point of order?

Do you know he voted for something that actually gave the big polluters more afterwards?

There is no point of order.

The 'continue polluting regardless scheme' was brought in by the Labor Party to allow big business to go on polluting the planet—but the Greens stood up against that. Do you know what we achieved? We went to the next election, we had a record vote and we worked with the Gillard government to bring in the clean energy package, which included a price on carbon that was going to become an emissions trading scheme, a $10 billion record investment in renewable energy through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and a whole range of different things. It was considered the gold standard around the world in terms of action on climate.

I commend Labor for working with the Greens at that particular time. It was the only time, until the last couple of months, that Australia reduced its emissions. I don't know why it continues to get ignored and why Minister Watt and others continue to try to erase the legacy of Julia Gillard as the prime minister that worked with my predecessor in this place, Bob Brown, Christine Milne and other MPs to do good work for the climate. We can do it again—although I will ask Minister Watt to reflect on his response to my question and why he continues to ignore this fantastic legacy of Julia Gillard. We remember it, and we'd like to see more of that kind of cooperation from Labor— (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 8 August 2025 of John Odin Wentworth Watson AM, a senator for the state of Tasmania from 1978 to 2008.

I move:

That the Senate records its sadness at the death, on 8 August 2025, of John Odin Wentworth Watson AM, former senator for Tasmania, places on record its gratitude for his service to the Parliament and the nation, and tenders its sympathy to his family in their bereavement.

I rise on behalf of the government to acknowledge the passing of former senator for Tasmania John Watson on 8 August 2025 at the age of 88. At the outset of my remarks, I want to convey the government's condolences to his wife, Jocelyn; to Mr Geoff Watson and Mrs Rosemary Pollock, who are in attendance today; to his other children, Ian and Fiona; to their partners; to his many grandchildren; and to parliamentary colleagues who are mourning his passing.

John Watson was born in Launceston in 1937, and he studied commerce and economics at the University of Tasmania before embarking on a professional career as a chartered accountant, company director and lecturer at Launceston Technical College and the Tasmanian College of Advanced Education. Before entering politics, he managed a textile manufacturing company, an experience that shaped his deep interest for industry in regional communities, and he was profoundly affected by the closure of textile mills in Launceston, something he remarked as underpinning his decision to seek public office. John Watson was elected to the Senate in 1977, and he served Tasmania for three decades. Upon his retirement at the conclusion of his term in 2008, he held the position of what was described as the Father of the Senate. He had parliamentary service that was extensive.

I had the privilege of serving with Senator Watson. I remember him as courteous and conscientious. I remember him as a senator far more focused on policy than on partisanship. He held positions on nearly every major committee, from finance and public administration to economics and community affairs. He was temporary chair of committees for over a decade, and he held responsibility as shadow parliamentary secretary to the deputy leader of the opposition in the early nineties. But I think it is the case that it was through his committee that John Watson made his greatest mark. He served for many years on what we'd describe as JCPAA, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, working to strengthen accountability and transparency of government.

I think it is undeniable that his most prominent and probably most influential work was in chairing the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation for a decade, contributing ably to the foundations of Australia's modern retirement income system. His work in this area was recognised across party lines. Labor under Hawke and Keating of course conceived of universal superannuation, but, as Senator Watson noted in his valedictory, it fell to him as the Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation to persuade his own party to accept it. This is a very important contribution, and it was one that was rightly acknowledged at the time by the then Labor minister for superannuation and fellow Tasmanian senator, Nick Sherry. I do recall we used to say that the Tasmanians had the superannuation sewn up.

John Watson's background in commerce and taxation meant he understood technical detail and financial implications as well as the long-term benefits of universal superannuation, and importantly he used that understanding to build consensus. As a direct result our superannuation system became one of the strongest in the world. In this way, John Watson contributed to a more secure retirement for millions of Australians, and this is a fine legacy.

Beyond superannuation Senator Watson was a strong advocate for Tasmania, campaigning for infrastructure. He fought for Tasmanian exporters, and he stood by communities facing industrial and economic decline. I remember him as someone who worked with people across political difference, and I remember him as someone who always carried himself with the dignity and courtesy in this place that earns respect from all sides. John Watson was also a man of principle and a man of faith. A committed Christian, he served as Secretary of the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship, helping to establish the first National Prayer Breakfast in Canberra, an event that continues to this day.

He was a man known for his humility. He found his calling in committee rooms, in patient work and in improving policies in ways that have outlasted political cycles. He was a compassionate man. This was evident in his advocacy for refugees and new arrivals to Australia, helping many individuals and families to secure a future in their new home. His valedictory speech in 2008 is notable for its humility, particularly given the length and breadth of his service. In it he reiterated his view:

Those on low incomes, the disadvantaged and refugees, in fact all those who have had difficulty in getting their voice heard, have been high on my agenda.

In remembering John Watson, we recall a life of service to Tasmania, to the Senate and to Australia. Once again, on behalf of the government, I express my condolences following the passing of John Watson AM and extend my sympathies to all who loved him.

I rise on behalf of the opposition today to mark the passing of former Senator for Tasmania John Odin Wentworth Watson AM, who passed away on 8 August 2025 at the age of 88.

In mourning his passing, we honour a life that was devoted to service, to family, to faith, to community and, of course, to his state of Tasmania, but, ultimately, to this nation. On behalf of the coalition, we extend our deepest sympathies to his beloved wife of 62 years, Jocelyn; his children, Ian, Rosemary, Fiona and Geoff, and their partners; his many grandchildren; and his wider family. They mourn the loss not only of a public figure but of a deeply loved husband, father and grandfather. I acknowledge in particular his daughter Rosemary and son Geoff, who have joined us here today in the Australian Senate; his wife, Jocelyn, who is actually watching the live stream at home in Tasmania; as well as his children elsewhere in the world, who are also fortunate enough, because of technology, to be able to watch this condolence via the live link.

As we have heard, John Watson served in this place for three decades, from the 1 July 1978 until his retirement on 30 June 2008. Unfortunately, I didn't actually have an opportunity to serve with Senator Watson. I commenced my service in the Senate on 1 July 2008. So he closed his three chapters of serving Tasmania as a senator whilst I opened mine in serving Western Australia as a senator. At the time of leaving the parliament, he was the Father of the Senate. This is, of course, a title conferred on the longest continuously serving Senator. That milestone reflected his remarkable endurance in this chamber, but, more importantly, it reflected the esteem in which he was held by his colleagues on both sides of politics.

Born in Launceston on 25 January 1937, John Watson grew up in Northern Tasmania. His education at the University of Tasmania led him to degrees in commerce and economics, qualifications that would define his career both before and during his time in the Australian parliament. He became a fellow of multiple professional institutes: the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Certified Practicing Accountants, the Chartered Institute of Secretaries, and the Taxation Institute of Australia. He worked as a chartered accountant, company director, textile industry manager and primary producer. He also lectured part time on economics and commerce at Launceston Technical College and the College of Advanced Education. Now, these were not incidental experiences. They grounded him in the real economy and gave him a professional acumen that he brought to bear in his parliamentary service.

John Watson was elected as a Liberal senator for Tasmania at the 1977 election and took his seat in July 1978. He was re-elected at every subsequent poll until his retirement in 2008. And, over that 30-year career, he contributed to an extraordinary breadth of committees: economics, finance, public accounts, superannuation, regulations and ordinances, environment, education, rural affairs and many more. His committee record today would probably still hold the record as one of the most extensive in modern parliamentary history. He served as a temporary chair of committees for 13 years and as a member of the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Trust. He was also active, as we've heard, in interparliamentary work and the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship.

But, above all, John's legacy is most deeply etched in the field of superannuation. If Paul Keating is remembered as the architect of universal superannuation then John Watson deserves to be remembered as one of its master builders. He chaired the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation during critical years when the framework of our national retirement system was being tested, refined and entrenched. At a time when superannuation was still viewed as a privilege for public servants and the wealthy, he saw the merit of extending it universally. He understood that a scheme of compulsory saving, if properly designed, could secure the dignity of millions of Australians in their retirement. John Watson's professional background as an accountant gave him a rare ability to scrutinise complex financial structures. His was the careful, methodical mind that cut through the jargon to identify weakness, press for accountability and improve legislation. John Watson was instrumental in persuading the Liberal Party to accept the superannuation guarantee levy. In doing so, he helped clear the path for one of the most important social and economic reforms in our modern history. Today, Australia's superannuation pool exceeds $3 trillion, and it is not an exaggeration to say that millions of Australians will enjoy greater comfort and independence in retirement because of John Watson's quiet, diligent work. Senator Nick Sherry, who later became minister for superannuation, praised him on the floor of this chamber, acknowledging his role in pressing departments for answers and insisting on accountability during the late-night committee hearings that shaped the final system. Cross-party recognition of this kind is rare in politics. It spoke to John Watson's integrity, his diligence and his skill.

In his first speech to this chamber in 1978, John Watson spoke of the privilege of entering the Senate and of his commitment to both Tasmania and the nation. He set out a philosophy that was grounded in respect for enterprise, a belief in personal responsibility and a recognition of government's role in enabling opportunity. He warned against the dangers of excessive regulation, but he also stressed the importance of fairness. Those words foreshadowed his later work on superannuation. He was not a man to seek the spotlight. He was not a headline maker. But he was a problem solver, and he believed that government should act in ways that improved people's real lives, not merely its own image.

After retiring from politics, he was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia in 2014 for significant service to the parliament of Australia through a range of committee roles and to the community of Tasmania. This honour was richly deserved.

In addition to his Senate career, John served his local community as a councillor on the West Tamar Council. That step from national to local life reflected the values that he always held. Service was not about prestige but about making a difference wherever he could.

Those who knew him describe him as a man of faith, humility and dedication. He was secretary of the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship during the 1980s, and his personal faith remained a guiding compass throughout his life. John Watson will be remembered for his patience, his integrity and his analytical mind, but he will also be remembered for his warmth. He was courteous, even in disagreement. He never mistook politics for personal animosity. He believed in the dignity of this chamber, and he carried himself with a quiet authority that earnt him the respect of colleagues on both sides of the aisle. He did not chase the microphone but, when he spoke, people listened. And when he questioned witnesses in committee hearings they knew they were being held to account by someone who had done his homework.

Today as Australians plan their retirements, as families save for their future security, and as our superannuation system continues to underpin both household wellbeing and national prosperity, the name John Watson deserves to be remembered. He may not have sought recognition, but his imprint is unmistakable. Every Australian who enjoys the benefits of superannuation owes a small debt of gratitude to John Watson's diligence, persistence and vision. On behalf of the opposition I extend our heartfelt condolences to Jocelyn, to their children and grandchildren and to all who knew and loved John Watson. He was a man of service, a man of principle, a man of faith and a man who leaves behind not only a grieving family but a nation that is stronger and fairer for his contribution. May he rest in peace.

I rise to add my comments to those of my colleagues in recognition of former senator John Watson. I thank them for their comments. I also acknowledge his daughter Rosemary and son Geoff in the gallery, alongside some people who worked with John. I think we have some of the staff who worked on the Senate committee with him here in the chamber as well—Richard Gilbert—which is also a recognition of the respect that John is held in. I'll start by extending my condolences to Jocelyn, his wife of 62 years, as has been said, herself an extraordinarily qualified lady who served her community strongly, as well as John's children, Ian, Fiona, Geoff and Rosemary and their families and all the grandchildren.

John's Senate record is quite an extraordinary one, as has been mentioned. In talking to some colleagues today, mentioning the fact that he served in this place for 30 years did raise some eyebrows. And of course John, in that context, was what you'd have to call a survivor. He served from 1978 to 2008 and, as Senator Cash indicated, just because he hadn't had enough public service he went on to do five years on the West Tamar Council to continue serving his community. But that was John. John was somebody who had an extraordinary radar for the community. He had strong connections to the community. Senator Wong mentioned the closure of a business that he was manager of in the 1970s, when things were changing significantly economically. We heard a couple of weeks ago at the celebration of his life that he went around town looking for jobs for every member of that business and found a job for everybody—and at the end of the day he was the one without a job! So he came here for 30 years.

They were the things that grounded John Watson, and they were the things that set John Watson up and connected him to his community and followed him and drove him for a long period of time. He said in his valedictory:

The tragedy of the Kelsall and Kemp closure changed my attitude to life and refocused my priorities when I reached Canberra. Those on low incomes, the disadvantaged and refugees, in fact all those who have had difficulty in getting their voice heard, have been high on my agenda.

He did that all through his career—

This has been reflected through my close association with community organisations such as refugee groups, churches and City Mission—

an organisation that itself recognised his length of supporting giving to that organisation over so many years quite recently—

and in the later years with Australia's oldest benevolent institution, the Launceston Benevolent Society.

John was very closely connected to his community. That's a demonstration of the sort of person that, in 1978, came to the Senate from Tasmania.

As you might imagine, and as has been indicated by colleagues, someone who serves here for 30 years has a committee membership list as long as your arm—or both arms! John was an extraordinarily qualified person. He was a part-time lecturer at the Launceston Technical College, a chartered accountant, a company director, a part-time lecturer at the College of Advanced Education and a member of the Scotch College Council. He was a farmer, and he loved his farm. His sheep, I understand, won a blue ribbon at the last Exeter Show; John was quite rightly proud of that. So he was still actively involved.

To his qualifications, he was a fellow of the chartered institute of secretaries, a fellow of the Australian Institute of Management, a fellow of Certified Practising Accountants, a fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants and a fellow of the Taxation Institute of Australia. He had a Bachelor of Commerce and a Bachelor of Economics from the University of Tasmania. You knew that when he was asking questions at a Senate inquiry they came from a learned background. He brought all that to the Senate.

John served for 27 years on the Joint Standing Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. That in itself is somewhat of an achievement. Apart from a short period as a shadow parliamentary secretary, John served his entire career on the backbench. He resigned his position as a shadow parliamentary secretary because he crossed the floor due to not agreeing with some proposals that were being put up and supported by the opposition, and happily went back to his committee work on the backbench. He did say in his valedictory speech that he didn't cross the floor quite as many times as his immediate predecessor in this place, who crossed the floor 150 times; John only managed three or four. But it's a different world today. Sir Reginald Wright, his direct predecessor, had quite a reputation and, I think, still holds the record for the number of times crossing the floor; in fact, he may have had a track backwards and forwards in Old Parliament House! But John did make that reflection in the context of his work.

While he served for 27 years on the Joint Standing Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I think it was his work on the Select Committee on Superannuation that really made John stand out. As the new system of superannuation was being developed in this country, the parliament decided, on a motion moved by the Australian Democrats at the time, that there needed to be a select committee to scrutinise the development of the new legislative frameworks. That committee was established. Over its time it only had about 20 members on it. John served on that committee for the entire time of that committee, and there were only ever two chairs: Nick Sherry was the first chair, who chaired for two years, from 1991 to 1993; and the chair from 1993 until 2003, when the committee ceased to exist—remembering that this was a select committee, not a standing committee of the parliament—was John Watson.

When you consider that this particular committee was also a committee that scrutinised legislation, the fact that John Watson was appointed as its chair in 1993 until 1996 under a Labor government is a testament to John Watson—an absolute testament to John Watson. The fact that he had the integrity to work with the other members of the committee—which was one of the features of the committee that's mentioned in the reports, I have to say. They were intent on working together. They were intent on building a knowledge base within the committee so that they could effectively scrutinise the legislation that was being brought before them and make the contribution that they have made to the superannuation system in this country.

That particular point—that John, as a member of the opposition, was chairing the committee that scrutinised legislation on behalf of the parliament and that that appointment was made by the Labor Party—is a real testament to John. I'm not sure that sort of appointment would be made today, to be frank, but it is a real tribute to John Watson that that appointment was made. He chaired the committee then until 2003, when it ceased to exist—for over 10 years.

The committee was quite prolific. It tabled 56 reports. It made 276 recommendations. It held 188 hearings, which is an average of one every three weeks for twelve years. It took 4,762 submissions, and, at one point when superannuation was quite hot, the committee's website reached 42,000 hits per month. So the work of the committee was being watched and scrutinised, and John was driving that work. It still holds the status of the longest running Senate select committee in the Australian parliament's history—12 years and three months. I'm not sure another one would survive that long in the future. I would like to acknowledge Richard Gilbert, who worked in the secretariat for the committee.

There were a number of comments made on its formation. Senator Sid Spindler, who was the Democrat spokesman for Treasury, moved the motion for the committee and said:

We were concerned that there was no formal vehicle for independent input to the Government's decision-making in this increasingly crucial area of economic and social policy.

That was the rationale for the committee being put together in the first place. The committee had a strategy and a modus operandi that was paying specific attention to the question of how it was going to manage its work, the tasks allocated to it, and even devoted one of its reports to describing and reflecting upon a very self-conscious approach.

There were a number of themes: the inquiry process was something that needed to be consciously planned; the committee must remain focused on policy and not get sidetracked by trying to solve specific problems; if the committee's work was to be relevant to the policy debate, its reports would need to be timely, and they were; the committee must develop its own expertise, which I've already mentioned; and the committee must be self-confident and proactive. The committee was quite proactive, sometimes to the chagrin of portfolio ministers, I have to say. One of the committee's key roles would be to promote debate and public awareness, and, as I've mentioned in the stats of the number of people who interacted with the committee website, the committee certainly achieved that.

As has been mentioned, there are some tributes to the committee and the work of John and former senator Sherry in the conduct of their work:

I want to pay tribute to … its chairs, Senator Watson and Senator Sherry, who have been fiercely independently minded and have given their governments a right royal razzle dazzle whenever required over the course of the last 12 years.

So they were very, very determined to make sure that their work was effective. The quote goes on:

It is an example of the Senate working at its best over a long period of time. It is an example of what Senate committees can do when they work together: look at the information, put politics aside and actually produce good policy. As a result the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation has been one of the most effective committees this Senate has seen over the past 12 years.

Senator Sherry said:

We cannot test this information by referring the bills to the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation—

This is when the committee was disbanded—

We cannot test this information by referring the bills to the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation. That committee has been abolished or it has lapsed—they are having a barbeque after 12 years, which I am missing—so there is no opportunity to ask those detailed questions.

So Senator Sherry was obviously lamenting the fact that the committee was leaving. Senator Coonan, not so unhappy to see the committee go, said:

Driving a stake through its heart! … I don't think it will be dead until you cut off its head and stick an apple in its mouth.

So, as I said, it did do its job in asking questions.

A friend of ours—and I'm sure Senator Askew might elaborate on this a little later—mentioned at John's celebratory celebration that at one point in time during a committee debate John Watson stood up and said to the minister, 'This will have this bad effect if you pass this amendment.' The minister argued a little bit but then asked that the committee report so that he could go away and find out whether John was right. The minister did not go on with the debate because he knew that John Watson had stood up and said there was a problem with this amendment. So he suspended the debate, came back and continued with it after having checked it out. That was a comment passed to Don from a former clerk of the Senate, who noted that action. So the respect for John goes across the parliament.

I found this article that was published on 23 June 2008, not long after John had retired from the parliament, by Alan Thornhill, who asked the question, 'Who is John Watson, Anyway?' And the article starts:

You may never have heard of outgoing Tasmanian Liberal Senator John Watson, but you will probably have good reason to thank him one day.

Your retirement will almost certainly be much more comfortable than it might otherwise have been, because of his work.

Paul Keating has, quite rightly, taken much of the credit for overhauling Australia's superannuation industry. But it was the quiet work that Senator Watson undertook in the shadows of parliamentary committees that made Keating's vision of worthwhile superannuation for all Australians a reality.

I think that's a great tribute for John, along with the respect that was paid to him by others in the parliament at the time—to chair the committee as an opposition senator.

As I said before, to survive for 30 years in this place, you have to have a pretty decent survival instinct, and John certainly had that. In 1996, I was a candidate for preselection for the Senate—along with a number of other notables, including former premier Robin Gray—and John, very keen to continue his parliamentary career, rolled up with a lawyer's trolley full of Senate inquiry reports that he had authored through the Senate committee and rolled that into the preselection room to demonstrate his efforts and the work that he'd done. And it was effective, because neither myself nor Robin Gray were preselected for that particular election. Jocelyn Newman, Paul Calvert and John Watson prevailed for that particular ticket.

In the subsequent preselection that he contested in 2000, for the 2001 election, John turned up with his pathology reports to demonstrate that he was still fit and ready to go and could serve another term, and he succeeded in being preselected at No. 2 on that ticket and served until the next election. Of course, as we know as senators, there's always someone who's looking for our job or thinks that someone else might be better. So these were—deservedly and properly—very robustly contested preselections.

Yes, Senator McKenzie, former senator Abetz was a player. There's no question about that in that process. The ticket in 2001 was Paul Calvert, John Watson and me. That was the point at which I first came to work with John as a colleague.

As has been mentioned, John was a man of faith, and, through the words that I took from his valedictory, you can see how he applied that. He actually lived that. He actually lived that in the way he interacted with people in this place on a daily basis. He wasn't somebody who shoved it down your throat. He wasn't somebody who was an evangelist as such. But he lived his faith and he observed it. He was a pioneer in the place, as has already been mentioned. He and colleagues in the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship pioneered the first National Prayer Breakfast, held in Old Parliament House, which continues today as an annual event. John was part of starting that.

Something that I didn't know about John is that he contracted polio as a child. He went on to become a very good athlete. He used to race the trains and the trams home, and he held a state record in athletics for many years. That's not something that I necessarily would have associated John with, but it showed his persistence. He loved his farm, his cattle and sheep and spent quite a deal of time there, and his family remember those times, I know, very fondly. As I mentioned, he won a blue ribbon very recently.

His engagement with Launceston City Mission, in particular, I think is something worth noting. Of course he was deservingly recognised with a membership of the Order of Australia after his retirement from the parliament. I don't know that I can think of anyone who would be more deserving of that honour.

I want to finish with a little bit of a poem that was read by his son at the celebration of his life, because I think it also encapsulates John. It's the poem 'If' by Rudyard Kipling. He encouraged his children to learn the poem, and they did. I think it says something about John's philosophy and the way that he worked and operated in this place. It goes:

If you can keep your head when all about you

Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;

If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,

But make allowance for their doubting too;

If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,

Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,

Or being hated, don't give way to hating,

And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise;

There are a number of other verses to it. I won't put all of that on the record, but I think it's worth going back and having a look at because it's probably not a bad message, either, for all of us. But it says a lot about John Watson that that was something that he valued and taught to his children.

In closing, I extend my deepest sympathies to Jocelyn and the family. It's great that some of them are able to be here and that others can watch the live streaming today. It was a terrific tribute to his life that a few of us attended a couple of weeks ago. It was a deserving tribute to somebody who made a significant contribution to his local community and to his state but particularly to the country through his work on the Select Committee on Superannuation.

On behalf of the Nationals, I rise to pay tribute to former senator John Watson, who served the state of Tasmania valiantly for an extraordinary 30 years. John became Father of the Senate in 2005 until his departure from politics in 2008 and was succeeded by our own dear former senator Ron Boswell. Senator Watson was, in tandem with former fellow Tasmanian Labor senator Nick Sherry, an expert without peer in superannuation policy in this parliament. Senator Watson's contribution to Australia's superannuation system, as a coalition MP, was very important. How much of the super system we all benefit from today was through Senator Watson's hard work and participation in countless inquiries, committees, speeches and advocacy, mostly as a backbencher, should never be underestimated. That's been expanded on by my colleagues.

Senator Watson persuaded the coalition, despite considerable opposition from sections of the Liberal Party, that compulsory saving for your retirement was a good idea. We all owe him a deep gratitude for his vision and hard work. To Senator Watson's wife, Jocelyn, and his family, some of whom are in the chamber today, I offer my party's deep condolences, Vale, John Odin Wentworth Watson.

I'm honoured to contribute to the condolence motion today relating to the late John Watson AM, who was a senator for Tasmania for exactly 30 years. I attended former senator John Watson's funeral in Launceston just two weeks ago and, unsurprisingly, there was a very large congregation, including colleagues, both state and federal, many former staff, friends and, of course, John's family and extended family. A particularly lovely touch was the presence of the Railway Silver Band, in their bright uniforms, who played at the conclusion of the service. John Watson was patron of the band for many years both as a senator and after.

Not many senators achieve 30 years in this place. It is a feature of the churn of members that there are few in the chamber who shared these benches with John Watson. The Leader of the Government, Senator Wong, as she mentioned, Senator Carol Brown and my colleague Senator Richard Colbeck all served with him. At his funeral, the point was made that there is only a handful of senators since Federation who have made such a substantial contribution to the development of policy in Australia without achieving ministerial office. One of those who falls into that category would be former Tasmanian senator the Hon. Peter Rae AO and another is the man we are remembering here today.

As has been mentioned, John Watson's contribution to the development of Australia's superannuation and taxation laws cannot be overstated. He served on the longest established select committee in the Senate's history, the Select Committee on Superannuation, as we've heard, which was later renamed the Select Committee on Superannuation and Financial Services and operated from 1991 to 2001. Most unusually, in 1993 John Watson was elected chair of that committee. This was a time when opposition senators did not hold chairmanship of committees. But it was universally accepted across the political divide that there was no-one in the parliament who knew more about the complexities of superannuation and retirement income than John Watson.

John graduated from the University of Tasmania with a Bachelor of Economics in 1960 and then a Bachelor of Commerce in 1962. It was most uncommon at that time for a person to undertake a combined degree. He continued his education and became a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Secretaries, the Taxation Institute of Australia and the Institute of Chartered Accountants. John commenced in an accounting role at the Kelsall and Kemp textile mill in Launceston and steadily rose up the ranks to end up as managing director. He was one of very few members of this place to have been managing director of a large manufacturing company. Another who comes to mind is another Tasmanian senator and great friend of John's, the late Senator Brian Gibson.

However, when the Whitlam government decided to end textile, clothing and footwear tariffs, the economic effects on Launceston and the Tamar Valley were nothing short of devastating. Launceston had long been the home of not only Kelsall and Kemp but also Coats Patons, James Nelson and Waverley Woollen Mills. They employed hundreds of people, and hundreds more had ancillary jobs because of them. There were often three generations of people who worked in these mills because they were good and beneficial employers. Only the last of these three exists today. The others were destroyed by the tariff decision. John Watson spent weeks, as we've heard, driving around Launceston, trying to place his staff in new jobs when Kelsall and Kemp was to close. At the end of that task, as we've heard, he was left without a job himself.

John stood for the Senate in the half-Senate election in 1977 on a ticket with Shirley Walters, the first woman Senator from Tasmania, and Brian Archer. He was in the risky third seat and not assured of election. However, huge numbers of Kelsall and Kemp workers, not traditionally Liberal supporters, came out en masse to distribute leaflets and support him. They wanted to repay what he had done for them.

As history shows, John was elected easily and took his seat in July 1978. He was re-elected on six subsequent occasions. He decided that the way to succeed in the Senate was to find an area to specialise in, and he had one that was ready-made because of his astute accounting background. It is fair to say that John Watson together with his Labor Tasmanian colleague Nick Sherry deserve huge recognition for the tremendous amount of work they did in developing superannuation policy. John particularly fought for many years, right up until he left the Senate, to try and make superannuation completely portable, and I know he was conscious that there was still work to do in that area.

However, he did not confine his work only to that area. He served on the Joint Committee of Public Accounts for 27 years, including as chair and vice-chair, and he was part of 57 reports that committee tabled in that time. Richard Gilbert, who is here today, who was a Senate officer and secretary of the superannuation select committee before going on to head up the national superannuation association, paid warm tribute to John at his funeral and recalled taking a draft report into his Senate office for what he thought would be a quick sign off, only to leave three hours later after John Watson had read every word and laden him with many comments and suggestions. He said he learnt never to make that mistake again!

John was a staunch supporter of Tasmania, following in the vein of the senator who he'd succeeded, Sir Reginald Wright. John was prepared to cross the floor when he felt some decision would adversely affect his state, but he never did it without advising his leader and he never did it in a way that was designed to embarrass his party.

John grew up as a member of the Presbyterian Church, and his Christian faith was a strong guide in his life. He attended the then Scotch College in Launceston and later served on the council of the school. A stained-glass window in the college chapel was relocated at John's expense from Chalmers Church in Launceston when that church closed as a place of worship. John Watson was, for a long time, secretary of the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship and instituted the National Prayer Breakfast, maintaining strong links with many senators and members and their staff, across party lines. He took great care to invite interesting speakers for those events.

John Watson maintained a farm on the west Tamar, just outside the town of Exeter in the Tamar Valley. There he ran sheep, and he was very pleased, as Senator Colbeck has mentioned, only recently to have been awarded a first prize blue ribbon at the Exeter Show.

His interest in agriculture led him into a surprising diplomatic incident in Canberra. In 1989, he was a member of the organising committee for the World Sheep and Wool Congress, which was held in Launceston. Delegates came from across the globe to attend the meeting. John Watson was given the task of encouraging the USSR to send a delegation. He made an appointment with the agricultural counsellor at the Russian embassy, and, at the appointed time, was driven in a Commonwealth car the short distance from Parliament House to the embassy on Canberra Avenue. As his car arrived, the gate of the embassy opened to allow another vehicle to leave the compound. Knowing they were expected, Senator Watson told the driver to drive on through. The embassy, however, had other ideas, and the heavy gates closed on the car, crumpling each side of it. I understand the Russians did not turn a hair, and the meeting went ahead with no comment at all.

It was appropriate that, in 2014, John was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia for his parliamentary service—in particular, the improvement of financial services and protection for Australian people.

John was strongly supported throughout his career, both at Kelsall and Kemp and in the Senate, by his wife, Jocelyn, who herself is well known in northern Tasmania and was herself honoured in the Order of Australia for services to pharmacy. At the funeral, each of John and Jocelyn's children, Ian, Rosemary, Fiona and Geoff—and I acknowledge Rosemary and Geoff in the gallery today—spoke warmly about an aspect of their father's life. It was, as funerals should be, a celebration of a life, and, in this case, a life of exemplary service and commitment to Tasmania and Australia as a whole.

On a personal note, my late father was a good friend of John Watson and shared many of his values, and that made it particularly moving to hear those stories and memories referred to at his funeral. My brother, former senator David Bushby, served with John briefly towards the end of John's career, and, personally, I have been fortunate to have ongoing support and encouragement from both John and Jocelyn over the years, always showing a genuine, caring interest in my activities. On behalf of my extended family, I send condolences to John's family, particularly Jocelyn, their four children and their partners, and their 12 grandchildren, Caleb, Noah, Oli, Douglas, Chris, Lachlan, Jackson, Camden, Sarah, Elise, Samuel and Rachel. It is my pleasure to support this motion of condolence today.

I'd like to contribute to this debate by associating myself with the remarks of colleagues who have commemorated the life and legacy of John Odin Wentworth Watson, a former senator from Tasmania. While I didn't have the opportunity to serve with him and missed that by quite a few years, I did have the great honour of observing the legendary John Watson, both as a member of our party in Tasmania and also as a staffer in this place. Seeing the man at work in the way that has been described by so many was truly a sight to behold. It was an amazing contribution he made over a period of time. As I said, having not worked with him as a senator but being able to see him at work in his home state of Tasmania on the ground, it was clear that he had quite the fire in his belly for community service. Much of that has been chronicled here. You talk to so many people, particularly in northern Tasmania, that have benefited from his work. You can see the mark that he left on his community, on his state, and why so many of the contributions today reflect on that so much.

As my Tasmanian colleagues would know, though, one thing that our party members will miss most and missed post 2008 was his publication of 'Dialogue', which was an immense document that came out at regular intervals for members. It's something that I know members of our party feel very let down by the current crop of Tasmanian Liberal senators not replicating, but that was an amazing piece of information that a senator who spent a lot of time away in Canberra was able to provide back to his membership, the people that sent him here, to Canberra, to be a senator from that state. Despite me only having an association with John Watson in the last decade of the three that he served in this place, he had no signs of slowing down. He was still going at full pace. As his daughter Rosemary said in some notes she provided to my colleagues and me and comments she'd made on her father's passing, 'He had two speeds, go and stop, and it was mostly go.' I think that's evidenced by the comments that have been made there.

In Tassie you'd see him at community events. You'd see him at school assemblies. He'd be representing his community and taking on issues on their behalf. He'd be doing the same for statewide issues here on a regular basis, threatening to cross the floor and often crossing the floor in the interests of our state—I think that is something that meant he was truly a senator in the traditional sense—but also on behalf of the individuals that would go to him and seek help. He would not turn his back or close his door on anyone who was seeking help. We saw that in his pre-Senate days, as has been outlined here, but it was certainly in his time as a senator.

In the notes that Rosemary, his daughter, provided to us, at the end of his time as a senator he was recognised by the Investment & Financial Services Association with an industry excellence award. When the award was presented the chair of that body, David Deverall, said: 'Former senator John Watson is readily acknowledged by all and sundry as the quintessential quiet achiever. John devoted many years to strengthening Australia's financial regulatory framework and superannuation system with his attention to detail and forensic analysis.' Because, as Senator Richard Colbeck said just a moment ago, three decades in the Senate wasn't enough, he went and ran for local government, which I would argue is a harder level of government to work in, particularly in Tasmania where you are in the sights of many. He did five years on the West Tamar Council.

John Watson's achievements in this place are many, and his legacy is immense, as you can hear today. Many Tasmanians and indeed Australians have benefitted from his hard work, his efforts and his commitment to public service. But his legacy for those of us in this chamber today and those who'll come beyond is to be reminded by this. It doesn't matter what seat you occupy in this chamber, whether you're in government or opposition, whether you're on the frontbench or the backbench, there's so much you can achieve. Senator Watson wasn't a frontbencher for long at all. Yes, he might have been in government for periods of time, but some of his greatest achievements, as we've talked about here today, came from his time as an opposition senator. I think that is truly something to reflect upon as we go about our jobs here; it's certainly something I will.

In closing, I do want to reflect on his time as a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Audit. I'm not a numbers person, and I never will be. John Watson was, can I tell you, and as was pointed out earlier, and as John's daughter, Rosemary, provided in some documentation to us here, presented with a certificate for his long service on that committee. In the certificate it says he was a member for 27 years, one month and nine days. I worked out, if my maths is not off, that that is 10,911 days. I did that committee for 79 days, and that was more than enough! So I say thank God for people like John Watson, who have made the contribution they have and made Australia a better place. Vale, John Watson.

Question agreed to, honourable senators joining in a moment of silence.

by leave—I move:

That on Wednesday, 3 September 2025:

(a) the hours of meeting be 9 am till adjournment;

(b) the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 and related bill be considered under a limitation of debate and the time allotted for consideration be as follows:

  (i) second reading—1 hour, and

  (ii) all remaining stages—2 hours and 30 minutes;

(c) if consideration of the bills has not concluded earlier, the bills be called on again immediately following the

consideration of any proposals under standing order 75;

(d) divisions may take place after 6.30 pm until consideration of the bills has concluded;

(e) any order requiring the attendance of a minister be varied to provide that the minister attend at the conclusion of question time; and

(f) the question for the adjournment be proposed following the consideration of the bills, or at 7.30 pm, whichever is later.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to Senator Paterson for today, 2 September 2025, and Senator Chandler, for 3 and 4 September 2025, for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Gallagher, I move:

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.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Gallagher, I move government business notices of motion Nos. 2 to 7 together:

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable:

Department of Defence—Blarney Barracks Kapooka redevelopment project, Kapooka, New South Wales.

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable:

Services Australia—Proposed fit-out of leased premises at 90 Crown Street, Wollongong, New South Wales.

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable:

Australian Taxation Office—Proposed fit-out of leased premises: Levels 5 to 10, 152 Wharf Street, Brisbane.

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 5

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable:

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Black Mountain Greenhouse redevelopment.

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 6

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable:

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Australian Centre for disease preparedness: Stage 1 part life refit.

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 7

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable:

Department of Home Affairs—Yongah Hill Immigration Detention Centre Hawk Compound redevelopment project.

I table statements in relation to the works.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minster for Industry and Innovation, by no later than 9 am on Monday, 8 September 2025, all written and electronic correspondence, including any attachments, received by the minister, his office and the Department of Industry, Science and Resources from Glencore Australia from 13 May 2025 to date.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Industry and Innovation, by no later than 9 am on Monday, 8 September 2025, all ministerial submissions (including MS25-000480), including attachments, received by the minister and his office from the Department of Industry, Science and Resources which relate to the sale process of Whyalla Steelworks from 13 May 2025 to date.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Industry and Innovation, by no later than 9 am on Monday, 8 September 2025, all ministerial submissions, correspondence, emails, instant/electronic messages, agenda, itineraries, event briefs, meeting notes and minutes, file notes and records of conversation prepared by the Department of Industry, Science and Resources to support the Assistant Minister for Science, Technology and the Digital Economy's visit to the United States of America in August 2025.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move general business notices of motion Nos 134, 135, 136 and 137 together:

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 134

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Industry and Innovation, by no later than 9 am on Monday, 8 September 2025, those ministerial submissions, including attachments, received by the minister from the Department of Industry, Science and Resources, with the following parliamentary document record numbers: MS25-000740, MS25-000494, MS25-000586, MS25-000702 and MS25-000606.

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 135

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Industry and Innovation, by no later than 9 am on Monday, 8 September 2025, those ministerial submissions, including attachments, received by the minister from the Department of Industry, Science and Resources, with the following parliamentary document record numbers: MS25-000514, MS25-000491, MS25-000593, MS25-000695 and MS25-000761.

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 136

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Industry and Innovation, by no later than 9 am on Monday, 8 September 2025, those ministerial submissions, including attachments, received by the minister from the Department of Industry, Science and Resources, with the following parliamentary document record numbers: MS25-000472, MS25-000493, MS25-000559, MS25-000539 and MS25-000724.

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 137

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Industry and Innovation, by no later than 9 am on Monday, 8 September 2025, those ministerial submissions, including attachments, received by the minister from the Department of Industry, Science and Resources, with the following parliamentary document record numbers: MS25-000708, MS25-000706, MS25-000689 and MS25-000521.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than 5 pm on Friday, 19 September 2025, a summary, presented in the same format as the 'Household Income and Wealth, Australia' and 'Housing Occupancy and Costs' reports published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), of the data found in the 2023-24 Survey of Income and Housing, including but not limited to, data on:

(a) the Gini coefficient for gross household income;

(b) the mean weekly gross household income;

(c) the median weekly gross household income;

(d) the Gini coefficient for household net worth;

(e) the mean household net worth;

(f) the percentage of people, expressed both nationally and by state or territory, who:

(i) own their home with a mortgage,

(ii) own their home without a mortgage,

(iii) rent from a private landlord, and

(iv) rent from a state or territory housing authority;

(g) the weekly housing costs, as a percentage of income, for each of the groups mentioned in paragraph (f), expressed both nationally and by state or territory;

(h) the weekly housing costs, as a raw figure, for each of the groups mentioned in paragraph (f), expressed both nationally and by state or territory;

(i) both the median and mean mortgage outstanding, expressed both nationally and by state or territory;

(j) the number of people who own a home other than their usual residence and the total number of homes owned by these people, expressed both nationally and by state or territory;

(k) housing utilisation, including the number of persons per household and the number of bedrooms per dwelling;

(l) recent home buyers (defined by the ABS as having bought a home within the past 3 years), including the percentage of these recent home buyers who were first home buyers and the percentage who were changeover buyers; and

(m) a comparison of the difference in the figures for each of the above matters between 2019-20 and 2023-24 and between 2013-14 and 2023-24.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Thursday, 4 September 2025, the government response, in draft or final form, to the Economics References Committee report, dated July 2024 and titled Australian Securities and Investments Commission investigation and enforcement.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the response to order for the production of documents no. 100, relating to the release of all volumes of the incoming government brief prepared by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water for the incoming minister after the May 2025 federal election, as agreed to on 26 August 2025, was due by midday on Monday, 1 September 2025, and

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

(b) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to comply with the order by no later than midday on Thursday, 4 September 2025.

Question agreed to.

I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 143.

Leave granted.

I move the motion as amended:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

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

(ii) on 26 and 28 August 2025, the Senate agreed to further orders requiring the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to comply with the order by no later than midday on 27 August 2025 and midday on 1 September 2025, respectively, and

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

(b) requires the Minister representing the Minster for Climate Change and Energy to attend the Senate on Wednesday, 3 September 2025, at the conclusion of question time, 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.

Question agreed to.

I move:

(1) That the Senate notes that:

(a) under paragraph 323T(2)(c) of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009, the Administration of the Construction and General Division of the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (CFMEU) was required to present a copy of a general purpose financial report to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations by 23 February 2025;

(b) the Administration failed to present this report by this date, and committed in a letter to the minister to deliver this report 'promptly';

(c) more than 6 months after this commitment, a general purpose financial report has yet to be published; and

(d) on 23 August 2025, the Administration was required to present a second general purpose financial report, which it has also failed to do.

(2) That the following matter be referred to the Education and Employment References Committee for inquiry and report by Friday, 21 November 2025: The effectiveness of the administration of the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU, with particular reference to:

(a) the extent to which the administration has been successful at addressing crime and corruption within the division;

(b) the division's ability to represent their members while under administration;

(c) whether the use of members' dues in the running of the administration has achieved value for money;

(d) the extent to which the culture within the division has improved or worsened since the administration was put in place;

(e) the accountability of the administration to both the members and the Parliament and whether the administration has been reasonably transparent and open in its operation;

(f) the views of, and morale of, the membership of the division and any impact on membership numbers; and

(g) any other related matters.

President, could I please ask that the two parts of this motion be put separately, to facilitate our voting differently.

Certainly. I'll just advise the chamber that when I put the motion I'll put part (1) first. Senator Chisholm?

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

The CFMEU's independent administrator, Mark Irving KC, is focused on ensuring that the union operates democratically, lawfully and effectively in the best interests of its members. The administrator's first biannual report was tabled on 25 February 2025 and in the House on 25 March 2025. We have also now been provided with the administrator's general purpose financial report, which will be tabled in the House on Thursday 4 September as required by the scheme. The administrator has explained that it is not physically possible for him to provide a general purpose financial report immediately at the end of each six-month reporting period, as he needs time to prepare it. This is a problem that arises from the drafting of the scheme, not the actions of the administrator, and we are considering ways to address this for future reporting periods. We're entirely confident that the administrator and his team have undertaken the best efforts to comply with the legislative reporting obligations as drafted and that the officers and department will be working diligently in monitoring the scheme's reporting requirements.

The question is that business of the Senate No. 2, standing in the name of Senator Payman, part 1 be agreed to.

The question is that business of the Senate No. 2, standing in the name of Senator Payman, part 2 be agreed to.

I seek leave to postpone business of the Senate notice of motion No. 82 until Wednesday 3 September 2025.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) on 26 August 2025, the Senate ordered the production of a document that details the specific harm to the public interest that would result from the disclosure of the information sought by order no. 37, relating to the development of legislative instruments made under the Online Safety Act 2021, and

(ii) the Minister representing the Minister for Communications has failed to produce such a document;

(b) reaffirms the resolution of the Senate of 30 October 2003, which held that public interest immunity claims made on grounds that the information requested is commercial-in-confidence would not be entertained unless an explanation of the commercial harm that may result from the disclosure is offered to the Senate;

(c) rejects the minister's claim of public interest immunity, in the absence of an explanation; and

(d) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Communications to comply with order no. 37 and produce the documents without redaction by no later than 5 pm on Thursday, 4 September 2025.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 138, standing in the name of Senator Payman, be agreed to.

I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 141.

Leave granted.

I move the motion as amended:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) on 26 August 2025, the Senate ordered the Minister representing the Minister for Communications to either fully comply with order for the production of documents no. 8, by 9 am on Thursday, 28 August 2025 or to, by the same date, in respect of each document where a claim of public interest immunity is asserted, provide a description of the document being withheld, the specific ground on which public interest immunity is claimed and describe the harm to the public interest expected to result from that document's disclosure;

(ii) in response to the order the minister advised that 'no further information is available as per the public interest immunity claim cited under order no. 8', and

(iii) this response does not address how the provision of a list of documents in respect of which public interest immunity is asserted would 'disclose commercially sensitive information' or 'prejudice the Government's ongoing ability to obtain relevant commercial information from stakeholders to inform the Government's consideration of policy matters'; and

(b) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Communications to attend the Senate on Wednesday, 3 September 2025 at the conclusion of question time to provide an explanation of no more than 5 minutes as to why the minister has not complied with the Senate's order, including how the provision of a list of documents could harm the public interest, and that:

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

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

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 141, as amended by Senator Pocock, be agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, by 5 pm on 12 September 2025, all reports on bail and remand in the possession of the Attorney-General and their department from the last 2 years including but not limited to:

(a) the bail and remand report provided by the Justice Policy Partnership to the Standing Council of Attorneys-General in July 2024; and

(b) the bail and remand report provided by the Bail and Remand Reform Working Group to the Standing Council of Attorneys-General in August 2025.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I ask that the government's opposition be recorded.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Indigenous Australians, by 5 pm on 12 September 2025, all reports on bail and remand in the possession of the minister and their department from the last 2 years including but not limited to:

(a) the bail and remand report provided by the Justice Policy Partnership to the Standing Council of Attorneys-General in July 2024; and

(b) the bail and remand report provided by the Bail and Remand Reform Working Group to the Standing Council of Attorneys-General in August 2025.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I ask that the government's opposition be recorded.

At the request of Senator Henderson, I move:

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

(2) That the Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024 (No. 2) be restored to the Notice Paper and consideration of the bill resume at the second reading stage.

Question agreed to.

I remind senators that yesterday at 6.30 pm a vote was deferred relating to an amendment moved by Senator Askew to a motion to refer a matter to the Economics References Committee. I understand it suits the convenience of the Senate to hold the vote now. The question on closure will be put first. If that is agreed to, I'll put the question on the amendment. The question is that the question be now put.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Just a moment, everyone. Senator Scarr has asked for a cancellation of this division.

Question agreed to.

The question is that the amendment, as moved by Senator Askew and standing in the name of Cash, be agreed to.

I understand that senators may wish to make further contributions to the motion. Further debate will, therefore, resume at item 21 on the Order of Business.

Order! Senator Colbeck has submitted a proposal, under standing order 75, today, as shown at item 15 of today's Order of Business:

Labor's inaction and broken promises have left more than 200,000 vulnerable older Australians and their families waiting for either a home care package or an assessment for a home care package, and under Labor's watch, older Australians are waiting triple the amount of time for support.

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 take great pleasure in introducing this MPI today, which highlights the failure and the broken promise of the government, particularly in relation to the provision of home-care packages that we are currently seeing in this country. This self-generated crisis in home care is purely and simply a function of this government's failure. Why do I say that? I say that because I've had a look at the numbers.

Obviously, in the previous coalition government, I had a bit to do with this area of the portfolio, and I'm quite proud of the effect that the investment the coalition made into home-care packages had on waiting times and the waiting list for senior Australians who were seeking a home-care package. Over the three years from 2019 to the 2022 election, the coalition inserted an additional 40,000 home-care packages each and every year into the home-care system. In response to the royal commission report that was handed down in March 2021, the coalition invested $17.1 billion, and over $7 billion went into those additional home-care packages.

The result of that investment was that the waiting time for a home-care package at any level in this country was reduced, from a very unacceptable level of over a year to 30 to 90 days. If the individual had been assessed as requiring a package at high need, before we got to the 2022 election we had achieved delivery of that home-care package in less than 30 days. There's the benchmark. The investment of the coalition had reduced the waiting time for a home-care package in this country to 30 to 90 days by 2022-23. And we reduced the waiting list—the number of people on the national priority list—from close to 129,000 people to less than 29,000 people. We took 100,000 people off the national priority list.

The scandal, the outrage and the complete disgrace that is the situation today is that, under this government, that achievement has been completely and utterly squandered. The waiting list now is at least 87,597, and we don't know the full extent of it because the government won't release the numbers. That's the waiting list as of March this year. And the waiting time is up to 15 months. So, from 30-90 days, the waiting time has blown out to up to 15 months for someone seeking a home-care package. That is not acceptable. It wasn't acceptable when it was that high under us. We worked hard, we invested, we made the changes and we put additional home-care packages into the system to reduce the waiting list down to less than 29,000 and the waiting time down to 30 to 90 days for a package at any level. It's just outrageous that this government has allowed it to blow out. It hasn't released new packages; it's recycling packages. It hasn't listed a new package since 1 July this year. The talking points for government senators will say that they're putting 2,100-odd packages into the system every week, but that's just somebody who's either dying or going into an aged-care facility and relinquishing their package for it to become available for someone else.

The government needs to make sure that there is enough capacity in the system to bring the waiting list down. We did that. The government needs to do that. It needs to be honest with the Australian people about the crisis that it has created itself, and it needs to keep its promise to put the care back into aged care, not just— (Time expired)

I welcome the opportunity to speak about a topic close to my heart, and that is aged care. As you know, in my previous life I was a doctor working in a major public hospital. I wore two hats: one was as a general physician, and the other was as an infectious diseases specialist. As a general physician, which was actually the bulk of my work, I looked after a lot of elderly Australians. It was, in fact, probably the majority of my workload and my case mix. I saw every ailment and every problem under the sun, and one of the characteristics of all those frail elderly Australians who would come through the door and would be admitted into hospital was multimorbidity. They would have multiple comorbidities, one on top of another on top of another.

But it could be much worse than that. In some cases, these were elderly Australians who were coping or barely coping with social isolation. Some had been abandoned by their families; they were alienated from their families or estranged from them. Others were actually victims of a pretty silent scourge in our communities, and that is elder abuse—where an older Australian is exploited, usually by one of their children. This was a common occurrence, and we would often have to bring our hospital lawyers to deal with this.

But there was certainly a surge during the pandemic years. Senator Colbeck cited 2019 to 2022 and all the achievements of the former Morrison government, but that period, for me, was spent on the frontline in the hospital in PPE caring for a whole string of elderly Australians who were flooding through the doors. Many were gasping for air. Others were delirious. Some had had falls. Some experienced all three of those things together. What I noticed during that time was a complete collapse of the aged-care system, such that we had hospitals that were getting overwhelmed with frail elderly people and we had a workforce that was utterly decimated during that period, burnt out and leaving the sector. Is it any wonder that we are now trying to clean up the mess, a legacy that was born from chronic underinvestment in aged care over the previous decade of Liberal stewardship and then made worse by the pressure test that was COVID?

In fact, the first piece of legislation we passed as a government in 2022 was not actually about climate change; that was the second one. It was on aged care. We had to bring on this emergency legislation in order to rescue the sector. What we've seen since is, in fact, a huge uplift in the workforce. We've poured $18 billion into the aged-care workforce, and it always starts with the workforce. In care, it always starts with the workforce. The workforce is everything. They are the ones who provide the care. It is called 'aged care' for a reason. It's not infrastructure and all of that; it is the workforce. So we brought in $18 billion and basically increased the wages of this important, mission-critical workforce, such that registered nurses are now $430 a week better off and carers are $320 a week better off.

But that wasn't all. We also brought in 24/7 nursing, and that's present now in 99 per cent of aged-care sites. Having a nurse on site actually means that you get far less egress of patients into hospital because nurses on site can manage medical issues. They can seek advice. They can dispense medication. They can also palliate patients in residential aged-care facilities. This has, in effect, lifted the confidence of Australians again in residential aged care.

The next piece of reform that is going to start on 1 November is a whole new generational change, which looks at how we better support Australians at home and how we put their wishes and preferences at the centre of everything we do. That is something that was missing in the previous aged-care act, so there'll be a whole new act that kicks off on 1 November. It has been passed thanks to the bipartisan approach we have taken with the coalition, and a key part of the act is Support at Home. Support at Home will come with the injection of 83,000 new packages into the system. That is designed to enable more Australians to have autonomy and remain at home, which is entirely aligned with their own wishes.

Right now, people are dying while they wait for aged care. At the Community Affairs References Committee inquiry on Friday, we learned four things. One thing was that the waitlist for people who are waiting for home-care packages is not 87,000 people; it's well over 200,000. That is 200,000 older Australians in this country who cannot get the care that they need at the time that they need it. The second thing we heard was that, categorically, providers are ready, willing and able to roll out more home-care packages now—not in four months, but now.

The third thing was that we were told by the department that there is no technical reason or impediment to the government rolling out home-care packages as of 1 July rather than delaying it by four months to 1 November. In the department's words, 'The only reason they're not being rolled out is a decision of the minister.' And the fourth thing that we learned was that the 2,700 packages that the minister said are being released each week are not new packages. They are packages that get re-allocated when somebody who has one dies or goes into residential aged care. Not one single home-care package has been released since 1 July.

The minister has said, 'Four months isn't too long to wait.' Well, we heard at the inquiry that four months for an older person who requires care at home is catastrophic. It means earlier hospital admissions. It means rapid decline. And it means being pushed into residential aged-care facilities sooner, unless you are one of the people dying while waiting for care. Shame on this government. There's no reason not to release home-care packages now, yet you are asking older Australians in this country to wait. Families are being told that the fastest route to get care is to admit their older parent or their grandparent to hospital. Again, shame on this government. The only thing standing between older people and the care that they need is the minister and this Labor government.

Thank you, Senator Allman-Payne, for your words and for your work on the Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs and on the aged-care inquiries, both in this parliamentary term and previously. I sit here shaking my head while listening to the speakers not just now but also during question time and taking note of answers. I don't know what more we need to say and do or how much more loudly we need to speak to make it very, very clear that there is a crisis in relation to this issue in this country. And, if the government would like to pretend that there is no problem here and that there is nothing to see here, then I would suggest that they have a reality check. I think one of the comments in the chamber earlier today was that there was a conflation about this problem. There is no conflation. This is real. There are some 200,000 elderly Australians waiting to either be assessed or be assigned a home-care package, and that is entirely unacceptable. The waiting time from end to end for some of these people is almost two years. They point and say—I think these were the words from Senator Ananda-Rajah; I wrote them down—'We had to rescue the sector.'

We did!

So rescuing the sector means making people wait for two years? Senator Polley, I listened to you and you got to speak in silence. I think I deserve the same respect.

Order! I remind senators that interjections are disorderly.

More than 200,000 older Australians are waiting for access to these packages, and I don't find it funny. My elderly mother is one of them. She's 91 years old. In November 2023, we made the request for a review of her package. We followed up in March 2024. We were told it would be a six- to nine-month wait. She was approved on 10 December 2024 for an upgrade from a level 1 to a level 4 because she had gone from 1 to 2 to 3 to 4. Guess what? We're still waiting. I actually rang them this morning, just to find out where she was up to. The waiting time is no longer six to nine months. It is now nine to 12 months. She's not alone. She's one of 200,000 elderly Australians that are waiting for this government to do something.

They dare to stand in this chamber and tell us that they're releasing packages every single week when we know that they have not released one single new package since 1 July. They should be deeply ashamed of that. These are people who have worked hard their whole lives. These are people who have raised families. These are people who have contributed to our society. And, now, when they are at a vulnerable time in their lives and they need our assistance and support, we are letting them down. Not only are they being let down; the reality of what they are living through is being obfuscated about by this government, pretending that it's not real. Well, it is absolutely real for every single one of those 200,000 people.

Whilst I wasn't at the inquiry on Friday, I have heard those stories as well. Imagine being offered a place when your beloved husband, wife, mum, dad or other family member has just passed away or when it's far too late? That's not right. We should be ashamed of that. Every single one of us in this place is responsible and accountable for that, but the government has the carriage of it.

As has been noted many times, the aged care bill was something that we worked with the government on. It was bipartisan and we should all be proud of that because we're trying to get the outcome. But we've can't hide from the fact that we are not delivering the packages. This government is not delivering the packages that Australians need. This is an aged-care crisis entirely created by the actions of this government. The Prime Minister promised security, dignity, quality and humanity being placed back into aged care. None of that has happened. People have had to wait longer and longer. That is an absolute shame. The Prime Minister has failed older Australians who need support so they can live with dignity in their own homes. (Time expired)

The truth is that, when Labor came into government, we inherited an aged-care system that was in crisis. If you're talking about a crisis that people are experiencing, yes, there's still a lot more to be done. To say the government doesn't recognise that there's more to be done is untruthful. This is because of the crisis that we inherited from those opposite, who were in government for nine years. I didn't see any tears from the Greens during that time, attacking the Liberal coalition government then, because now they're good buddies. What did we see? We saw a failed government who were so bad in this sector that they had to call a royal commission into their own failings.

So, when the Albanese Labor government came into office, the aged-care sector, as I said, had been underfunded for a decade and was overstretched and plagued by long waiting lists. Families were anxious, workers were leaving the sector and older Australians were simply not getting the care that they needed. Now, they knew during that period of time, because they had five—five—failed aged-care ministers, and not one of them was really interested in the portfolio that they had. And, although we've had a contribution by Senator Colbeck from the other side, I think it's really interesting that he is actually paying more attention to this portfolio now than when he was the minister for aged care, because he put sporting events over older Australians during a time of absolute crisis. This was the Liberal government under which there was a royal commission and the title of its report was Neglect. That's when this country had an aged-care crisis. So let's be quite truthful.

Now of course we would like to deliver more home-care packages faster. What we have done is to invest in the workforce—something that they neglected. And still, when we put that legislation through this parliament, they didn't support it. So the crocodile tears don't work—not in this chamber, where people on this side have been advocating for and supporting this sector, because of older Australians and what they've contributed to their country and also because we've had parents and relatives go through the system. But what we have to do is be truthful. Just coming along and working on one piece of legislation doesn't mean you're an expert and that nothing happened when you were in government. We will not allow you to get away with that.

Right now, there are 2,000 new packages being allocated every single week, and, for every older Australian who is assessed as high priority, the wait time is just one month. From 1 November, when the Support at Home program begins, we will make available 83,000 new home-care places in the very first year. That's a major expansion in services—not the neglect of Senator Colbeck and that government.

Now, the Albanese government acknowledges, as I said, that wait times for aged-care assessments are longer than we would like, and we don't shy away from that. But the system is complex, and it's changing for the better. The royal commission called for one single streamlined assessment process for older Australians, so that they don't have to go through repeated assessments as their needs evolve. Labor is delivering that reform. Last year, more than 521,000 assessments were completed, and wait times are already falling. The median time for an assessment was 30 days in the June quarter and dropped to 25 days in July. That is progress in the right direction.

The government wants a system that cares for senior Australians, and it wants workers who are there because they want to be there and are being paid an appropriate wage. So to those who want to bring motions like this before the chamber, where they want to rewrite history, I say: bring it on, because the truth is there in the figures. People, unfortunately, have always died waiting for aged-care packages and, unfortunately, even waiting to get into residential care. But don't use those people for your political games, which is what you're trying to do now. We know, and so do the Australian people, that the system was broken under the Liberal coalition—that's the fact. Otherwise, why did you call a royal commission into your own failings? Because you knew you had failed older Australians and they— (Time expired)

Like many on the Liberal side, Senator Colbeck is quick to point the finger on inaction, broken promises and vulnerable older Australians being left in the lurch. What's surprising is that it's true, but it's not just Labor. We had workforce shortages before Labor. We had an ageing population before Labor. We had growing rates of chronic illness before Labor. We certainly had budget pressures before Labor. What we didn't have before Labor was a home-care package waitlist of over 100,000. We had a waitlist of 20,000. Such an increase is a huge failure. What's worse is deliberately withholding the rollout of 83,000 packages when you already have over 100,000 on the waitlist. These people are on average waiting at least six months and up to 15 months. That's over a year of extra stress on the individual and their family. Tasmania's got the oldest population in the country, so what happens in aged care hits us hardest and hits us first.

The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety recommended that we should implement continuous reforms and ensure equitable access to aged care. Since then, to be fair to Labor, some good steps have been taken in our aged-care industry—better pay for carers and revamps of outdated care homes; all good things. But Tasmania has the greatest need for community-care packages and is the hardest hit by a government deliberately withholding them. The oldest, poorest, sickest state is the one that feels the greatest pain by a government induced shortage. We are the ones who pay. We need to streamline the assessment process and ensure the effective rollout of aged-care packages to all Australians. No-one should have to wait 15 months for a hand.

Labor is overseeing an aged-care crisis created entirely by its own actions. Anthony Albanese promised to put security, dignity, quality and humanity back into aged care. In March 2021, before he took power, he said, 'We cannot be satisfied with the situation where older Australians are dying while they're waiting for their home-care places.' But the Prime Minister has failed Australians on his watch. The worst part is that Anthony Albanese promised Australians 83,000 new home-care places from 1 July—

Senator McAllister?

I didn't intervene on the first occasion, but if Senator Ruston could refer to the Prime Minister by his proper title that would be appreciated.

I remind Senator Ruston to use the proper titles of members and senators.

The Prime Minister promised to deliver 83,000 new home-care packages from 1 July 2025, yet not a single package has been released in this financial year by the government. That's because the government backflipped on its promise immediately following the election.

What's most concerning is the government is refusing to admit the real reason it has delayed the release of these essential packages. The minister keeps saying the sector weren't ready. However, peak bodies, providers and advocacy groups unanimously told the Senate Community Affairs References Committee inquiry last Friday that the sector is absolutely ready to stand by to provide that new care now. The Department of Health, Disability and Ageing and Services Australia both confirmed that there are no barriers to packages being released now except for the decision by the minister not to do so. So the department is ready and the sector is ready, but this government continues to withhold critical aged-care packages and places without any reasonable excuse at all. Why will the government not admit that the only thing standing in the way of older Australians accessing the care that they have been assessed by this government as needing is themselves? They are actively withholding this critical support from Australians who desperately need it, and the government must be condemned for this action. They must be held to account for the waitlist crisis that is before us.

Today we heard from the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors, who blamed everybody but himself and the government for the crisis that has befallen our aged-care sector—a crisis that has worsened over the last two years, particularly with over 200,000 people that we know of in limbo waiting for care. He blamed the sector. He blamed his own department. He blamed the coalition. He even blamed his own reforms as the reason he hadn't released these packages. This is tantamount to the states and territories doing a hospital reform process and not admitting any new patients into the hospital until the reforms are in place, or emergency departments around the country being closed down for a few weeks while they do a refurbishment. This is completely and utterly ridiculous. The only reason Australians are being denied the care they need to stay in their own homes is the minister has made an active decision not to release home-care packages.

The other thing that is really concerning as we stand here today is that for some months now I, Senator Allman-Payne, Senator Pocock and a number of other senators have been trying to get information about what the waiting list currently is. The last piece of information we were given was that 87,000-plus people were on the priority list waiting for homecare packages that they had been assessed as needing—as I said, on 31 March. In previous practice, the government has always provided that information immediately in the following month. So, the information for July should be available by now. We haven't had any information for April, none for May, none for June and none for July. We want to know why the government is withholding this information. We asked for it on Friday. They said they'd give it to us yesterday. They did not provide that information.

The cynic would suggest that the government is not providing that information because they simply do not want to admit to Australia that the waitlist crisis—not just the number of people on the waitlist but the length of time they are waiting—has blown out to the extent that it is likely to be the worst waitlist and the worst wait times in the history of aged care in this country.

The time for the discussion has now expired.

Senator Tyrrell has submitted a proposal, shown as item 15 on today's Order of Business:

That the actions taken by the government to address housing shortages are insufficient in achieving its intended outcome, and more needs to be done.

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.

Australians are facing a big issue, a housing affordability crisis. Australia is home to the second most expensive housing market in the English-speaking world. The dream of owning a home has become just that: a dream. It was a dream I had and worked really hard to achieve, and it took me a long time. I was fortunate enough, though, to be born at a time when things were a little bit easier. What I hear from many Tasmanians, younger Australians, is that they are living pay to pay. Saving for a house isn't on the table. All the while, housing prices continue to rise beyond the reach of new home entrance.

The RBA can't make housing more affordable, realistically. It can make the funds to buy a house cheaper but, when it does, they get cheaper for everybody, first-home buyers and investors alike. Realistically, the only path to more-affordable housing is the government, not The Reserve Bank. That's why the fact that the government is doing so little is so embarrassing. The Labor government says they are acting—and they're good at it, too. They throw money at first-home owner schemes and start up the Housing Australia Future Fund—then, pens down.

It's fair to acknowledge that generally crossbench politicians tend to criticise from the sidelines, complaining how bad everything is and never offering solutions. But that's just not me. I want to help fix things. So here are a few things we could do right now. The government could hire an architect to produce free floor plans for a series of low-cost housing designs, using off-the-shelf components wherever possible and for use in a wide range of communities. The federal government could pay councils who agree to use approved plans in a streamlined application process—a per-approval bonus. Councils would be held accountable and have to explain to ratepayers for failing to approve these applications. Councils already face pressures to vote down development applications from NIMBY advocates.

The government's target is 1.2 million new homes over five years. If 10 per cent of those were from this blueprint, it would fast-track 24,000 brand new homes and cost the federal government $480 million a year. To put that number into context, the Housing Australia Future Fund made $750 million last year and has supported 13,800 homes. Keep these approvals simple and subsequently reduce the cost of building. Mass manufacturing common components to a similar mould would make things cheaper. The cost of a bathtub moulding is the same whether you're making one or one million. The more you make, the lower the costs. And ultra-affordable building design could allow for economies of scale that would bring down prices on builds, which is impossible to match by relying on the private sector alone. This policy could increase the supply of cheaper homes on a faster timeline with less cost to the taxpayer while creating a bunch of jobs.

Look, putting more money into the hands of buyers is not a long-term solution. Every dollar you give a buyer is a dollar that gets spent at an auction. Labor is timidly following in the footsteps of the Liberal government that came before it, in thinking about housing as which side of the face you'd like to be punched in. Is it better to cheapen the single biggest investment the majority of Australians will ever make or to drive up the value of those investments, causing the remainder to fall further and further behind? For 25 years, both chose the latter. In that time, house values have outgrown wages at double the rate.

If you create a new sector within the housing market, you don't have to choose between driving down prices or driving up prices. The price of airfares between Sydney and Melbourne isn't impacted by the price of airfares between Darwin and Adelaide. One isn't competing with the other. You create a new sector which is not competing with the rest of the market. You make the cake and can eat it too. This isn't the only thing we should do or the only thing we can do.

An option that has not been discussed, an option worth exploring, is that right now it takes too long to build a house. It costs too much and we're not doing it enough. That's where the problem is—supply, supply, supply—yet we're throwing money at demand for housing, as though the way to fix a bubble is by blowing bigger bubbles and adding more suds. If building more is what we want, we can start by building in the right direction. Simply spending more won't get us far.

Our nation's housing crisis can't be discussed in isolation from last weekend's events. Thousands of Australians took to the streets to march, with the Australian national flag in hand. Shamefully, members of the government and members of the Greens have sought to mischaracterise these marches and impugn the character of those who marched.

The Minister for Multicultural Affairs described the marchers as 'blatantly racist' and having an 'anti-immigration agenda'. Senator Faruqi expediently used the marches to again voice her anti-Westernism and her deranged view that Australians are inherently racist. She said:

Racism is the foundation of settler colonial states.

This is from the same senator who gleefully stood in front of a placard calling for the extermination of Israel; the same senator who has attended antisemitic rallies where protesters waved terrorist flags; and the same senator who condones the barbarity of Hamas, who are the actual Neo-Nazis of the Middle East. Even the Prime Minister said the tone of much of the rallies was 'unfortunate'.

Much of the Left media imbibed and repeated these misrepresentations, again exposing their abandonment of journalistic objectivity. But Australians can see through the false narratives. The vast majority of people who attended those marches are proud and decent Australians who love our country. They marched because they have legitimate concerns—concerns about the impacts of unprecedented mass migration under the Albanese government, and concerns about ruptures to our social cohesion because mass migration has opened the door to people who reject our values. The majority who marched weren't antimigrant or racist. In fact, many who marched were clearly of a migrant background, and they sang our national anthem in solidarity with those around them.

These Australians simply want an end to uncontrolled, unplanned—

Senator Price, I'm sorry to interrupt, but this MPI is on housing.

Correct.

Okay. I just make that point. You have the call.

These Australians simply want an end to uncontrolled, unplanned and unsustainable migration. They want the restoration of controlled, planned and sustainable migration. They want these things because they're seeing the ramifications of mass migration with their own eyes. They're seeing a deterioration of local services, where it's harder to get an appointment with a GP or a specialist. They're seeing greater pressures on infrastructure, with more congested transport and wear and tear, of course, on the roads.

They're seeing the impact on the housing market, where greater demand for homes has meant less supply. This, in turn, has seen rents soar and home prices skyrocket. By bringing in a record 1.2 million migrants in its first term, Labor has unleashed a housing crisis, and frankly none of the government's policies to boost housing supply are working. Not a single new house was built in the government's first term under its $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund. Moreover, to reach the 1.2 million homes Labor have promised to build by 2029, they'll need to hit a target of 250,000 homes a year, and yet they're building barely 170,000 homes a year. Just yesterday, the ABS confirmed approvals fell by 8.2 per cent in July. Under Labor a record number of building companies have gone bust—big, small, regional, metro. They're all struggling. Labour's disastrous renewables-only energy policy has driven up the cost of living, including housing construction.

The building sector has also been hamstrung by a control-obsessed government. Labor has enacted some 5,000 new regulations since coming to power. This overregulation has made it harder and more expensive to build homes. Here's the truth: Labor's housing crisis, its undermining of homeownership and its mass migration agenda all benefit this government. More Australians become dependent on the state, more Australians are forced to rent for longer, and more Australians become reliant on Labor's handouts. That's exactly what this socialist government wants, so it can cling to power at any cost.

That contribution showed you just how out of touch the opposition is. The contribution on housing ranged across a number of issues, but Senator Nampijinpa Price's reference to the Labor Party government was set nowhere in this century. I mean, it's seriously sad that someone gives a contribution like that, because the Albanese Labor government is acting on housing. We're making it easier to buy a home and fairer to rent a home, and we're building more homes across the country, including in my home state of Tasmania.

From 1 October this year, every homebuyer will be able to purchase a home with a deposit of just five per cent. The Commonwealth will guarantee part of their loan so they do not have to pay lenders mortgage insurance. That means thousands of young Tasmanians will get into the market years earlier. Over the next year alone, this will save first home buyers $1.5 billion in mortgage insurance costs. In Tasmania, almost 2,000 more Tasmanians have already gotten into their first homes under Labor's five per cent deposit policy. That is real practical help for young people in our state who might otherwise have missed out.

The real issue is supply, and that is exactly what Labor is addressing. Our $43 billion Homes for Australia plan is the boldest national housing plan since the post-war years. More than 5,000 homes have already been completed with Commonwealth investment, with another 25,000 in planning or construction, and we are delivering 5,000 social and affordable houses, with projects already underway in Tasmania. In Hobart's northern suburbs, Commonwealth funding is helping to deliver new affordable housing, giving families in Glenorchy, Goodwood and Moonah a real chance at a secure home. Thanks to the Housing Australia Future Fund alone, we are delivering more than 600 new social and affordable homes in Tasmania, with no thanks to those opposite, who blocked and delayed every single housing measure in the last term of parliament.

Senator Duniam may scoff over there, but they voted against every housing—

How many houses have you built?

Well, if you'd listened to my speech, Senator Duniam, then you'd actually know the answer to that. But I'll tell you what: it wasn't done with any help from you or the opposition, because all you do is block and delay. You've blocked and delayed every single housing measure in this last term of parliament. Let's hope that changes. But let's compare this to what those opposite did over their decade in office. I'm sure those in the opposition won't want to hear this, but they built just 373 social and affordable homes. They didn't even bother to appoint a housing minister for most of that time. The silence says everything over there; they're not interrupting now! Housing was simply not a priority for them.

In Tasmania, the consequences of that neglect are plain to see. Hobart remains one of the least affordable rental markets in the country. Families are squeezed out. Waiting lists for social housing are far too long. Builders and tradies tell me projects are being held up. This did not happen overnight; it happened because of nine long years of Liberal neglect. We also recognise that, while we're building more homes, families need help now. That is why we've increased Commonwealth rent assistance by almost 50 per cent, providing direct support to more than one million households. This is the biggest boost in 30 years. We're helping people with the cost of rent while we focus on the long-term fix of building more homes. Labor governments have always been nation-builders. Just as Labor once built the homes that gave a generation stability— (Time expired)

Australia has become a country where your birth year and your parent's wealth matter more than your pay slip when it comes to owning a home. That is not a housing system; that is a generational lottery, a lottery where the winners are those who bought decades ago and the losers are locked into a lifetime of renting, insecurity and debt.

Homeownership was once achievable on a teacher's wage, a nurse's wage or a tradie's wage. Homes used to cost two or three times your annual income, not 10 or 12 times. But young people today are staring down the barrel of lifelong renting, precarious leases and a housing market rigged against them. They are told 'to just work harder' and 'to stop eating smashed avo', while being asked to pay $600,000 for a fibro shack or $700 a week to rent a mouldy flat. Australia has a huge problem with intergenerational housing inequity and it's growing wider every single day. What is Labor's response to this crisis? Will they bring forward a bold plan to attack the root causes and to confront the tax concessions that let investors outbid first home buyers at auctions every Saturday all around this country? Will they launch a nation-building public housing program to rival the postwar build that was so important to housing in previous decades? No. Instead, we get a mirage, not real action.

Expanding the government's five per cent deposit scheme will only drive up house prices further when they're already out of reach for so many. Guess who benefits: banks and property investors. It's a lay-down misere out there in the land of economists. It is clear that this plan will drive up prices and not assist those first home buyers. It's tinkering; it's not transformation. It's making the problem worse in the longer run. Call it what it is. This is not a housing plan; it's a PR stunt. Labor wants the headlines without the hard decisions, but young Australians can't live in a headline. They can't raise families and retire with dignity in a housing system built on speculation and tax breaks for the very wealthy.

Meanwhile, the very policies that could fix this are sitting right in front of us. End the obscene tax concessions that push house prices out of reach for first home buyers. Redirect billions in public money towards building the homes we actually need—public homes, affordable homes and secure homes in the places where we need them. Up until the mid-1970s, government took a hands-on approach to housing—constructing homes for people to buy or rent at low cost. Investors weren't prioritised over the rights of people who needed shelter and governments helped people buy with cheap loans. It was these settings that generalised the homeowning dream to over 70 per cent of Australian households by the late 1960s. We did it then, and we can do it now. But, first, we need to turn off the neoliberal Kool Aid at the Labor drinking trough.

This government needs to ask itself who it's here to represent. Is it the Property Council, housing developers or the banks, which are all keeping housing out of reach? Or is it first home buyers, owner-occupiers, families, young people, children, older women and future generations? The Labor Party's plan for housing is a betrayal. It's a betrayal of every renter living one rent rise away from eviction and of every young family locked out of the housing market. It's a betrayal of the idea that in this country, if you work hard, you can build a life with security and dignity.

The Greens will keep fighting for major change, for bold reform, for public housing and for a future where your age and your parents' wealth won't determine whether you have a roof over your head. Housing should not be an intergenerational tug of war. It is the foundation of a fair society. Unless we confront the crisis with honesty and courage, we are not just failing one generation; we are failing them all.

It is a pleasure to rise and speak on housing, which is an issue of critical national importance. I'm proud to say that the Albanese government is the first government in a decade with the gumption to tackle this issue head on. We stand at a crossroads in this nation. Without urgent and decisive action, we risk condemning future generations to being locked out of the housing market. As a young mum from Queensland, I am determined to get this right for those Queenslanders who are struggling right now to get into the housing market, and we must get the policy settings right for future generations. So I agree with Senator Tyrrell when she says that more needs to be done, and it will be done.

The Albanese government is doing more than any government in recent memory. Our ambitious $43 billion Homes for Australia plan includes a commitment to deliver 55,000 social and affordable homes as well as initiatives to make it easier to buy, to make it better to rent and to build more homes. This is the boldest and most ambitious suite of housing initiatives by any government since the Second World War.

I think it's important to detail exactly how Australia got into this mess, which means a quick history lesson. For a long time, Liberal-National governments basically tapped out of taking any responsibility for our housing challenge. Successive conservative governments left it to the states to carry the can for a problem that the lack of federal leadership actually helped to create. So when we ask ourselves the question, 'How the hell did we get here?' the answer is sitting opposite—the Liberal Party and the Nationals. I think most Australians have seen their behaviour for what it is—an abandonment of their duty for the decade they were in government and political opportunism in the now. It was an absolute betrayal of the Australian dream to own a home when they blocked housing legislation in this place with the Greens.

The good news is that now, for the first time, Australia has a government committed to stepping up to the challenge of addressing this housing crisis. Labor is working to clean up this mess after a decade of inaction, scapegoating and excuses from those opposite. I don't say this for petty political point-scoring. I say it because it's important to understand the enormity of the task now in front of us, as a nation, in dealing with a decade of inaction.

I know there is a sense of desperation in the community and a sense of despair about the future because so many hardworking Australians, who are doing everything right to save for a house and being incredibly responsible with the family budget every day, still struggle to buy their own home or find an affordable rental. To those people I say that the Albanese government hears you. We hear the concerns of young people and families, seniors and singles who feel they will never have the chance to own their own home. We hear the concerns of parents who worry they won't be able to give their kids the stability they enjoyed at the same age just a few short decades ago. We hear the concerns of renters whose rents are going up too high and far too often. We hear you, we have acted and we are delivering.

In fact, since our election in 2022, despite the stonewalling of Greens senators and the conservatives in this very building, throughout the last term of government we delivered an impressive number of initiatives to improve housing conditions. We have seen more than 180,000 Australians helped by our government to buy their first home with a five per cent deposit. We have supported more than one million Australian households to pay their rent with our almost 50 per cent increase to rental assistance. We've created a real turnaround in homebuilding, with 500,000 homes built since we came to office. We've got more than 25,000 social and affordable homes in planning or construction, with over 5,000 social and affordable homes completed.

These are all positive numbers and a reason to hold hope for the future, but we are not resting on our laurels. We know we need to keep building. We know we need to make it easier to build, and we know we need to make it quicker to build. Labor is putting the decade of disaster under successive Liberal-National governments behind us. The good news for Senator Tyrrell is that we're already implementing actions to improve the future housing market. In this term of government we're going to build more than one million new homes in the next five years. That's a bold aspiration, but it is our target through the National Housing Accord. Plans are under way to construct 55,000 social and affordable homes—an area of critical need. We're also training more tradies at TAFE to get Aussie workers on the tools with a $10,000 incentive payment to study trades. (Time expired)

Australia's housing crisis is not just a policy failure; it's a national disgrace. We're witnessing the slow, systemic destruction of our great Australian dream. Young Australians—our future nurses, teachers, tradies and parents—are being priced out of their own country. They finish school or university, try to build a life and find that homeownership is now a luxury for the few, not a future for the many. The average home now costs over a million dollars. That's not normal; that's obscene.

What does the government do? They pour fuel on the fire. Labor's response is not to ease pressure but to turbocharge demand through mass immigration. Over half a million people were added in a single year—the highest intake in Australian history. Then they act shocked when 92 people show up for a rental inspection in Perth. That's not a queue; that's a desperate scramble for shelter. It's not a market; it's a war zone. And this government dares to call itself compassionate.

Let's talk about Labor's so-called solution of 1.2 million homes in five years. That sounds impressive until you look at the results. At Senate estimates earlier this year, we discovered that their flagship Housing Australia Future Fund—the HAFF—has produced just 17 homes in two years. That's not a housing strategy; it's a scandal. What's worse is that they proudly talk about acquiring a few hundred homes—buying properties already on the market. That doesn't add supply; it reduces it. It puts the government in direct competition with everyday Australians—with first home buyers, with single parents and with young couples already priced out. This is not a policy. This is economic vandalism dressed up as PR.

Worse still is that Labor's approach is draining skilled workers out of the private sector into bloated, inefficient government contracts. Why? It's to meet political deadlines and to fuel press releases. Tradies are being hoovered up by the state not to build homes for Australians but to tick a box for another media stunt. Plumbers, sparkies and tilers are in short supply. The industry is already stretched to breaking point, and now they want to double housing construction—with what workforce, with what skilled labour?

That brings us to Labor's mass immigration intake. Millions have arrived under this government, but how many are qualified tradies? Where are the carpenters, concreters, electricians, roofers, tilers, plasterers and landscapers—the people we need to build homes? Labor can't tell us because they don't know, and, frankly, they don't care. Most new arrivals come from countries with lower building standards and would need full retraining just to meet Australian codes. Even those with experience often can't contribute without upskilling. We need a doubling of skilled trades, and Labor has delivered a flood of unskilled labour that will build nothing. This is not immigration policy; this is market sabotage.

I ask the question that every Australian is asking: where is the money going? We were promised transparency; we got silence. We were promised homes; we got headlines. We were promised action; we got 17 houses. The Housing Australia Future Fund isn't just a failure; it's a con, smoke and mirrors designed to fool the public into thinking something is being done when in reality the government is doing nothing that actually works. Australians are suffering. Rents are soaring, mortgages are crushing families, homeownership is now a fading dream for an entire generation and Labor's response is more migration, more spin and more broken promises.

One Nation stands with the Australians who have had enough, who are sick of being lied to, sick of watching their kids be pushed out of the market and sick of a government that won't face reality. Labor has failed on housing. They've failed on supply, they've failed on skilled migration and they've failed to deliver anything but excuses. One Nation and everyday Australians demand answers not tomorrow and not after another review but now. They demand real answers, real solutions and a government that puts Australians first, not last.

The time for discussion has expired.

I seek leave to move a motion relating to First Nations deaths in custody as circulated.

If it assists, the government won't be providing leave, but we recognise the importance of this issue. We do want to have it dealt with but at another time.

Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, 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 First Nations deaths in custody.

On 30 July 2025, I put forward a motion following the death of Kumanjayi White which passed this chamber. At that time, there had been 13 First Nations deaths this year. Today, just one month later, there have been 22. I send my sincere love and strength to those families. May your loved ones rest in power. Every life is precious, and I share your grief and anger at their stolen lives.

Deaths in custody do not just happen; they are the products of violence and systemic racism from colonial governments. Governments make laws, police enforce them as judge, jury and executioner, and the colonial system locks us out of justice. In the Northern Territory, in just one year the Northern Territory CLP government has caused mass harm and devastation to our people. Nearly half of all those incarcerated on remand are there because of laws passed in just the last six months—shame! Ninety-three per cent of kids in prison are Aboriginal kids—93 per cent!—and 99 per cent of kids have not even been convicted. This is illegal and arbitrary detention. Prisons are bursting, courts are buckling and we have too few lawyers to fight back. 'Tough on crime' is racist propaganda. It tramples the wisdom of our elders, denies our self-determination, breaches our human rights and rejects decades of evidence based research.

These murders must not be treated as normal. Cops should not keep their jobs after killing us. The media and politicians must be held accountable for spreading racist propaganda. The federal government has long been on notice. The alarm has been sounding every day for over 34 years since the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody—every death, every child stolen and jailed, and every weapon allowed into a community by the racist police. Earlier this year, UN experts condemned Australia for jailing First Nations kids, and the government didn't even bother to respond. We have seen this government act with remarkable speed when they choose to draw on their vast powers. When state and territory governments say they won't follow human rights, it makes federal action a duty, not a choice.

The federal government can and needs to act, using its constitutional external affairs powers to set minimum standards for prisons, policing and children to meet human rights obligations and to create a national oversight body with the power to monitor and drive implementation of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and the Bringingthem home report. It needs to introduce a framework of penalties for states and territories that fail to close the gaps.

The federal parliament can override the Northern Territory law. It did so through the Northern Territory Intervention to the great harm of our people. They surveilled us, shamed us, punished us and controlled us. They could use the same powers now to act for our people. They could prohibit the use of capsicum spray in Aboriginal communities. They could ban the arming of security and police with firearms on public transport, in public housing and in our communities. And they could secure justice for Kumanjayi White.

Right now, elders from the Northern Territory are protesting in Darwin and Alice Springs, and the Blak Caucus in Sydney—outside of the PM's office. I want you all to know—every activist out there fighting for the survival of our people in this country—that I stand with you. We will not stop fighting until our people stop being killed at the hands of this racist colonial system.

I will make a very short contribution, if I can. The government, as I indicated before, recognises the importance of the motion and the issues that Senator Thorpe is raising. They are obviously very important to Senator Thorpe, but they should be important to all senators. Our issue isn't with the content. Our issue is that we haven't seen this motion; it's only recently been circulated.

Senators on all sides of the chamber have not had an opportunity to view the very complex nature of this motion. They should be given that opportunity, particularly if there's a requirement for senators to propose amendments. That's why the government was seeking to deny leave. But we do know that there are other opportunities, particularly even this week, for Senator Thorpe to put forward a motion of this kind, and for all senators to consider the content of the motion at that time. That's for Senator Thorpe to decide, but that's something that the government will consider fully. That's not something that we can do at this time. With that, I move:

That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

The question is that the suspension motion be agreed to.

I present two documents regarding government responses to committee reports as listed on today's Order of Business—one being the Australian Government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade report, the other being a letter of advice regarding the government's response to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee's report. I seek leave to incorporate the documents in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows—

Australian Government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade report:

Supporting democracy in our region

September 2025

Introduction

The Australian Government thanks the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade for its inquiry into supporting democracy in our region.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator the Hon Penny Wong, called on the Committee to establish a parliamentary inquiry into supporting democracy in our region in November 2022. The Committee delivered its report in November 2023, shortly after Minister Wong launched the Government's International Development Policy in August 2023.

The Committee's eight recommendations align well with the Government priorities set out in the International Development Policy and associated Performance and Delivery Framework, with some minor differences in implementation approach.

Australia is proud of its democratic system of government. We have a vibrant civil society, independent media, and robust institutions underpinned by the rule of law. Our independent institutions support effective government and, in turn, reinforce public confidence in government.

The Government recognises that our economy, our democratic institutions, and the connections and knowledge of all Australians, are powerful national strengths that will help shape our international development assistance in a way that benefits both our region and Australians.

The objective of Australia's development program is to advance an Indo-Pacific that is peaceful, stable, and prosperous. We respect sovereignty and differing political and governance systems. The Government reaffirms its support for our partners to build effective and accountable states, and inclusive democratic processes through our development program.

Direct support for, and engagement with, civil society organisations will also continue to be an integral part of how Australia implements its development program, recognising that civic space is shrinking in many parts of the world, and that the nature and value of civil society in each country is distinct.

Effective states and their citizens benefit from transparent, accessible, and responsive governance. The Government is working with partner governments in the region to strengthen their public institutions, including as they mediate and manage disruptive influences and respond to the challenge of climate change.

The Government provides the following responses to the eight recommendations set out in the Committee's report.

Response to the recommendations

Recommendation 1

The Committee recommends the Australian Government appropriately fund the Australian Electoral Commission to develop long-term partnerships, appropriate resourcing and preparedness with countries in our region who request assistance with elections. This would involve a minimum commitment of three years, prior to the election, to enable Australia to work in partnership with the local workforce to assist with systematic and logistical challenges unique to each country.

Electoral assistance should support the planning, implementation, lessons- learned, and change management phases of the electoral cycle, noting that elections require significant planning and engagement before, during, and after polling day.

Response:

The Government accepts this recommendation in principle.

The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC)'s best practice operations and long-standing relationships in the Indo-Pacific region position Australia as a trusted partner of choice for electoral assistance. In 2023-24, in collaboration with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), the AEC is providing support to fellow electoral management bodies in Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Fiji, Republic of Marshall Islands, Tonga and Kiribati. This is in addition to its leadership role in the region as secretariat to the Pacific Islands, Australia and New Zealand Electoral Administrators Network.

The Government agrees that a 'whole of electoral cycle' approach strengthens the sustainability and effectiveness of Australia's electoral assistance. Such an approach allows the AEC to develop programs targeting long-term issues, both with new partners and in countries where it has existing relationships. Under the International Development Policy, DFAT is working with whole-of-government partners, including the AEC, to prepare country and regional Development Partnership Plans (DPPs) by 2024. DPPs will set out shared priorities for Australian development assistance over the coming five years. This includes electoral assistance where appropriate, and as agreed with partner governments and informed by consultations with local, national, regional, and international partners.

Recommendation 2

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government develop a public policy on Australia's long-standing precedent of providing election support for countries in the Indo- Pacific region, when invited to assist. This policy would outline partner countries with bilateral agreements which Australia assists with the running of independent and fair elections in our region.

Response:

The Government accepts this recommendation in principle.

Section 7(1)(fa) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 directs the AEC to provide international assistance in matters relating to elections and referendums. The Government's International Development Policy sets out its policy commitment to supporting effective and accountable states through Australia's development program. This includes providing election support, where agreed as a priority across Australian government agencies and with local, national, regional, and international partners through country and regional Development Partnership Plans. To strengthen coordination and implementation of Australia's election support across Government, DFAT will work with the AEC to:

The AEC publishes information about its international engagement annually in its Corporate Plan and Annual Report 2022-23, available on the AEC website.

Recommendation 3

Given Pacific nations have identified ongoing challenges of climate change the Committee recommends the Australian Government increase support for international communities in our region. This support may include adaptation and mitigation works to prepare for rising sea levels and extreme weather events given the adverse effect climate change has on institutions, national security, and civil society which negatively impacts democracy.

Response:

The Government accepts and is implementing this recommendation.

The Government recognises that climate change is the single greatest threat to the livelihoods, security and wellbeing of the peoples of the Pacific and an urgent global challenge.

The Government's climate engagement aims to strengthen Pacific resilience, reinforce sovereignty and help sustain the Pacific's tradition of global leadership on climate change. The Government has committed, as part of the International Development Policy, to ensure that 50 per cent of all new bilateral and regional investments valued at more than $3 million will have a climate outcome by 2024-25, increasing to 80 per cent by 2028. The Government has also increased Official Development Assistance to the region by $900 million over four years, including at least $250 million in new funding for climate change adaptation and resilience in the Pacific. Examples of these programs include the Pacific-led Weather Ready Pacific initiative to enhance crucial early warning systems, and the Pacific Resilience Facility, a Pacific-owned and led initiative for climate finance.

The Government has also joined with partners as part of the Pacific Islands Forum to respond to the challenges of sea-level rise. In 2021, Forum Leaders issued the 'Declaration on Preserving Maritime Zones in the Face of Climate Change-Related Sea-Level-Rise', to ensure that maritime zones, once established in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, continue to apply without reduction, notwithstanding climate change-related sea-level rise. In 2023, Forum Leaders issued the 'Declaration on the Continuity of Statehood and the Protection of Persons in the Face of Climate Change- related Sea-Level Rise' to declare that the statehood and sovereignty of Forum Members will continue, and the rights and duties inherent thereto will be maintained, notwithstanding climate change-related sea-level rise. The Declaration also expresses a commitment by Forum Members to protect persons affected by climate change-related sea-level rise. Forum Leaders also endorsed the Pacific Regional Framework on Climate Mobility, a high- level guide for Pacific governments in addressing the complex and wide-ranging issue of climate mobility.

The Government is committed to strengthening partnerships that will facilitate building a stronger, more resilient, and more peaceful Pacific. The Australia-Tuvalu Falepili Union Treaty entered into force on 28 August 2024, representing a momentous step in the elevated partnership between our two countries. The Falepili Union puts in place transformational arrangements to safeguard the future of Tuvalu against impacts of climate change and geostrategic challenges. Through the Falepili Union, Australia commits to establish a special visa arrangement to allow Tuvaluans to come to Australia to live, work and study, and we are upgrading our security partnership and enhancing our bilateral development partnership, including climate adaptation support for Tuvalu.

Initiatives such as the Pacific Island Forum declarations and frameworks, and bilateral agreements like the Falepili Union Treaty, can help the region navigate shared climate change challenges, address climate change as an emerging security risk, and in so doing, support democracy in the region.

Recommendation 4

The Committee recommends the Minister for International Development and the Pacific report back to Parliament annually on Australia's engagement and delivery of services to Pacific countries regarding its development initiatives to combat, mitigate and adapt to climate change.

Response:

The Government accepts this recommendation in principle.

The Government submits that existing processes for briefing Parliament are sufficient, such as the Annual Climate Change Statement to Parliament, the publicly available Performance of Australian Development Cooperation Report, Senate Estimates Committee hearings, Question Time, and Budget processes.

Recommendation 5

The Committee recommends the Australian Government establish a comprehensive media broadcasting capacity and support program for the Indo-Pacific region that should include:

a charter and accountability framework that guarantees support is provided for media skills and capacity building to enable independent reporting and analysis

a flexible, independently administered fund to provide support for stronger partnerships, internships and work experience for local journalist and independent media in the Indo- Pacific region

comprehensive training and development opportunities for journalists in the Indo-Pacific region

support for Australian journalists to work in the Indo-Pacific region and for journalists from the Indo-Pacific to work in Australia and have the opportunity to report on and tell their own stories.

Response:

The Government accepts this recommendation in principle.

The Government launched its Indo-Pacific Broadcasting Strategy (IPBS), Australia-Pacific Media and Broadcasting Partnership, Australia-Southeast Asia Media and Broadcasting Initiative, and Australia-South Asia Media and Broadcasting Initiative on 13 July 2024.

Under the IPBS, the Government provided $40.5 million over five years from 2022-23 to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) to support the creation and distribution of compelling content for Indo-Pacific audiences, expand Radio Australia's Pacific footprint, and strengthen regional media capacity. This includes a new online learning platform to deliver ABC training tailored for Indo-Pacific use, media support programs in Timor-Leste and Indonesia, and a network of ABC local Pacific reporters to tell stories for and about the region.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) is developing an Indo-Pacific Media Fund to supplement existing efforts and flexibly respond to needs in the Pacific, Southeast Asia and South Asia. New investments underway include funding for Australian Associated Press to provide targeted training and access content in the Pacific, ABC International Development to support women sports journalists in India, and the Bhutan Centre for Media and Democracy to build media literacy and encourage civic engagement.

The Government also extended the PacificAus TV initiative, committing $28.4 million over five years from 2022-23 to continue and expand provision of Australian television programs to broadcast partners in the region.

These investments build on Australia's history of supporting Indo-Pacific media, including the longstanding Pacific Media Assistance Scheme and Media Development initiative, foster stronger media partnerships, and offer opportunities for skills exchange and development.

The Government will continue to review its investments and work with partners, including other donors and the broader media sector, to amplify efforts to support Indo-Pacific media. All support is subject to existing government accountability and reporting processes. The ABC has operational and editorial independence from the Government and consults on IPBS activities under a Memorandum of Understanding with DFAT and the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts. The availability of future government funding will be subject to Budget processes.

Recommendation 6

The Committee recommends the Australian Government reinstate funding for a Women in Parliament program within the Australian Parliament. This program should provide support for building and strengthening partnerships in the Indo-Pacific region. The program would focus on supporting leadership skills for girls and women and should include:

promoting women and girls' voices in all levels of society such as schools, community organisations, public and private sphere at provincial and national levels

building connections with feminist civil society groups already in the region

ensuring women and girls' have improved access to quality health care services, including reproductive health

improving women and girls' safety, especially for protecting women and girls from gender violence and ensuring services are readily available

promoting gender mainstreaming within all aspects of society in the Indo-Pacific including intergovernmental policies that are agreed to and delivered.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation.

Gender equality is a key priority for the Australian Government's international engagement. Australia's International Development Policy commits to supporting all people to reach their full potential and notes that women, in all their diversity, are under-represented in positions of leadership and decision-making.

Australia supports a wide range of programs that help build leadership skills for girls and women. The Australia Awards Women Leading Influencing program supports women who are scholarship recipients from the Pacific to deepen their leadership skills, networks and capabilities for change at all levels of society—local, national, regional and international.

Australia also supports work by partners such as the Pacific Community (SPC), Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS), Women's Fund Asia, Urgent Action Fund—Asia & Pacific, Women's Fund Fiji, the Pacific Feminist Fund, Balance of Power and World YWCA to promote women and girls' voice and leadership and support civil society networks.

Australia recognises that the realisation of universal sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) and safety from all forms of gender-based violence (GBV) are critical to ensuring women and girls' participation and leadership in all levels of society. DFAT is supporting SRHR through the Transformative Agenda for Women Youth and Adolescents in the Pacific, including by funding the UNFPA Supplies Partnership, as well as through renewed and increased core funding to the International Planned Parenthood Federation. Australia also funds programs to support essential GBV response services for survivors, GBV prevalence studies and data development, GBV prevention initiatives and assistance to local women's organisations. This includes the UN Women Trust Fund to End Violence against Women, support to the Pacific Partnership to End Violence Against Women and Girls and the Fiji Women's Crisis Centre.

Australia's development assistance implements a twin-track approach to advancing gender equality. This supports both targeted programming to promote gender equality, and the mainstreaming of gender equality outcomes in development and humanitarian assistance.

To support mainstreaming, the International Development Performance and Delivery Framework requires that all DFAT investments valued at $3 million and above must include a gender equality objective.

Recommendation 7

The Committee recommends the Australian Government establish a central Civil Society Organisation (CSO) Hub within the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to support the coordination of CSO development delivery in the region.

Response:

The Government accepts this recommendation in principle.

The Government agrees with the Committee's finding that civil society organisations (CSOs) have an important role to play in supporting a thriving democracy and recognises the valuable contribution that CSOs make to delivering the development program, alongside the private and public sectors. The Government has committed $35m over four years to establish a new civil society partnerships fund to address the challenges of shrinking civic space in many parts of the world.

This investment will also support the establishment of a new platform to be a focal point for Australia's international civil society engagement. This new platform will bring together Australian expertise and ideas, providing direct support to local civil society actors, as well as feeding knowledge and insights back into the Department. It will be additional to but integrated with other centralised civil society focussed programs such as the Australian NGO Cooperation Program ($143m per annum).

Recommendation 8

The Committee recommends the Australian Government set an annual base- line funding target for the delivery of humanitarian and development programs, through Civil Society Organisations, in the Official Development Assistance budget.

Response:

The Government does not accept this recommendation.

The Government recognises the value of NGOs and CSOs in achieving objectives under Australia's International Development Policy. Country and regional DPPs will reflect respectful listening to local partners and set out shared development objectives over five years. DPPs will also outline approaches to ongoing dialogue, evaluation, and learning. This partnership approach requires flexibility to select the most appropriate implementing partner for the circumstance, context, and goal, while working with a range of local, bilateral and multilateral partners, and incorporating approaches to locally led development.

The International Development Performance and Delivery Framework identifies performance indicators to monitor Australia's engagement with CSOs and NGOs. In particular, Tier 3 indicators monitor the involvement of local actors, including CSOs, in the design, delivery and evaluation of Australia's development assistance. This includes their involvement in the delivery of humanitarian assistance through partnerships with Australian NGOs and the Australian Red Cross. Tier 2 indicators track the number of CSOs (international, regional, national and/or local) that Australia supports to strengthen accountability and/or inclusion. The policy also commits DFAT to establish a new development program transparency portal to provide access to financial and performance data on all DFAT-managed Official Development Assistance investments.

_____

Dear President

I am writing to advise you that the Government provided its response to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee's report on the Oversight Legislation Amendment (Robodebt Royal Commission Response and Other Measures) Bill 2024 during debate in the Senate on 12 February 2025.

I have enclosed the addendum to the explanatory memorandum tabled by the Government in response to matters raised by the Committee and the relevant extract of the Hansard.

I trust this information is of assistance.

Yours sincerely

Michelle Rowland MP

On behalf of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Ms Collins, I table a statement concerning agriculture.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I note that the Labor government is taking credit for the headline figures today. It's a $100 billion headline figure out there in the ABARES report on agriculture. I want to point out that this result does not belong to the government. It belongs to those out there working in the industry. It belongs to the farmers, the foresters and the fishers and all the work they do to make Australia great. They are the ones who sweat out there to feed the nation, to feed the world and to do the hard work despite what this government's doing to the agricultural industry.

ABARES shows us the truth behind the spin. The water trade has collapsed to only 759 gigalitres this season. That's less than half of what it was last year. The median water price is now $260 a megalitre. That is more than three times the average for the last five years. When government buys water off producers this is what happens. The price of water for agriculture, the price of water for communities and the price of water for the things we need go through the roof. That isn't good governance. That is a deliberate policy by this government to put ideology over the basin communities.

Farmers across southern New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia are facing droughts. Fishers in South Australia are facing an algal bloom, and there is not enough to keep these people in the game. People are selling up every day. People are getting out of the industry because of the lack of response of state and federal governments. The answer here is to give loans through RIC and other bodies. That isn't a fix. That is giving a farmer at the bottom of a hole a shovel to dig deeper. What they need is a hand to get out of that hole. Farmers were promised stronger biosecurity. Instead they copped a fool's biosecurity tax that had to be stopped in this chamber and mixed messages on import restrictions. We've seen things like the varroa mite. We're seeing things like white spot in prawns. We see all these things going on, yet agriculture and agricultural people get on, do the job and deliver for Australia.

When you're really looking at a measure of how Australia really feels about this government, you only had to be at the recent bush summits. In Ballarat, we saw farmers not turn up with polite applause. They didn't say, 'Well done.' They didn't say, 'Thank you.' They showed up with raw frustration. They protested directly to the Prime Minister, the very man who claims to be listening to the bush. Their protest wasn't theatre; it was real. You don't get a farmer in an audience with a noose around their own neck because they think things are going well. When we sit here and say that this is a great headline figure, we need to thank the people that work under the threat of closure of their marine environment systems and forestry areas by the different national parks. People are buying up farms for twice their value to make farming areas national park. This is not something that is a good thing for this country.

One thing Australia does well is feed the region. That's through all of our protein, our grains—through all of these things—and our growers need to be supported. When the government sits there and says, 'Look at the agricultural access that we got back into China,' even that isn't fair. We're seeing the tropical lobster not being able to be sold into these areas. We're seeing a fragile market in China for lobster because there is no security around what goes on. I say to the farmers of Australia, the fishers of Australia and the foresters of Australia: thank you for what you do. While we are seeing decreasing productivity across the nation, farming and agriculture is one area that it is ever increasing. We couldn't do the things we do without you. We have your back. Thank you very much. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning online gambling, the New England Highway, the Northern Land Council, the strategic examination of research and development, the National Construction Code, Regulatory guide 97, the Home Guarantee Scheme and travel expenditure for Housing Australia.

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

by leave—I move:

Economics References Committee —

Appointed—

Substitute member: Senator Dean Smith to replace Senator Colbeck for the committee's inquiry into micro-competition opportunities

Participating member: Senator Colbeck.

Environment and Communications References Committee —

Appointed—

Substitute member: Senator McLachlan to replace Senator Henderson for the committee's inquiry into algal blooms in South Australia

Participating member: Senator Henderson

Question agreed to.

():  I move:

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

I ask that the question be divided so that I can speak to the procedural part of the question. The proposal here is that this bill proceed without formalities. We're talking here about the home affairs bill which is designed to deport people from this country without even giving them the grace of natural justice.

Order! Senator Shoebridge, could you please resume your seat. Minister?

Just so I understand what gamesmanship is being engaged in here, the request has been that the motions be put separately, as I understand it. It's not open to Senator Shoebridge to then speak to that proposition. There's a question that you have to adjudicate on, as I understand it, first, which is: is it open to the chamber to put those questions separately? In the event that you decide that it is then it's a matter for me to then move the first proposition and then the second proposition.

For you?

That's the way democracy works, Senator Shoebridge. We'll take a view about that, but I understand it's a matter for you, Deputy President, to consider at this stage, not for him to bloviate.

I will admit this is not a circumstance that has come across my path before. I will take further advice. On the point of order, Senator McKim?

Yes, indeed. On the point of order raised by Senator Ayres, I firstly utterly reject any assertion that anything is being gamed here. That is an imputation of motive. That is contrary to 193(3) of the standing orders. I'll just make that point first. Secondly, I direct Senator Ayres to standing order 113(3), which makes it very clear that he's just made a complete fool of himself. He might as well have just announced to the chamber that he's got no idea about what is in the standing orders, because 113(3) makes it very clear that, when a motion such as the one that was moved by Senator Ayres is moved that contains two or more of the provisions that are set out in the preceding paragraphs of standing order 113, any senator may request that a motion be divided and the provision put as separate motions. In the context of the request by Senator Shoebridge, he is well entitled to debate the procedural part of that question, which is that the bill proceed without formalities. Senator Shoebridge was being completely relevant to that question.

As I said, I am going to take some further advice on this. I will ask the chamber to be patient for a few seconds while I do. As I believe, with effect to my actions rather than my words in this chamber, Senator Shoebridge does have the right to ask that the questions be put separately and he does have the right to speak to the first aspect of that. Senator Shoebridge, you have the call.

Thanks, Deputy President. It's always good to give a little bit of learning to Senator Ayres so he can go away and do his homework and try and be better at his job next time. The home affairs bill that the government is trying to ram through here without formalities is attached to other noxious legislation that this government has put through to strip away the rights of people seeking asylum and, actually, almost 100,000 people who are on bridging visas and don't have permanent visas in this country.

With this bill, they're trying to get the right to deport people to Nauru without ever telling them they're bringing the application to deport them, without giving them the right to be heard on the decision to deport them, and to apply to Nauru for a 30-year visa, without even giving them the right to be heard on that. And now they say that not only do they want to strip away those procedural rights from people seeking asylum but also they want to strip away the procedural checks and balances in this place by proceeding without formalities.

If you wanted to know what a hatchet job on the community looks like, you only had to take part in the committee—if you could. As soon as this Senate passed a resolution forcing the government to have at least a two-hour inquiry on the bill, which the government has been resisting and resisting, the government-dominated committee then met with seven minutes notice, given by email, and decided to use the government's numbers in the committee to have the two-hour inquiry refuse to hear any witnesses from the community, refuse to hear witnesses from the refugee sector, refuse to hear legal advocates and to hear only from Home Affairs.

So, not only is this government showing gross disrespect to people seeking asylum; they're showing gross disrespect to the sector, who, I can tell you now, has a lot to say about this bill—about how it's yet another racist attack on asylum seekers by the Albanese government, how it's yet another attack on multiculturalism by this Albanese government, as they told you 12 months ago, when you stitched up another deal with the coalition. They told you that continuing to demonise asylum seekers and migrants and multicultural Australia would inflame the far right. They told you it would lead to racism. They told you it would lead to ugly politics against multicultural Australia. You didn't listen, and that's why we had the rallies last weekend.

And what have you done? Because you know that those voices will be critical, you're silencing them even from the two-hour committee that's been forced upon you by the Senate. Well, if you continue to ignore the voices of reason, the voices of decency, you will continue down your lowest-common-denominator pathway to pass laws that were even beneath the coalition when they were in government. That's what you're doing, yet again. You're silencing the very people you need to be listening to right now—people who want to protect multicultural Australia, people who want to ensure that migrants and people seeking asylum have rights and are respected in this country as genuinely equal partners in this country and as equal members of our community.

Instead, the Albanese Labor government sends up the likes of Senator Ayres to do that waffle, to try to attack us even speaking about it now. You want to not only silence the community, not only silence the sector, not only demonise multicultural Australia; you even want us to not be able to bell the cat here in the chamber and point out your grubby behaviour. That's what it is: it's grubby behaviour from the Albanese government, trying to slip this legislation through in the dark of night and hope nobody will notice.

You've got form on this as a government. That's the same grubby deal you did with Nauru. You sent Minister Burke off to Nauru to secretly negotiate a $400 million bribe to Nauru and sign the deal, and then you put out the trash on a Friday night: you released the details about it with one line from Minister Burke—no press release, no notice, no communication with the public, apart from a secretly uploaded, silently uploaded statement on the website. Do you know that we know more about this secret Nauru deal from a Facebook post from the Nauru government than we do from the Minister for Home Affairs? We know more about the expenditure of $400 million of Australian taxpayers money this year, and $70 million next year, from a Facebook post from the Nauru government than from the Albanese government, who's spending our money in cooking up this deal to deport people and show the gross unfairness of it.

So, do we want this question put separately? We bloody well do want this question put separately! I withdraw that, sorry, Deputy President. My enthusiasm got away with me. We do want this question put separately. And we reject the idea that you can ram this bill through without formalities. We reject the idea that the Albanese government can silence the sector and not hear from them in the inquiry. We reject the idea that you can demonise multicultural Australia and people seeking asylum. We reject the idea that you can strip away their rights to natural justice. And we will fight this every step of the way.

I move:

That the motion be now put.

The question is that the motion be put. A division having been called, as it is after 6.30 pm this matter will be deferred until tomorrow.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

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

(2) That the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Acknowledging Biological Reality) Bill 2024 be restored to the Notice Paper and consideration of the bill resume at the first reading stage.

(3) That the bill be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 November 2025.

I think this is a debate that we need to have. It is concerning many Australians—what is happening in our country. You hear all the time, as to what is happening in our educational system, that people are actually being told they can choose whether they want to be a boy or a girl. Let's be logical about it and let's talk common sense for a change, instead of the load of rubbish that's going around.

Biological reality is: male and female—the essential basis for procreation. Let me tell you, procreation is about having children. I've never known of a man to deliver a baby yet. I don't think they can. You're not equipped for it, mate, okay? You don't have the equipment to be able to have a baby.

There are these people out there who think that one minute in their mind they can say, 'Oh no, I'm really a biological male, but now I want to be a female,' and then we have to include them in all this about stillbirths. They think that they should be consulted because they're transgender. They're moving from being a biological male to a female, so they've got to have an opinion about stillbirth. Oh, give me a break, will you!

People born male cannot bear children. It's determined by the chromosomes and it's determined by DNA. It doesn't matter how much you might think you want to be a female, you cannot and never will be a female. It doesn't matter how many bits and pieces you have cut off. It doesn't matter what you add—how many sex hormones, how many puberty blockers—you will never ever be a female. That's it.

The whole basis of this whole thing is that the science is clear and it doesn't care about activists' fantasies about fluidity or identity. Science is science. You're quite happy to talk about science when it comes to climate change, but you're not quite happy to talk about science when it comes to gender fluidity.

What is also happening is that we're risking the fairness in women's sports. You have these men that are saying, 'Oh, look, I'm a female today. I want to join and get into female sports.' I watched a video of rollerskaters, and one was clearly a male, and he's in these women's sport and he's nudging them and he's pushing them around. Biological males have the strength; they have the muscles; they actually are built differently to the females. Why are we allowing this to happen? As Janet Albrechtsen has said, 'How can a person know about another person's sex or gender identity if the law plots an ambiguous scale?' And that's what's happened, and that's where we see the problem now with Tickle v Giggle at the moment. This is just ridiculous, this 'gender related identity' and also this highly subjective definition of gender identity, which is:

Gender identity means the gender-related identity, appearance or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of a person.

That's whether by way of medical intervention or not, with or without regard to the person's designated sex at birth. We are allowing people to change their birth certificates and you can actually choose whether you want to be a male or female. You are causing so many psychological problems with the kids coming through that they do not know. In our educational system now you are saying you cannot use 'him' or 'her'; it has to be 'them' and 'they'. That is what you are doing through this government department as well. That's what you are pushing. You are causing so much psychological damage with what you do with people. If you don't know if you are male or female then you have a real problem and I think you should book into a psychologist and see what the problem is.

For people here in this parliament to allow this to happen is a real shame. We had a 1,000 per cent increase in children being treated at public gender clinics between 2014 and 2021. You sacked Jillian Spencer, who is a psychologist. You want to sack people who speak out about this. You don't want me speaking on the floor of parliament and telling people. You're saying, 'Let's just cover it up and not have anyone speak about this.' This has to be debated. It has to be discussed. You have to have common sense, because you're destroying kids out there and their little minds. You're playing with them. They are either male or female, and that's the way it should be.

We know exactly what Senator Hanson is up to here. What she is seeking to do through this motion is to provide a platform to allow parliamentary privilege to be used as cover for transphobic people who want to punch down on transgender people and, in particular, on transgender children. I remind the Senate that Senator Hanson twice tried in the previous parliament to have this bill read for a first time. The Senate, on both occasions, refused to allow this bill to be read for a first time. I want to say this to people who are listening. The Senate deciding not to even allow a bill to be read for a first time is a vanishingly rare occurrence. It is reserved for bills that are particularly obnoxious and that the Senate determines should not even be tabled in this place, let alone debated.

Let's be clear about this. This is a bill that would remove protections on the basis of gender identity from the Sex Discrimination Act. It is undoubtedly a transphobic piece of legislation. It seeks to use the lives and the wellbeing of transgender people in this country, including transgender children in this country, as political pawns in a divisive, far-right agenda. Senator Hanson wants to fight the culture wars, doing so in the full knowledge that this will harm some of the most vulnerable people in our country, including children. It is a disgrace that we are even having to debate this matter today.

I want Senator Hanson to know something here. This is according to the LGBTIQ+ Health Australia snapshot of mental health and suicide prevention statistics for LBGTIQ+ people. Trans people aged 14 to 25 are 15 times more likely to try to kill themselves, to attempt suicide, than the general population. They're 15 times more likely, and you want to weaponise them in your disgraceful culture wars. Well, the Australian Greens are not going to have a bar of it. Around one in two—half—of trans and gender-diverse people aged 14 to 25 report that they have attempted suicide in their lifetime. Trans people aged 18 and over are 6½ times more likely to self-harm compared to the general population.

You are so sick.

You want to talk about sick? I'll tell you what is sick. You are sick in trying to introduce a bill that you know will harm a section of our community that deserves our love and our support, not to be used as cannon fodder in your despicable culture war.

Order! Senator McKim, please direct your comments through the chair.

Alright. I say this to Senator Hanson: instead of using her public platform to divide Australians and to harm people who need our love and support, and instead of using her time marching with Neo-Nazis, like she did on the weekend, she should focus her energies on creating an Australia that is safe and inclusive.

I want a withdrawal there. I did not march with Neo-Nazis, and I won't have a reference to it. I want it withdrawn.

Senator Hanson, what's the point of order?

The point of order is that a reference was made to me marching with Neo-Nazis on the weekend. It did not happen.

I understand the point of order. Thank you, Senator Hanson. I'm going to take advice on this from the Clerk in relation to the appropriate next step.

On advice from the Clerk, it's probably a debating point, but, in the interests of moving the overall argument forward, Senator McKim, if you would withdraw that last remark and continue with your remarks, please.

Well, Acting Deputy President, I don't believe that I've impugned Senator Hanson's motivations, if that's the point of order. I simply stated a fact. On that basis, I'm going to ask respectfully, Acting Deputy President, if you would consult with the President on this. If it's the President's ruling once she has reviewed the Hansard, I will withdraw. But I don't believe, on the basis of what I said, that there is a necessity for me to withdraw, given Senator Hanson has not explained what standing order she believes I've contravened. I will ask that you consult with the President on that, please, Acting Deputy President.

In the interests of moving this forward, I will consult with the President on that. Senator McKim, if you will proceed with your remarks—but perhaps don't repeat that remark until that ruling is finalised.

I certainly will not. I will conclude my remarks here. I want to say very clearly that the Australian Greens proudly stand with transgender Australians. We proudly stand with transgender children in this country. We will always stand with them and support them against anything that is divisive or that seeks to demonise them. I want to say to trans people in this country, no matter how old they are, no matter where they come from, no matter their cultural backgrounds—and there are many—that we have their backs in here. They are loved. They are supported. We hear you. We see you. You have a right to exist. You have every human right in this country that everyone else does. The Australian Greens will always stand with trans people, because trans rights are human rights.

Acting Deputy President Ghosh, I first acknowledge the way in which you handled that very difficult discussion. I'll be very brief. As the coalition said in relation to the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Acknowledging Biological Reality) Bill 2024 last year when it was negatived at first reading, and in relation to another similar bill more recently: while the Senate has the opportunity to reject a bill at the first reading stage, in practice the first reading is almost always passed without opposition and is regarded as a purely formal stage.

The coalition supports these normal procedures, as we have with many Greens, Labor or crossbench bills that we strongly opposed. The normal process enables bills to be fairly considered and debated by the Senate before a substantive decision is taken. It should only be deviated from in the most extreme of circumstances, lest we deny the right of senators to even have matters debated. As in all cases, a vote on the first reading should not be taken as a position on the substantive legislation. Similarly, a vote supporting an inquiry into a bill should not be taken as endorsing or rejecting that bill—rather, it simply affords senators the opportunity to consider the merits of legislation and form their position on the basis of evidence.

Consistent with the view that the government has taken previously in relation to this, on a previous motion from Senator Hanson, the Senate should not be used as a vehicle for propagating hateful or harmful speech that hurts decent young Australians and decent people. The indecency of the propositions that have just been put by Senator Hanson reaffirms my confidence in the judgement the government took in terms of the position that we are adopting here.

The truth is that, reckless to people's welfare, indifferent and callous to people's welfare, Senator Hanson will continue putting up this propaganda. For the government's part, we will not have the Senate or the offices of individual senators used for the harmful and indecent behaviour that has just been engaged in once again. On that basis, I move:

That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Hanson be agreed to. As a division has been called for but it is after 6.30 pm, the division will be deferred until tomorrow.

I'm here to speak today on the economics of mass immigration. This is not a discussion about immigrants. Immigrants have been part of Australia's story for hundreds of years and are as much a part of Australia as anyone here in this chamber. But what Labor refuses to acknowledge is that the rate of mass immigration has serious impacts on the economy and echoes down to catastrophic impacts on individual Australians. It reaches into housing, productivity and wages. It touches all aspects of everyday Australians' lives.

Labor and the Greens want to pretend immigration has no effect on the economy, but you can add an endless number of people to a population and nothing changes. They want to believe that the iron-clad laws of supply and demand magically don't apply to their policies and that record immigration doesn't drive up the price of limited housing stock or everything else. When I got up this morning, I dressed myself and I don't think I put my stubbies on back to front!

In my home state of WA, we're seeing rental vacancy rates of 0.7 per cent while locals compete with the flood of new arrivals. Perth's rents have risen more than anywhere else in the country, up 7.6 per cent just this year and over 50 per cent higher in the past five years. That amounts to an increase of around $243 a week or over $12,000 a year. The median wage for Western Australians is around $80,000 a year. These rises have chewed up 15 per cent of the median Western Aussie wage.

I know the government doesn't believe additional demand drives up prices, so let's look at the science. A paper from 2020 by Moallemi and Melser, titled The impact of immigration on housing prices in Australia, concluded that a one per cent increase in population in an area led to a 1.4 per cent increase in the price of houses. Thanks to Labor and coalition governments, Australia has increased its population since 2000 by over 45 per cent—the largest growth of any advanced economy. The science is settled, as my Labor friends would say. So what does Labor do? Drive up demand by increasing quotas for international students and drive record net overseas migration. What a callous disregard for the people of Australia, especially the young, who now have an impossible mountain to climb to own their first home. And don't tell me about your five per cent deposit scheme. That will see these young buyers saddled with massively inflated mortgages that they can barely afford, six to eight times their annual wage, when their parents had the same chance to buy at only two to three times their wage. You are selling the next generation into life-long debt.

It is not only housing that is affected. As Australia's immigration accelerates, our productivity also hits the skids. I questioned the government about this just last week and was told that Labor is unaware of any connection between immigration and productivity. What an unbelievable claim. The concept of capital deepening was discussed by their own Treasurer, saying that we need to promote capital deepening, defined as increased capital per worker. But the only reason we need capital deepening is that, thanks to Labor, we've had years of capital shallowing. The other half of the equation, which Labor refuses to acknowledge, is that 'per worker' means that more workers shallow out the economy.

I'll give you a stylised illustration of what I mean by capital shallowing. If I'm digging a ditch with a shovel and someone comes to help me dig but they don't bring a shovel, we aren't going to dig that ditch twice as fast. And if I'm getting paid per ditch, that extra person, without the proper equipment, is going to cost me wages. That's what we mean by capital shallowing and how it affects wages.

With this concept in mind, how has Australia performed? Since 2023 our population has risen at an alarming rate of 2.1 per cent per year, while our capital investment is estimated to have grown by a mere 1.2 per cent. That is, if the government maintains its current course we will continue to see further capital shallowing and productivity collapse, because the capital investment in our country cannot possibly keep up with the insane population growth, fuelled by mass immigration.

And they aren't just maintaining course, according to ABS data. The net permanent and long-term immigration to May 2025 was 246,000 people—a record for the first five months of the year. It is not only the sheer number; it is also the poor targeting of annual net migration, with 340,000 net migration of skilled workers representing just 66,000. A Deloitte report from 2023 found that 44 per cent of permanent migrants in Australia are underutilised and working in jobs below their qualifications. If the jobs aren't there for the people you're bringing in, then not only are you hurting the Australians who are already here but you're also hurting those immigrants who came here with the promise of a better life.

The 2023 migration review found that 51 per cent of foreign-born university graduates worked in unskilled employment three years after they graduated. This suggests one of two things: either the workers who are being brought in are not properly qualified for the job they have been brought in to do, or there are simply not enough jobs and they are now competing with Australians in a tight job market. Both these outcomes are a disaster for productivity and wages.

We are short of all manner of qualified tradespeople. While the government drags them away with their political vanity projects, like environmentally disastrous Geographe Bay windfarms in my home state of WA, instead of seeing vital trades come into the country in meaningful numbers we are seeing record numbers of international student enrolments, with 816,587 enrolments in just the first five months of the year—another record. Many of these students will compete for housing and jobs in an economy that is not attracting the level of capital investment required to keep them productively employed. None of these concepts are new. This is not something Labor could be unaware of. They themselves have talked about the need for capital deepening in the lead-up to the economic roundtable.

We can't continue to see immigration numbers outstrip investment in Australia. If the tools, infrastructure and housing aren't there to support these new arrivals, the country as a whole suffers from the inevitable wage erosion. We have sky-high housing prices. We have cratering productivity and standards of living. Mass immigration is not just irresponsible policy; it is devastating to the people this government is meant to serve. It begs the question: what motivation would a government have to drive down standards of living to push housing out of reach for so many Australians? The answer lies in the true motivation of these politicians that are wilfully blind to the suffering they cause. They are not here to improve Australians' lives; they are here purely to be re-elected.

To this point, mass immigration serves two distinct purposes. Firstly, polling by Redbridge Group indicates that immigrants vote overwhelmingly for Labor—of course they do. When Labor's focus is purely on being re-elected, they will continue to bring in as many likely voters as they can. Secondly, the flood of immigration hides the horrible management of the economy by driving up overall GDP to just barely avoid a technical recession. While they may have avoided a technical recession, Labor have presided over the largest per capita recession since quarterly data became available in 1973. Is this another 'recession we had to have'? Since December 2023, Australians have only seen a single quarter of per capita growth, of 0.1 per cent in December 2024. It's almost a rounding error. We're back to per capita GDP declines as of March 2025.

These are the reasons that Labor refuse to address the economic impact of mass immigration. The political benefit to them far outstrips their care for the people they are meant to represent—good, honest, hardworking Australians from all walks of life.

I move:

That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Roberts be agreed to. A division is required. It being after 6.30 pm, that division will take place tomorrow.

I am in continuation. This is yet another broken promise by the Albanese government, and older Australians are paying the price wondering, waiting, worrying. Grandfathering arrangements protect those already on their aged-care journey because uncertainty is the last thing they need. The coalition fought hard during the passage of the Aged Care Bill 2024 for grandfathering arrangements. It's because of our persistent negotiations that Australians who are already in residential care, are on a home-care package or have been assessed and are waiting for a package will not see their arrangements change. This 'no worse off' principle is critical. It gives older Australians the certainty they deserve. The main bill provides a framework to ensure those protections are delivered. That is a coalition achievement, something we pushed for and we secured.

The coalition has always stood up for hardworking Australians, particularly those who saved for their retirement. It's why we called for a lower taper rate on care contributions. We fought to protect retirees from unfair cost burdens and to hold Labor to account on its commitment to remain the majority funder of aged care. We also fought for the maintenance of a lifetime cap on contributions because Australians should know there is a limit to what they will be asked to pay for in care. Importantly, we opposed Labor's arbitrary caps on access to basic services like cleaning and gardening. Imposing limits in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis shows just how completely out of touch this government is. The main bill removes those ridiculous caps from the legislation.

Labor, this delaying and your delay in home-care packages is a national crisis. Perhaps the most egregious outcome of Labor's incompetence is the impact on home care. The Albanese government promised but then failed to deliver 83,000 additional home-care packages from July 2025. They promised support to help older Australians to remain independent in their own homes. This is an example of another broken promise from the Albanese government.

Right now, more than 87,000 older Australians are languishing on the waitlist. Under Labor, the list has almost tripled in just two years. Many older Australians have been waiting for more than a year for care they have already been assessed as needing. It's not just an administrative burden; it's a national crisis. Behind every number is a person—someone's parent or someone's grandparent—left without the support they need to live safely and with dignity, putting additional unnecessary, unfair pressure on vulnerable Australian families. Behind every number is a family struggling to do the best for their loved ones—often women or elderly partners who need to step in where the government has failed them. It would be different if Labor had just got this right from the start. The coalition condemns this neglect. Minister Rae must urgently deliver the promised packages and address the skyrocketing waitlist, because older Australians and families deserve better.

As a proud South Australian, I must bring to this debate the sobering state of aged care in my home state. According to the Productivity Commission's latest report card, South Australia has recorded the longest wait times in the country for a federal aged-care bed. South Australians: this is more evidence you are an afterthought by this Albanese Labor government. Older South Australians are waiting an average of 253 days—that's more than eight months—to be placed in care. That is almost double the national average of 136 days and is 117 days more than the national average. We also have the highest rates in the country of hospital patient days used by people waiting for an aged-care bed, at 24.4 days. The national average is 13.2 days, which is an increase of 35 per cent in the last two years. And our state has 23 per cent fewer operational aged-care places per capita than when records first began.

Data from earlier this year revealed that 253 patients stuck in metro hospitals are ready for discharge but are unable to move because they are waiting for a federal aged-care place. That's not just a statistic; that's a crisis. It means frail, elderly South Australians are spending months in hospital beds, away from familiar surroundings and away from the care environments they deserve. It also means hospital beds are being clogged, worsening the strain on the entire health system and adding to our record ambulance ramping crisis. This is the direct consequence of a federal Labor government that was not ready, not listening and not willing to take responsibility.

How many South Australian lives have ended while they waited for Labor to get their act together? What about Indigenous Australians who need this care? We know they don't take up packages at the same rate as others. How many of them are being left stranded? We probably will never know. The coalition supports the passage of the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 because it is necessary to prevent further chaos in the aged-care sector. But, make no mistake, this legislation is proof of this government's failure. It proves Labor was not ready. It proves Labor misled Australians. And it proves Labor's refusal to accept coalition amendments during the debate on the Aged Care Act was nothing more than putting politics before people.

The coalition will continue to fight for a fair deal for older Australians and their families. And yes, we will continue to demand that the rights and dignity of older Australians are placed at the heart of every reform decision. Australians deserve better. And South Australians: you deserve better. As a state and as some of the oldest people in the country, you deserved better from both Labor governments, and you don't deserve more excuses.

We have, as I read it, about 30 seconds before we hit the hard marker at 7.30.

In the event, Acting Deputy President, that you were wondering how to spend the 30 seconds of time, I thought that I would assist by inviting you to consider how, in that effluxion of time, the chamber might procedurally and efficiently deal with that now much shorter juncture of time—

A point of order: he is just wasting time to assist you!

There is no point of order. We have now hit 7.30. Thank you both, Senator Ayres and Senator O'Sullivan.

I rise this evening to thank once again Dementia Australia and all the MPs and senators who attended the Parliamentary Friends of Dementia event here today at Parliament House, along with my new co-chair Senator Askew. The title of today's event on dementia was so very fitting—'Nobody can do it alone'. As I said at today's event, it isn't just advice for anyone living with dementia; in fact, it's great advice for the journey of life.

September is a significant time for advocates in the dementia space. It is World Alzheimer's Month and, in the lead-up to Dementia Action Week from 15 September to 21 September, the Parliamentary Friends of Dementia and Dementia Australia were delighted today to set the agenda for the 48th Parliament to commit to our cause, which is to make life better for people living with dementia and those who care for them. We heard today dementia is soon to become Australia's leading cause of death. This is the reality we face, but we as a nation face it together. I would like to acknowledge the contribution of the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors, Sam Rae, who spoke at the event today. He's a true champion for people with dementia and those who care for people with dementia. It was evident today when he spoke so passionately about what the Albanese Labor government is doing in this dementia space.

People living with dementia, their families and their carers are depending on us in this place to get the policy settings right so we can meet the challenges of this disease. The Albanese Labor government has undertaken significant initiatives to enhance funding for dementia care, support services and cutting-edge research, signalling a commitment to improving the lives of those affected and finding solutions for the future. Since coming to office in May 2022, the Albanese Labor government has prioritised aged-care reform, with dementia care at its heart. The government's increased funding is designed to ensure that Australians living with dementia, estimated to be over 400,000 people, can access quality care that is tailored to their unique needs. Major budgetary allocation has strengthened the aged-care sector by supporting more dementia-friendly environments, training for care workers in dementia-specific skills and expanding access to specialist services, such as memory clinics and dementia advisory services.

Today really was a day to hear from our inspiring dementia advocates, and they did not disappoint. We heard from Sue Watts, a fellow Tasmanian. Sue's husband lived with dementia and Parkinson's disease. He lived in residential aged care for three years and then passed away from Parkinson's disease complications in June 2024. Today, Sue advocated with vigour for more money to go into ensuring that there is mandatory dementia training for all Australians working in the dementia care sector. Gina Callan also spoke today. She's a mum, wife, grandmother and dog owner who has recently been diagnosed with younger onset dementia and ADHD at 59 years of age. She has transitioned from working as a civil marriage celebrant and a relationship and emotional fitness coach to focusing on her health and her family while continuing to study and do advocacy and voluntary work. Alongside her husband, Gina has engaged in dementia related training and now advocates for better community awareness of brain health and the need for a navigational blueprint and a well-trained workforce to care for people of all ages.

But we still have a long way to go to break down the myth that dementia only impacts older Australians. It doesn't. There's childhood dementia, where most children with that diagnosis won't see out their teenage years—and that's devastating. We heard from a mum today who has not one child but two children that, every day, she's losing. So a big shout-out to all the advocates.

We really do need early intervention, but we need to start with advocating for more in terms of brain health. If we fund and do research we will find that investing and making sure people are aware that eating a good diet, exercising and getting your sleep—and don't drink too much and don't smoke—will be beneficial for your entire life and will save governments money. (Time expired)

To pay suppliers or to pay their child's school fees, to pay their own superannuation or to buy more stock, to pay the extra staffing hours so that they can attend their child's dance performance or, again, just miss out on attending—these are just some of the hard decisions that small- and family-business owners in my community are having to make daily due to the appalling support and outdated regulations that are offered by this Albanese Labor government. I rise tonight to speak of the challenges that these small- and family-business owners across our communities are facing.

Since this government came to power in 2022, it has never been harder to start, run or grow a small business. We are seeing increased red tape and regulation for both new and existing businesses; more obligations when it comes to wages, tax and superannuation; increases to the cost of wholesale products, largely due to both global and political uncertainty; and increases in both electricity and water charges, with no long-term policy solutions to bring these under control—all of this and more, while inflation has been out of control, causing interest rates on loans to also increase. This combination of poor government support and tough economic times has strangled businesses and squeezed their profit margins, and as a result we have seen more than 30,000 small business insolvencies under this Albanese Labor government. This includes those across an array of industries, including construction, hospitality, retail and manufacturing.

This already alarming figure becomes even more critical when it's realised that almost half of Australia's workforce is employed by our 2.6 million small and family businesses. Again, that's almost half of our workforce and their families that are reliant on the success of their businesses. Recent research suggests that 50 per cent of them are concerned about their long-term survival. It's important to remember here that we are not talking about big businesses and corporations. We're talking about hardworking Australian families who drive the economic activity in this country. With these figures in mind, you would think that, instead of mandating more costs and more red tape for these businesses, we could implement long-term solutions and policy decisions that enable their growth and encourage their success. However, the proof is in the numbers, and the fact is that there are more business insolvencies happening per quarter under this government than ever before. This has surpassed the previous record set by the Labor government led by former prime minister Julia Gillard in 2013, whose term saw an average of 2,648 business insolvencies per quarter.

Businesses in my home state of Tasmania have not been immune to these challenges. I have met with many who are calling for urgent regulation reform for the industry. Recently, Launceston has seen the closure of multiple businesses that have been stalwarts of our city. They include a newsagency that operated for almost 50 years. Prior to closing the owner had not had any personal or annual leave in nine years and highlighted increased costs and tough economic times as the reason for closing. This message has been echoed by other business owners that I have spoken with in our community, who have mentioned the nationwide skills shortage as another key concern. I have met with small-business owners who have worked through illnesses and grievances so that they can make ends meet. Even more recently, I spoke with multiple small-business owners who, due to the latest wage and superannuation increases, have had to drop staffing hours and increase their own time on the ground to minimise this added cost. This means that our already time-poor small-business owners must stretch themselves further to offset record-high costs to their businesses—all of this in a desperate attempt to make a living and turn a profit.

What makes matters worse is that this Albanese Labor government are making these decisions without consulting the small business industry or key stakeholders. In other words, they are failing Australian families. Recent figures released by the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia, COSBOA, revealed that 73 per cent of respondents want more government support for small businesses, while 80 per cent of respondents say that red tape is holding their business back.

Bandaid solutions like temporary tax cuts and one-off electricity rebates do not meet the needs of these brave people who are battling through business conditions that they have never seen before. Small businesses are being hit with a new compliance burden almost every month under Labor. To date, we have seen 35 major Fair Work Act changes under this government, 34 of which disproportionately affected small business. Business owners are spending 15 hours a week on compliance, taking them away from running their businesses, impacting on their family life and often their mental health. It's time for the Albanese government to stop letting unions influence policy that is strangling business and start implementing industry guided policy and reform that will, in turn, enable business growth and business confidence. (Time expired)

In August, a united cross-section of Jewish, Christian, Muslim and secular Australians published a statement demanding action for Gaza—people of different faiths and backgrounds working together to urge the Australian government to act. These groups were united in calling for practical steps to help end the horror in Gaza by sanctioning Israel. The statement declared:

We are facing a moment of profound moral reckoning. In light of clear violations of international law, it is imperative that Australia respond with urgency and use every means available to end this horror.

Since then, the Albanese government has pledged to recognise Palestine. But recognition alone will not stop the bombs from falling, the guns from killing or the people from starving. Australia can and must show leadership by banning all arms trades, including trading parts for the F35 fighter jet, and impose sanctions akin to those we've placed on Russia. It's time to stand decisively for justice, dignity and the right of all human beings to live free from occupation and slaughter. The Albanese government must answer this call.

Earlier this month, I joined members of the Hazara community in Melbourne to commemorate the fall of Kabul to the Taliban. I heard stories of fear, loss and heartbreak but also of resilience, strength and an unwavering determination to keep fighting for justice. On that day in 2021, lives across Afghanistan were upended. Hazaras are one of the most persecuted ethnic groups in Afghanistan, and since the return of the Taliban attacks have escalated. They have been routinely subjected to targeted violence, killings and discrimination. Hazaras have faced a history of repression and violence by governments. They are subjected to targeted massacres at mosques and schools. Women are arbitrarily detained under the pretext of hijab laws, and girls are banned from education.

Last month, 25 Hazara families in Rashk village in the Bamiyan province were forcibly evicted from their homes by the Taliban. Armed men stormed their village, seized their houses and threw their belongings on to the street. The international community's response has been woefully inadequate. As we approach the 134th anniversary of the Hazara genocide, we support the calls from the Hazara community and international human rights groups to recognise and condemn escalations in violence, the ongoing persecution and acts of genocide against Hazaras. We continue to call for an increase to Australia's humanitarian intake to 50,000 places and a clear pathway to permanency for all those subjected to the so-called fast-track system.

We recently celebrated the anniversary of Pakistan's independence on 14 August. I want to acknowledge and have on the record of this parliament that this year's celebrations come at a difficult time for Pakistan's democracy. Pakistan is experiencing a dangerous escalation of anti-democratic activity. There are reports of arbitrary detention, forced disappearances, custodial torture of opposition figures and the use of military courts to try civilians. The unlawful detention of former president Imran Khan and the violent suppression of protests undermine democracy and fundamental rights. There have been military trials for civilians that breach international human rights conventions. All these actions violate basic democratic principles.

Pakistan's people deserve constitutional civilian rule and democratic governance. The Greens remain in solidarity with those calling for the release of political prisoners, an end to military trials for civilians, a free press without censorship and strong independent democratic institutions. We stand in solidarity with the people of Pakistan and the diaspora here in Australia.

Today, I met with representatives from Australia's Tibetan community. They spoke with courage about the importance of protecting Tibetan culture and religious freedoms. The succession of the Dalai Lama is a sacred tradition of Tibetan Buddhism, and Australia must take a principled stance in condemning any interference by the Chinese government.

As a democracy, we have a responsibility to stand with the Tibetan people, and Australia must affirm that Tibet's status is unresolved, press for genuine dialogue and support exiled communities working to preserve their culture. I have hope for a future where the people of Tibet are able to shape their own future—a future underpinned by safety, dignity and the freedom to preserve their culture and way of life.

It's time we discussed the quality of debate in this country. A healthy democracy depends on free discussion and the contest of ideas. But increasingly we see attempts to shut down debate with intimidation, accusations and emotional blackmail. This is profoundly damaging not only to individuals but to the health of our democracy itself.

Recently I raised what should have been a straightforward matter of community concern. At a South Australian school a biological boy was permitted to use the girls' toilets, while girls who felt uncomfortable were told to use the disabled facilities instead. Parents were not consulted, and many students felt anxious, confused and upset. Whatever your views on the issue, families deserve transparency and young girls deserve privacy and dignity. Schools should not make such decisions behind closed doors.

The response I received was telling. Almost immediately, threats arrived from advocacy groups. Their message was not to debate the facts or engage in reasoned argument. Instead, they insisted that unless I withdrew my comments a child would be at risk of suicide. Let me be clear: every suicide is a tragedy. No compassionate person could wish such an outcome on any young person. But precisely because the subject is so serious, it must not be misused as a political weapon. To suggest that raising a community concern is tantamount to driving a child to suicide is emotional blackmail. It is a tactic designed to shut down debate, and, sadly, it is not unique.

Too often in our public life, when difficult conversations arise, the first response is not to argue but to accuse, to shout 'racism', to shout 'transphobia', to shout 'bigotry', and the debate is meant to end. This is not dialogue; it is a conversation stopper and a way of delegitimising people who raise questions in good faith. Australians have had enough.

We saw this again on the weekend when thousands of ordinary mums and dads protested in our streets about issues such as migration and community cohesion. Their concerns were genuine and heartfelt, and deserved to be heard. But those rallies were hijacked by Neo-Nazi thugs. Let me be crystal clear: Neo-Nazis are openly racist and totalitarian. Their hateful ideology has no place in our country. But their presence must not be used as an excuse to dismiss the concerns of ordinary Australians who are worried about the direction of our society. Indeed, the tragedy is that, when mainstream voices are censored, abused or silenced, frustration grows. That frustration is exactly what hateful movements like the Neo-Nazis feed upon. If we continue to shut down ordinary citizens with slogans and slurs, more people will be pushed towards the fringes.

Censorship by fear is not only unjust; it is fuelling extremism. That is why the issues before us—women's rights, migration policy, social cohesion, climate change and the safety of children—must be debated openly, not forced underground. We will not resolve our challenges through intimidation. We will only find answers through respectful, reasoned and open debate. That is the standard of a healthy democracy, and it is the standard we should all demand in Australia. Advocacy in a democracy means persuasion and appealing to evidence, values and reasons. It does not mean silencing those who disagree with you.

Our nation was built on the belief that free men and women can confront difficult questions together in the open and without fear. That is the spirit we must restore. If intimidation dictates which conversations we may or may not have, then we have lost more than a single debate; we have lost the very foundation of our democracy. For my part, I will continue to speak up, I will continue to defend the rights of families to know what policies affect them and their children, and I will continue to insist that our public life must be shaped by evidence, reason and respect, not coercion or fear. As elected representatives, it is our duty to lead by example. We must show that free and open debate strengthens our nation, while division and suppression weaken it. Australians deserve nothing less.

Farmers in Western Australia and all of Australia are under attack. They are bullied from pillar to post by every level of government, by crazy climate zealots and by radical animal activists. All these people are happy to eat the food they produce and bask in the wealth they create, but do they actually care about the human beings, their fellow Australians, who toil from sun-up to sundown with the hope that next year will be better?

Farming is an intergenerational business. Farming knowledge is handed down from generation to generation. These men and women take incredible pride in imparting their deep knowledge of the land to their sons and daughters. But the average age of farmers has increased. It went from 44 in 1981 to 58 in 2021. This reflects the sad truth that the next generation is turning away from the family farm, as the government vilifies and punishes these hardworking Australians. They treat them as ecoterrorists, as terrorists of the environment and as thieves that are on stolen land. These are the farmers that turn up every day and produce over 90 per cent of the food that we eat, that take care of their land and that tend to the soil, whose very livelihoods depend on the care of the environment around them.

One Australian farmer dies by suicide every 10 days. Farmers are twice as likely to die from suicide than other Australian workers. Farmers must deal with the unpredictable. They aren't promised a return. Farmers know that there will always be hard times, times that strain mental health and wellbeing as they are impacted by weather, financial distress and geographic isolation. Farmers struggle to ask for help. They don't want to burden family and friends and have difficulty accessing suitable mental health services. We as a nation should be rallying around farmers and trying to help them in any way we can. These are the people feeding our nation.

The sheep industry has been the backbone of rural towns for over 100 years. The ban on live export is driving family farms out of business and causing large-scale rural unemployment. It is risking food security for millions of people around the world, reducing competition and supply and making higher prices for consumers. This ban sets an alarming precedent for other industries. In WA, we've seen the Labor government launch an ideological tax on gun rights, treating law-abiding farmers like criminals. Western Australia is a huge place, and we rely on our farmers to keep all sorts of pests and introduced species in check. These unworkable and unnecessary regulations add complexity and uncertainty to farming.

Across our country, we're losing productive farmland to intermittent electricity generation. Wind and solar farms are popping up everywhere. If we haven't already desecrated enough rural land in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and Tassie in this government's reckless pursuit of net zero, now there is more than 35 wind farms planned across Western Australia. This number represents more than four times the amount of electricity that our grid can currently handle at any one time. We're destroying our farmland to build electricity infrastructure that is incapable of providing reliable electricity to keep the lights on.

And the Prime Minister wonders why he gets heckled and chased by tractors in Ballarat! They've had their land taken off them. It has been destroyed by high-voltage powerlines and mining companies running roughshod over them, trampling the rights they thought they had. We have state governments inventing new regulations and red and green tape as far as the eye can see. Then we have the local shire councils, with their clipboards and pencils, enforcing all manner of crazy regulations. What happens when it all gets too hard for our farmers? Where will our food come from? We're going to need more tractors.

In this country, we face a quiet crisis—a crisis where too many people cannot afford to go to the dentist. The Greens have been clear: the mouth is part of the body. Dental care should be part of Medicare. At the last election, we took a simple policy: if you have a Medicare card, you should be able to get the dental care that you need without breaking the bank. Right now, that's not the reality. Most people can't access public dentistry. For those who can, the waitlists are years long.

Think about that. That's years of preventable tooth decay, years of headaches and years of not being able to eat properly. And yet, already in this term of parliament, both the government and the opposition have voted against the expansion of dental care. Shame on you both! Every Australian knows what happens when you go and sit in the dentist's chair. You are asked to open your wallet wide. Well, it is time to end that situation. When you go to the dentist's chair, you will always be asked to open your mouth wide, but let us end that situation where first you must open your wallet wide as well.

This is not just about teeth; this is about overall health. Our dental and oral health workforce are calling for dental to be brought into Medicare. A recent survey of dental practitioners found that over 64 per cent of those surveyed support expanding Medicare to include more dental services. And we know who is affected: people in rural and regional Australia. We know that oral health generally declines as remoteness increases. The dentist drought is costing teeth, and people cannot afford to travel to the dentist.

Older Australians, people over the age of 65, on average have lost 14 teeth. Some 25 per cent are avoiding certain foods. We have seen promising results from a seniors dental benefits scheme trial. Why are we waiting any longer for action? A person recovering from cancer may have surgery that removes their teeth. The implants may be funded by the government. But the actual teeth in those implants are not. If someone has radiation therapy, their salivary glands are often damaged. They will need to see a dentist twice a year for the rest of their life, yet that care isn't funded by Medicare. Why?

From survivors of abuse, I have heard so many stories of people being assaulted and losing their teeth. In one story shared with me, a woman lost her front teeth, and the others began to blacken and die. For decades she lived with trauma and stigma because repairing her teeth was simply too expensive. Why are we relying on charities to fund restorative work and not agreeing to fund this restorative work under Medicare for survivors of abuse?

Disabled people—well, for us, the dentist chair is often inaccessible. People may need longer appointments or treatments under anaesthetic in a hospital setting. All of this adds up to the point where disable people are not getting the oral health care that we need. First Nations communities already face higher rates of poor oral health and barriers to care. We are seeing First Nations led services leading the way in community care, yet this government is not funding these services to scale.

All of this happens even when we know that the flow-through impacts of untreated dental problems are heart disease, dementia, respiratory disease and even things like pregnancy complication or indeed links to rheumatoid arthritis. respiratory, cardiac, even pregnancy complication or indeed links to rheumatoid arthritis. Oral health is not a luxury; it is fundamental to dignity, to confidence and to being able to eat, speak and live free of pain. Let us bring dental care into Medicare now.

On 18 August I was honoured with the opportunity to represent the coalition at a Vietnam Veterans' Day remembrance service alongside dignitaries and retired Vietnam War servicemen and women. It is always deeply sombre and moving to reflect on the efforts and sacrifices of our fallen veterans. The Vietnam War is one whose raw emotion is still fresh in our memories. The date of 18 August also marks the anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan, a brutal and bloody conflict fought during heavy rain in 1966. On that day, 108 Australian and New Zealand soldiers fought a battle against a formidable bastion of North Vietnamese and Vietcong soldiers. The battle took place in the thick of vegetation of a rubber plantation near the small village of Long Tan. From the 6th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, 17 brave and courageous soldiers were killed and 25 were wounded during this clash with 2,000 Vietcong soldiers.

Joining America's offensive against communist controlled North Vietnam, Australia sent its first troops to Vietnam in 1962. Our troop numbers increased over a 10-year period that saw more than 58,000 serving in the conflict by the end of the war. Five-hundred and twenty-one of our veterans died in battle, and 3,000 were wounded. One of those Vietnam veterans who served was our former deputy prime minister, Tim Fischer, AC, 1946 to 2019. He was an outstanding Australian who served his country with distinction in both war and peace. Other members of parliament from both sides of politics who served in Vietnam include Graham Edwards, Rod Atkinson, John Bradford, Kevin Newman and Peter White.

To be sure, the Vietnam War was one of our more contested conflicts, and it polarised millions. Yet, politics aside, the Australian diggers who enlisted were true servants of their country and brave soldiers fulfilling a duty to their country. Australia's forces believed they were fighting for a just cause: to defend freedom and democracy from communist aggression in the region. In this spirit, they were gallant and noble heroes whose service to our country must always be honoured. I salute their sacrifice. Shamefully, many of our Vietnam veterans were treated appallingly on their return to Australia. Some were spat on in the streets, and others were shamed and shunned. Many felt abandoned, unappreciated and rejected, leading to lasting emotional scars, depression and addiction. Any Australian who puts their life on the line to serve their country in uniform should never be treated this way. Thankfully, with the passage of time, the community has come to appreciate the service and sacrifice of our Vietnam veterans.

The first real opportunity for the Australian public to thank our veterans came in October 1987 with the staging of the Vietnam forces welcome home parade. Following a dawn service in Martin Place, 22,000 veterans marched through the streets of Sydney, where they were saluted by a grateful public. Our then prime minister Bob Hawke acknowledged the parade as a culmination of a long process of reconciliation and community acceptance. Marking the 40th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan, almost 20 years later, in 2006, our then prime minister John Howard acknowledged that the healing journey was ongoing. He said:

The sad fact is that those who served in Vietnam were not welcomed back as they should have been … the nation collectively failed those men. They are owed our apologies and our regrets for that failure. The very least that we can do on this 40th anniversary is to acknowledge that fact, to acknowledge the difficulties that so many of them have had in coping with the postwar trauma and to acknowledge the magnificent contribution that they have continued to make to our nation.

It has been truly gratifying to see national leaders and organisations like the Returned and Services League issuing apologies and making efforts to provide better support for our veterans. This is why we as a nation should care for our veteran war heroes and ensure they receive proper treatment and support from the Commonwealth. Thank you to all the Vietnam veterans for your service. Lest we forget.

From 2022 to 2023, Australian livestock and livestock products brought in over $32 billion. From King Island to Cairns, that's a lot of pork on your fork or steak on your plate. Seriously, though, that's a decent budget to work from. But it's not just the money that I think about; it's about the people behind this. We often forget the sheer number of legends we have to thank. On a good day, we remember to thank the farmers, the processors and the buyers. But when was the last time we thanked our veterinarians?

I met with the Australian Veterinary Association last week, where we discussed key issues experienced by the vet workforce in Australia, as well as how to best go about training my groodle, Wilbur—we're still working on that one, though. But the point we kept circling back to was clear: vets are a key part of our communities. They are crucial to animal welfare and serve as our first line of defence against biosecurity risks and outbreaks. In the event of one of these outbreaks, a well-prepared, readily available vet workforce is needed to provide support, ensure animal welfare and contain the outbreak.

This robust workforce is not something that we have. In fact, the veterinary workforce has been suffering shortages for the past eight years. That's eight years of compromising animal welfare, eight years of mental health effects and burnout for vets, eight years of leaving ourselves underprotected against biosecurity risks, and eight years of public health vulnerability. Rural and regional areas have suffered the most from the eight-year vet workforce drought—rural and regional areas such as Tasmania.

This causes multiple issues, all of which are of great concern to me and to the association I met with. Firstly, animal welfare is compromised due to a shortage of vets who can maintain animal health and address issues. As a pet owner and a former farm worker, this does distress me. I'm sure those of you with pets, farms or a weird and wonderful wildlife menagerie in your backyard would echo my concern. In the case of a biosecurity outbreak, though, whether accidental or caused by a breach, we are leaving ourselves, our farmers and our animals without effective protection, treatment and humane control of outbreaks.

Being from Tasmania, I'm acutely aware of how precious a strong biosecurity bubble is, but one rogue mosquito carrying a devastating virus could risk it all, and our vets are the frontline that is currently short on soldiers. If this doesn't convince you that something needs to be done, consider this: over 60 per cent of existing human diseases originate from animals. So, if not for our farmers or our pets, we still have vets to thank for the early detection and treatment of animal diseases which are at risk of infecting you and me.

So what can we do to support our veterinarians? I'll tell you what we can do. We should introduce a rural practices HECS debt forgiveness scheme to encourage graduate veterinarians to relocate and to work in rural and regional areas, modelled off what is already provided to rural GPs and nurse practitioners. Research from existing rural practices HECS debt forgiveness schemes shows that these schemes are most effective in retaining graduates who have already had experience in rural areas. To ease the transition into rural practice, we should extend the Commonwealth prac payment scheme to vet students. This will help support these students throughout their 52 weeks of prac placement, while encouraging them to have a go in rural areas. These techniques will help address the shortage of veterinarians across the country by prioritising vets for tomorrow.

As for what we can do for our existing workforce, poor mental health is prominent in the vet workforce. To support them, we should invest in industry suitable mental health support programs, such as mental health first aid and the expansion of counselling and mentoring programs. Veterinarians are our lifeline in many ways. They are the first ones we call when our pets are injured, our farm animals are unwell or our biosecurity is compromised. We rely on them, and they come through for us despite severe underfunding and a thinly stretched workforce. It's time we give our vets a hand and ensure a sustainable, thriving workforce for the future.

There's been a lot of talk in this chamber over the last 48 hours about scrutiny and transparency. I'm going to talk about a very strange thing tonight: that one time the government got it right. I asked a question on notice:

Has Newcastle Airport sought any rent relief or form of payment deferment for the use of facilities at Williamtown, NSW in the last 24 months.

And, wouldn't you know it, 31 days later—just one day after the 30 days—they answered. The answer—it wasn't a fudge—was this:

In the specified time period, no rent relief has been provided to Newcastle Airport Pty Ltd. The airport continues to pay rent to Defence for their lease of Commonwealth land …

The reason I asked that question is because there was a bit of a he-said-she-said moment in the Newcastle media. The Newcastle Herald claimed to have gotten some documents showing that Newcastle Airport, jointly owned by Newcastle City Council and Port Stephens Council, was under some financial difficulty. The airport wrote me a letter: 'Everything is fine. There's nothing to see here. Everything is wonderful. Here is the thing—we're a very sustainable airport. We've got a low carbon footprint. We're doing all these things.' I thought: 'There are two different ways. How do I weigh it up?' I asked this question because one of the allegations made in the paper was that the airport had sought rent relief because of its financial position. Here we have it in black and white. It's from the government—a neutral adviser. The airport had sought rent relief from the Commonwealth for its operations.

When we think about why this was important to me in the lead-up to the 2022 election, the airport was out lobbying for money. There was a runway upgrade, and they wanted money for Defence to put in there to make it a more solid runway. The extra funding was $60 million, and this was so it could land wide-body aircraft for international flights. The then Morrison government, through Barnaby Joyce, the infrastructure minister, made that happen, and it was provided. It was infrastructure money through Defence. They also wanted $55 million for half of a new airport terminal for international arrivals, so international visitors could come there. I must say, I was slightly concerned because they were talking about inbound tourism. In the Hunter, this is something very important to us. I joked at the time that it would all become a hub for the Bintang express—for people to get to Bali and back a little bit quicker, with nothing inbound. That's exactly what has happened. Three years later they've announced one international service. Guess where? It's to Bali. Here's what the airport needs to do. It's like being a property developer. They're developing land around the air base. They admit to diverting money from their things, out of budget, to property development. The money was given by the federal government not for property development but to become an international airport, to develop routes through Singapore and Asia, or to fly to the Middle East and Europe. It was to be another international airport.

When we talk about scrutiny, we need to ask the questions: what is the truth, and what has been going on there? I noticed yesterday morning that the Mayor of Newcastle City Council was on ABC Radio with Paul Culliver. He was asking questions about the airport. These were his statements: 'I have agreed that I will not, because of a conflict of interest, comment on the airport, as I explained to your producer.' When pressed further, he stated, 'Following written communication and discussion with the airport board, I agreed not to make any further comment about the airport.' Imagine the mayor of one of the equal shareholders not being able to comment on a key asset worth potentially hundreds of millions of dollars. Why is that? Why are they not coming clean? I'll be honest with you. The airport has offered to come give me a great briefing and tell me what's going on. What about the ratepayers of Port Stephens and Newcastle? Why not tell them the state of an asset they take money from? Are the ratepayers potentially on the hook for money? They're talking about negotiating a new debt facility with Commonwealth Bank. But the Commonwealth Bank isn't that keen. So, if you're asking for rent relief and not getting new financing, something is crook in Tobruk. All I ask is that the airport not offer me a private briefing but come out and tell us what your plan is to go back to the original [inaudible]. They'd come down here and ask for $49 million for a freight hub when they can't pay their own bills. Get on, do your job, become an international airport and focus on being an airport and not a property developer, because that's what the people of the Hunter want to do, and it's what the federal government gave you money for.

The seas of my state have been taken over by an algal bloom on an unprecedented scale. It's a disaster of national significance that demands a national response. While our scientists are researching the cause, they warn that it is very likely that blooms of this severity will increase if we continue to pollute our seas with nutrients and change the climate by unrestrained polluting.

Bearing witness to this disaster, and as a South Australian, I fail to see how anyone could not accept the necessity of targets to encourage the economic conditions that will reduce emissions. Targets send a clear and unambiguous signal to the markets, the bureaucracy and communities that we are aspiring to transform our economy to one that is on a sustainable footing.

Still, there are some amongst us in the community who challenge the need for the transition, comfortable and self-satisfied in their denials and their wilful blindness to a changing climate that will eventually impact each and every community. Perhaps a more honest conversation is needed by the body politic. It should be acknowledged that ambitious targets have the potential for significant disruption and will be hard on many communities.

As a young lawyer practising in Port Augusta, I witnessed the consequences of economic disruption and the resulting social impacts. Workers lost their employment with the railways and the power station. Families broke down. Children were lost to the criminal justice system.

Rather than debating whether we should have targets, we should be debating how best to bring our people with us and assist them during the transition. We must arrest our declining productivity, to have the national wealth to underpin any transition. We need an economy driven by innovation—something that we have struggled with to date.

We must not neglect to align our environmental ambitions with economic pragmatism and with the competing priorities of the nation. Sir Garfield Barwick—better known as a jurist, less well known as the founder and former president of the Australian Conservation Foundation—held the view that conservation did not just concern the preservation of flora and fauna and the environment that supported them; rather, it also involved planning the rational use of the entire environment to ensure present and future generations live sustainably and have satisfying lives. In his paper titled 'Economic growth and the environment', he argues that we should turn away from growth for its own sake and change our values. He believed that growth-mindedness and its consequences were the golden calf and the false god Baal. If we are to have any success in reaching any target, there must be a change in values, a change in the way we think.

It was only recently that we had, in this very building, an economic roundtable that was held in the shadow of the impending release of the Climate Change Authority report on targets, as well as the climate risk assessment. Potential improvements in productivity were debated at the forum, but nature was not at the heart of the discussions. In my view, we must put nature at the very centre of all our decision-making. How else can we successfully traverse the narrow road to a sustainable economy that supports healthy and happy communities?

Targets should not be viewed as a yoke but rather as an expression of our commitment to reconcile with nature. The debate over targets is, in reality, a debate on the extent of our obligation to the following generations. To be a good steward today is to be a revered ancestor tomorrow. We need our patriots to hear the call to action and stand up and fight for the next generation.

Taxation: we glance down at our tax receipts, we glance down at our payslips when they arrive and we all have a slight momentary pause, a hesitation, at the amount of tax we are paying—particularly with this government in charge, because we're concerned about whether our tax dollars are going to good places. But we all pay our taxes, because we understand that, in a Western society, they are necessary.

However, when governments enact tax changes, certain principles should always be held in the forefront of policymakers' minds, principles such as: taxation changes need to be fair, they need to be transparent, they need to ensure a tax rate as low as possible to deliver only essential services, and they should never ever be retrospective in nature. Labor's super tax fails all these tests. It was brought in, announced, at a time when it was never taken to an election; in fact, Labor had promised to make no changes to taxation arrangements on superannuation. Also, perhaps most egregiously, it has not been indexed, so it will, over time, grow to encompass a huge percentage of Australia's taxpaying population.

Worst of all, it is retrospective in nature. Let me explain why, and I'll give you two real examples. These are not hypotheticals; these are people I have spoken to. The first one is a farmer who, under the tax rules as they applied in the past, made the very legal—perhaps sensible, some would say—decision to put part of their farmland into a self-managed super fund. Farmland has grown in value over the decades. So, a parcel of farmland that may have been worth $600,000, $700,000 or $800,000 when it was put into a self-managed super fund is now worth well in excess of the $3 million super tax threshold imposed by this Labor government. What does that farmer now have to do in order to satisfy this Labor government's voracious appetite for tax? They will either have to expend their cash reserves within that super fund or sell part of the family farm—quite literally. That is not fair. That is retrospective tax in action.

Let me give you a second example, a gentleman I met just a couple of weeks ago—again, with a parcel of land quite legitimately put into a self-managed super fund, residential land earning a certain income. That land happened to be re-zoned, taking the value of that land from, again, a few hundred thousand dollars to many millions of dollars. 'What a great windfall!' people will say; absolutely—except the income from that land in the self-managed super fund hasn't changed; merely the valuation of that land has changed. What was the cash income from that particular property paying for? It was paying the pension to the retiree. Yet the income from that property is now going to have to be used to pay Labor's unfair retrospective superannuation tax.

This tax is a disgrace. It should never have seen the light of day, and it should be opposed at every opportunity.

What we saw from the Albanese Labor government last week was nothing short of shameful. With the Greens at their side—yes, the Australian Greens—Labor slammed the door on accountability by scrapping the standalone cross-portfolio Indigenous estimates hearing. For the first time in 17 years, this Senate has been denied opportunity for the scrutiny in this area that we've known for 17 years. More recently, this meant that the minister responsible for the portfolio was also at the table, always. Now that's changed.

Despite what the Albanese government have claimed, this is not a question of scheduling; this is about silencing. Since coming into this parliament, my experience in asking questions in senate estimates is to get the runaround—being told, 'Not today; that's on Friday, cross-portfolio day,' and on Friday being told, 'No, not today; that was back on Tuesday,' or Wednesday. How many times did that happen? It was awful, and this is going to be worse. It was already the case that we had a truncated day, and Senator McCarthy, you know that; it was a truncated day. We were short on time, but this is about making the situation much worse. I'm going to look forward to you running around all week to try to get in front of every single committee to answer the questions about your portfolio.

The latest Closing the Gap data tells us exactly why Labor wanted this hearing gone: because, under this government—and in the territory in which you live, Senator McCarthy—youth detention is up by 11 per cent; suicide is up by 9.4 per cent. These are not small numbers. This has happened since 2022.

A point of order, Senator Scarr?

Yes, a point of order. I'm very interested in what Senator Liddle is saying. I think she is making some very, very important points, and I think it would be good to be able to hear her in silence.

Yes. Could senators observe decorum in the chamber.

These are not small numbers and they've happened since 2022. Adult incarceration is up 3.5 per cent, preschool attendance is down 2.6 per cent and 1.2 per cent fewer children are starting school developmentally—

Senator Scarr, a point of order?

Sorry, Acting Deputy President. I hope I don't have to speak a third time, but I'm happy to. I think Senator Liddle deserves to be heard in silence.

I would ask other senators to respect the right of the speaker to be heard in silence.

I think one of the most troubling statistics is that five were on track and now there are only four. Guess which one is no longer on track? Sadly, it's baby birth weight. It's one of the data points that you can accurately predict. Every one of those numbers represents lives, families and futures, and every one of those numbers that are going backwards are going backwards under Labor.

There was ending the cashless debit card, the lifting of alcohol restrictions and then standing by and watching nine months before they were put in place and watching NAAJA collapse with its poor governance and doing absolutely nothing to intervene, even though a large proportion of its funding comes from the Commonwealth. People were anguishing in the Northern Territory without even having representation. That was disgusting, and it's factual. The disastrous situation of alcohol restrictions being lifted saw a 77 per cent increase in average monthly domestic violence assaults in Alice Springs, and Central Australia is still a long way from recovery, if ever.

Taxpayers deserve to know and to be able to interrogate why $300 million poured into Central Australia has not delivered a better, safer Central Australia. It simply hasn't. You just need to walk down the street to see that. I've done it many times, and not for work; I've been there as a local and as a visitor. What are more reasons Labor did this? The AIHW health performance framework summary report says the Labor fuelled cost-of-living crisis has made things worse, especially in remote areas and in primary health care. It's got harder than ever. We should know more about that. There are the Indigenous organisations that have failed to file mandatory reports with ORIC, their regulator. How come ORIC seem to think that they need to defend that? Why is it that frontline services are still waiting for funds while bureaucracy holds back the cash? It was done in Katherine less than two weeks ago, and that's a serious situation for those people.

With broken promises and lack of transparency, this is the most secretive government in living memory. The government claims that Indigenous issues will now be part of every day of estimates. What they don't say is what they've actually done to make this much better. It is not. The people who are going to lose out most are Indigenous Australians. (Time expired)

Since I stood up in the Senate last July and talked about the tragic case of Eden Westbrook and what happened to be a botched investigation by Tasmania Police, my office has been contacted by Tasmanians wanting to share their stories. I'm going to use what time I have this week to tell their stories, and I'll be back in October because there are many more stories to tell. Before I do that, I want to say that this is not an attack on our Tasmanian police. Most of our police are great people who put their lives on the line for Tasmanians every day. This is about systemic problems in our police force and a group of rotten apples at the top who aren't doing anything to clean it up. As a matter of fact, if they did as much cleaning up as what they do covering up, things would be better off.

Today, I am going to tell you about Sally, which is obviously not her real name. Sally met a Tasmanian policeman and they started a relationship which at first was happy but quickly turned coercively controlling. This man was also obsessed with porn and choking. He tried both on Sally, and she was upset and appalled. He apologised and said it wouldn't happen again. They holidayed in Queensland, and, sure enough, it happened again. Sally's relationship ended when she called police because she was afraid. Her partner had been verbally abusing her and she was worried that it would get physical—again. The police arrived, and Sally's ex-partner told her to get out of their residence, which she did, only returning the next day to get some clothes and medication. At this point, Sally's ex-partner went to a nearby police station to ask for a Police Family Violence Order. The police there told him he was dreaming, so he went police station shopping. He found someone he was mates with and, bingo! He got a Police Family Violence Order against Sally.

Sally is a professional, intelligent and independent woman. Like most of us, she assumed that, if she notified the Tasmanian police, then of course action would have to be taken. Sally reported her ex-partner for writing an untrue statutory declaration which was used to support the Police Family Violence Order against her. In her stat dec, she detailed the rapes in Tasmania and Queensland and the emotional, verbal and financial abuse that she had suffered. Initially, Sally was assured that all her complaints would be thoroughly investigated and that Queensland police will also be forward her rape complaint after the DPP advised Tasmania Police to do so. Professional standards officers took seven months to interview Sally's ex-partner. During this time—here it goes—her ex-partner was still on duty, in uniform. He was not stood down and not stood aside but still on duty.

Sally was told by professional standards officers that they had sent Queensland police her complaint regarding the rape that occurred there, but they never did. Oh no, they did not! It wasn't until Sally contacted the Queensland sexual crimes squad that she found out Tasmanian police never referred that file. How about that! Sally was impressed by the Queensland detectives, who flew down shortly after receiving the brief. But it seems her ex-partner was given a heads up that they were coming to knock on his door. Sally's perpetrator is still a serving police officer in Tasmania Police—scary. In fact, he was given higher duties. This is how good it gets: he was actually given higher duties while under active investigation for rape in two different states. Not only has he been investigated for rape in Tasmania and Queensland but also for emotional abuse, financial abuse, verbal abuse and for choking, stalking, stealing, professional misconduct and giving out confidential police passwords, as well as posting inappropriate images on social media while in uniform and posting inappropriate social media posts about a job that he did which identified the patient. The list goes on.

Not once has this man been held to account for any of these behaviours. An internal review was done regarding the serving of Sally's Police Family Violence Order, and the evidence found there was no legal basis for the order. Sally first reported her matter to then police commissioner, Darren Hine, and, according to Sally, he was absolutely disgusted. However he retired shortly after, unfortunately, and Sally had to apply to the Magistrates Court to have her Police Family Violence Order revoked. That's pretty poor of you, Darren Hines. I'll put that out there now. The order was revoked, and that doesn't happen very often. Tasmanian police, through Treasury, reimbursed all her legal fees. Sally also got a formal apology and a letter from Tasmania Police family and sexual violence committee chair, an independent person endorsing her victim-of-crime application, which stated that Sally was a, 'victim of emotional and sexual abuse by a current serving police officer'.

The only repercussion Sally's ex-partner has faced is continued professional development. Does that sound familiar? This is what the military does. They call it continued professional development when they're doing nothing—we're on to this. It's something that they say when actually they're not doing crap—which is really, really bad.

Sally was frustrated that her rape investigation was investigated by a detective friend of her ex-partner, who he played police football with. He was also previously her ex-partner's boss. Who would do that? You couldn't make this stuff up. This officer refused to acknowledge a conflict-of-interest, which, as I see it, would not pass the pub test, especially in Tasmania. Sally has also discovered that other officers and co-workers from external agencies have also made complaints in regard to her ex-partner's professional misconduct at work. This person is still in uniform. Tasmanian police professional standards assured Sally that her ex-partner's reputation is terrible within the force—but he is still serving. What sort of message does this send to young officers in our Tasmanian police force—that this behaviour is okay? It is not.

In 2023, in a report Tasmania Police: professional standards—complaints and outcomes, Commissioner Donna Adams said:

… the community must have confidence that matters are investigated and addressed appropriately.

It seems, Commissioner Adams, like there's a lot of talk but no action, certainly not where the action needs to be. You don't have the courage, because you're all about yourself. I don't know what the Tasmanian police professional standards mob are doing, but it's certainly not their goddamned job, anyway. It seems to me that the Tasmanian police are operating like the Defence Force operates: they investigate themselves and mark their own homework—nothing to see here. Well, I'm onto you. I've got them lining up at my office.

Since I have been talking about Eden Westbrook and the tragic circumstances around Eden's death, the poor investigation and the fact that the late disgraced paedophile police officer Paul Reynolds had oversight of Eden's case, I have had whistleblowers like Sally and ex- and serving Tasmanian police officers—like I said—coming forward. It is just about over, Donna. It's just about over. I can taste you.

I'm not sure if the case of Paul Reynolds has really got out to the broader Australian public yet, but it's an absolute shocker. Reynolds was a senior Tasmanian police officer who groomed and abused 50 boys over 30 years. You can't tell me that none of those police officers knew what was going on at the higher end. You absolutely cannot tell me it wasn't going on and that you didn't know, because if you didn't you shouldn't have been in that damned uniform.

It was a young police officer Will Smith who made a complaint against Reynolds. Mr Smith's complaint was made internally through Tasmania Police's 'blue team' reporting mechanism, with a senior officer he trusted putting his name to it. He heard from the other officer that Reynolds was being investigated by the police's professional standards unit. A while later he was told Reynolds had died by suicide one day after his house was searched. I have been told by whistleblowers that Reynolds got a warning phone call. What I want to know is: were his phone calls ever investigated? Has anyone ever investigated Paul Reynolds and what was on his phone? I want to know the truth, and so do many others in Tasmania. An hour before police went to his house to arrest him—something stinks here. The investigation into Reynolds was discontinued when he died, with most of the Tasmanian community left in the dark about his offending until a coronial inquest was released in 2023. Despite that complaint, Reynolds was given a full police funeral. What an absolute shocker! That was despite senior police officers being aware that he was under investigation over sexual abuse allegations. That just killed the uniform. That's a shocker. Whoever made that decision should leave and never go back near that uniform.

A review by Regina Weiss into Reynolds's conduct found that the extent of his grooming and sexual abuse between 1998 and 2018 was 'truly shocking and horrific'. Mr Smith said he found it difficult to cope at times after making the report, claiming he was never told by Tasmanian police that the information he passed on had been found to be true. The cover-up stops today. It's going to keep coming, Donna. It's coming. That's it. You just can't cover things up, mate. They'll always come out. The truth always comes out.

I was delighted on Friday 29 August 2025 to attend the Multicultural Queensland Awards night, attended by the Hon. Fiona Simpson MP, the Minister for Multicultural Affairs, and many representatives from Queensland's wonderful multicultural communities. I'd like to congratulate the winners from the evening. The Minister's Multicultural Award was awarded to Mr Emil Rahimov. I have known Emil for many years. He's helped so many people in Queensland's wonderful multicultural communities. So I congratulate him. The Multicultural Sector Outstanding Achiever was Raewyn Burton, the Diversity and Inclusion Champion was Lolla Ingadottir, and the Lifetime Achiever was Irene Bayldon, whom I've known for many years. Irene has volunteered for 40 years, helping multicultural communities across Queensland. Thank you so much, Irene, especially for everything you do on radio 4EB.

One person who I would like to mention as well is the winner of the outstanding contribution by a new Queenslander, Ben Maiyo. Ben comes from Kenya, and he gave a very moving speech on the night. I'd like to quote from Ben's speech because I thought it was outstanding. Ben and the Kenyan community should be so proud of his speech. He said:

This award is not just mine. It belongs to every New Queenslander who, regardless of how they arrived, is contributing in quiet but powerful ways. It is a proof that when migrants are given opportunities, and not judged by where they come from, but embraced for what they bring, they become an asset to Queensland.

I couldn't have said it better, Ben. Congratulations to ECCQ for giving you an opportunity. I know that you're proving your worth in your new position.

I also offer congratulations to the winner of the multicultural sector outstanding achiever award, the Maisha Bora Program, and the diversity inclusion champion, John Holland. I was so impressed with what John Holland is doing in terms of giving opportunities to new Australians, including people with refugee backgrounds, on their infrastructure sites. Well done, John Holland. Congratulations to everyone as well as the highly commended recipients. It was a wonderful night that represented the very best of Australian values.

On 10 August 2025, I was absolutely delighted to attend a PNG cultural day, convened by the UQ PNG Students' Association, to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Papua New Guinea—the independent state of Papua New Guinea. The 50th anniversary of its independence falls on 16 September this year. I was actually in PNG working as a lawyer when the 25th anniversary of PNG's independence came about, so this is a very moving year for me. I found it very difficult to leave Papua New Guinea after my time there came to an end. That's a comment on the wonderful people of Papua New Guinea. So this is a very significant occasion.

I want to congratulate all the members of the University of Queensland PNG Students' Association. I want to compliment Rotary Toowong for all the wonderful work it does in PNG and for supporting the celebrations, and I want to congratulate all of the wonderful performers, who gave us such a rich kaleidoscope of the different cultures across that amazingly diverse country called Papua New Guinea, which has so many of the world 's languages. One quarter of the world's languages are actually in PNG. That is quite extraordinary. The performances were absolutely fantastic. I say to the students at the University of Queensland from PNG that you are our future one top bridge—the bridge between Australia and Papua New Guinea, and the work you do in decades to come will make such a valuable contribution. And I would like to say to all Queenslanders to please make sure you are at Bill Norris Oval at Beenleigh on Saturday 13 September 2025, when PNG Federation Queensland Incorporated will have its Independence Day celebrations. Happy Independence Day, Papua New Guinea.

I was very moved this week to attend the Jina Amini annual commemoration day, convened by our wonderful Kurdish community. This gathering honoured Jina Amini, a 22-year-old Kurdish Iranian woman whose death in custody at the hands of Iran's so-called morality police on 16 September 2022 sparked the global Women, Life, Freedom movement. Representatives of the Australian Kurdish community from all over Australia came together to give their perspectives and provide a call to action.

They asked for humanitarian visa pathways to be created for families at risk. They asked for—indeed, it was actually quite significant and a positive thing that, having asked for many years for the IRGC to be declared a terrorist organisation, we can now acknowledge that after so many years of advocacy it will now occur. I was delighted that we could acknowledge that positive milestone. They called for the strengthening of measures against foreign interference—and we know how the Iranian regime has interfered in Australia and has sought to threaten people in our Iranian diaspora, including the Kurdish community—and they called upon Australia to utilise international channels to address Iran's global threats and understand how the regime's actions undermine international security and human rights.

Acting Deputy President Sharma, as someone who I know thinks deeply about these issues as you do, especially with your experience—and I've listened very carefully to your passionate advocacy in this place since you entered this chamber—I know that you understand the issues of concern to our wonderful Australian Kurdish community.

There were many moving speeches given on the day by members of the community, and I want to read from the speech by a wonderful woman who gave such a moving speech at the celebration. She said: 'The journey to reach Australian soil was an escape from oppression, a chance to breathe freely for the first time. Each of us carries a story of persecution and forced silence. If you look around this room, every person here today fled oppression. And do you know what their crimes were? Their identity. My uncle was publicly hanged at 21 for no crime other than his identity. My father was imprisoned and tortured for no crime other than his identity. As a Kurdish Australian woman here in Australia I've been stalked, I've been followed, I've been threatened and I've been forced into silence by the regime's affiliates. And my crime? My identity.'

I thank all attendees so much for the contribution you made at this commemoration of the death of Jina Amini, and I thank you for your advocacy. Our Kurdish Australian community is a great blessing for our beautiful country.

I am delighted to take this opportunity to speak in honour of my dear, dear friend Sergeant Jim Bellos OAM, APM, who has retired after 34 years of service in the Queensland Police Service. At his retirement farewell, the Premier of Queensland, David Crisafulli, was in attendance, as was the Lord Mayor of Brisbane and so many members of our wonderful multicultural communities, to respect and honour the contribution made by Jim Bellos to the people of Queensland and, in particular, his work in strengthening the bonds between the Queensland Police Service and our multicultural communities.

I first met Jim Bellos in 2014, five years before I entered this place. When the Indonesian Muslim prayer centre in Rocklea, Brisbane, was the subject of a vile graffiti attack, they called a get-together of neighbours in the region to come together to support the prayer centre. I was pleased to attend, and that's where I first met Jim Bellos. I saw the connection he had with that community—that community that was under attack, whose place of worship had been attacked. Jim Bellos was there, standing shoulder to shoulder with the community.

I saw him on the sports field, bringing young people together by playing football, and I saw the positive impact of his mentoring. That has left such a legacy with me in terms of the work that I do with our multicultural communities, providing as much support as I can to grassroots organisations using sport and cultural activities to help young people in those communities. I also know that Jim Bellos has had such an amazing impact on so many young lives in terms of his mentoring, his guidance, his compassion and his love. So I say this: thank you, Jim Bellos, to you and your family, for the service which you have provided to the people of Queensland. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

'Immigration without assimilation is an invasion.' So read the T-shirt that a lovely, older immigrant lady wore in the Cairns March for Australia on Sunday. Many of the tens of thousands of Australians who marched for Australia on Sunday were not born here. Like me, they're immigrants. I spoke with marchers from all over the world, of every religion and skin colour. They are wonderful Australians who came here as migrants legally, who love this country and who have built a life in Australia, not on top of it—not those who impose their religion, their culture, their intolerance and their perpetual hate onto Australians and who marchers rightly criticised. Marchers criticised politicians and others who hate this country so much that they seek to flood Australia with like-minded arrivals to destroy our culture and to carve off religious and ethnic enclaves in order to divide us.

The Australian public are not against immigrants. We've had a gutful of excessive, mass immigration—a simple distinction that the unhinged rants from Greens and Labor senators yesterday were designed to cover up. I appreciate the far left in this country have disappeared up their own nobility complex and have completely abandoned any pretence of democracy, decency or civil discourse. Vile, unhinged abuse devoid of facts—indeed, devoid of any relevance to the motion I presented yesterday—doesn't work on One Nation. It doesn't work on our supporters and it doesn't work on those who attended the many marches for Australia. Our beautiful country can embrace and lift up only so many people before the economic and social costs cause the elastic of society to snap back, which is the process you're watching with confused looks on your faces and fear in your eyes.

The immigration debate is not an argument about someone's past nationality, religion or skin colour. It's an argument about wealth, opportunity and security. Former Labor prime minister Julia Gillard knew this to be true. In an address to the University of Western Sydney in March 2013, then prime minister Gillard promised Labor would 'stop foreign workers being put at the front of the queue, with Australian workers at the back'. She said:

We will support your job and put Aussie workers first.

What a difference 10 years makes! Now those foreign workers are being advanced to the front using DEI, and Australian workers are being told not to apply. Often, the application is not even for a job with secure employment, an award or guaranteed conditions. In the new Australia, jobs are now a subcontracting arrangement requiring an Australian Business Number, an ABN. A microbusiness with a single customer—the same business which used to employ Australians on permanent employment, with awards protecting wages and working conditions—is no more. In just 10 years, the Greens have pushed Labor so far to the left they have abandoned their working-class base, embracing a UN/World Economic Forum sustainability agenda which gives their members less and foreign, predatory billionaires more.

It's no surprise that marches included members of the AWU, the CFMEU, the ETU and other unions who've seen their wealth, opportunity and place in Australia be reduced. Labor has failed to defend Australian workers from employment arrangements that destroy the standard of living of everyday Australians. Instead of listening to the public, rightly complaining, Labor came into this place yesterday and ranted against One Nation. They name-called, lied and misrepresented out of confusion and fear. One Nation has a message for this government: go back to your masters at the World Economic Forum, go back to your owners—the world's predatory billionaires—and tell them Australia has had enough. We're not going to be ground zero for your evil plan to tear apart Australian society, culture and cohesion and rebuild in the image of the World Economic Forum. Everyday Australians want our country back. Our success is inevitable because our Australia, built on family, on community and, yes, on national pride, is paradise compared to your ugly vision of a society based on an ever-changing agenda relying on intimidation and bullying.

Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam found that the greater the diversity in a community the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and the less they work on community projects. A massive new study based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America supports those who marched on Sunday. In the most diverse communities, neighbours trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogeneous settings. The study found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings. Ask the five tight monocultures—Japan, Taiwan, China, South Korea and Singapore. Diversity is not our strength. Our strength is Australians who've come here from all over the world, with different races and religions providing different perspectives on life, working together as a community of Australians old and new. One Nation welcomes anyone who loves our country, who wants to join in and who wants to pull their weight, follow our laws and, in so doing, lift themselves up. If that's the Australia you love, please join One Nation and help us reverse the decline of our beautiful country.

Overnight, the President of the United States, Donald Trump, announced on social media:

It is very important that the Drug Companies justify the success of their various Covid Drugs. Many people think they are a miracle that saved Millions of lives. Others disagree! With CDC being ripped apart over this question, I want the answer, and I want it NOW. I have been shown information from Pfizer, and others, that is extraordinary, but they never … show those results to the public. Why not??? … I want them to show them NOW, to CDC and the public, and clear up this MESS, one way or the other!!! I hope OPERATION WARP SPEED was as "BRILLIANT" as many say it was. If not, we … want to know about it, and why???

The significance of this is stunning. President Trump has been misled on the safety and efficacy of the COVID vaccines for a very long time. From this post it sounds like he has been kept in the dark and fed lies. I look forward to the president realising that and taking action to defend the health of all Americans by banning the mRNA vaccine platform.

In further developments last week Robert F Kennedy Jr, the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services, announced significant changes to the authorisation of mRNA COVID-19 so-called vaccines. It's important to understand this was not a banning of mRNA—not yet anyway. It's important to clarify the new measures. The Food and Drug Administration, the FDA, approved updated COVID-19 shots for the autumn season in America and imposed new restrictions, effectively ending their emergency-use authorisations. This is only a partial victory for mRNA critics such as me. The measures did terminate emergency-use authorisations that had allowed this dangerous, killer product to be given to anyone over six months of age.

What some claiming victory may have missed is that mRNA shots for COVID were given normal approval for a limited range of people. This includes anyone over 65 and anyone from five to 65 with an underlying medical condition. Moderna was approved for children over six months with an underlying medical condition. Is it a massive reduction in approval? Yes. Is it a ban? No. President Trump's statement overnight suggests there are more developments to come.

Last week I spoke of many new peer reviewed studies which show how this harm is occurring right through the human body. Tonight I will talk about the data, which shows this harm is occurring. We have proof of the harm, and we have the science showing causality. The Defense Medical Epidemiology Database is part of the United States Defense Medical Surveillance System. It enables queries of de-identified medical data coded in the International Classification of Diseases classifications for active duty personnel, filtered on demographics and occupational categories. In 2021 whistleblowers reported significant increases in medical conditions compared to 2016 to 2020 baselines, prompting congressional scrutiny and resulting in a finding of data-handling errors. In 2023 outdated 2021 DMED data confirmed elevated diagnoses, including hypertensive disease up 23 per cent, ovarian disfunction up 35 per cent, pulmonary embolism up 44 per cent, Guillain Barre syndrome up 15 per cent, oesophagus cancer up 13 per cent and breast cancer up seven per cent. Myocarditis was up 151 per cent. Remember the sample set here is millions of people of the United States military. These are—or were—healthy, fit individuals and their families.

The harm is getting worse. Data for 2023 to 2025, using the same pre-COVID baseline, shows persistent elevations, terrifying elevations, over pre-COVID levels. Myocarditis is up 154 per cent; digestive organ cancer up 16 per cent in 2021 and up 43 per cent in 2024; brain cancer up 16 per cent in 2021 and 43 per cent in 2024; and blood coagulation defects up 25 per cent in 2021, 58 per cent in 2022 and then 32 per cent in 2023 as injection rates fell. That's pretty damning. It shows that those who call this poison the clot shots are not entirely wrong. It gets worse, much worse. Conditions which may be potentially vaccine related and are certainly COVID-response related are up. Suicidal and homicidal ideation was up 46 per cent in 2021 and 86 per cent in 2024. Obesity was up 27 per cent in 2021, 69 per cent in 2022, 162 per cent in 2023 and 262 per cent in 2024. It's okay though. Novo Nordisk has Ozempic on the market to fix that obesity problem. Who owns Novo Nordisk? Morgan Stanley, BlackRock, Vanguard and Norges. I call them 'BlackRock Inc.'. This gaggle of rapacious wealth funds invest the wealth of the world's predatory billionaires.

Who owns Pfizer, the cause of this obesity epidemic? You guessed it, BlackRock. They own the problem and the solution. Did someone say COVID was just a— (Time expired)

I rise in support of former Western Australian senator and my very good friend the Hon. Linda Reynolds CSC. Last week, after four and a half years, Linda was finally and fully vindicated by the Supreme Court of Western Australia. This is Linda's public statement, issued on 27 August 2025;

For more than 4 years, I have fought, at enormous personal and financial cost, to expose the truth in relation to Ms Higgins' persistent allegations concerning my conduct.

I am relieved that the judgment delivered this morning by Justice Tottle comprehensively details what his Honour found to be the dishonest allegation of a political cover-up made against myself and my then Chief of Staff, Ms Fiona Brown.

I am pleased that his Honour recognised from the outset that the trial was never about Ms Higgins' rape allegation. Rather, it was always about the subsequent serious, hurtful and entirely false allegations made about my conduct and that of my staff.

Critically, Justice Tottle found that there was no political coverup, finding '…the allegation of a coverup had no foundation in fact and the allegation of inadequate support was based on an incomplete and misleading account of the facts'.

Justice Tottle found that 'the simple but untrue story that [I] had been involved in the cover up of the rape of Ms Higgins by a 'rising star' of the Liberal Party was so sensational and achieved such currency it was impossible for [me] to defend myself'.

In April 2024, I welcomed Justice Michael Lee's judgment in Mr Lehrman's defamation action where his Honour made findings on the critical matters relating to Ms Higgins' allegation of rape. I said at the time, that I sincerely hoped that it would give Ms Higgins peace. In my statement, however, I noted that Ms Higgins had publicly observed that regardless of Justice Lee's findings her "perceptions and feelings of what happened in the days and weeks after my rape were different from mine". I said at the time that what lay between Ms Higgins and myself were not different perceptions, but the common ground that we needed to find must be based on the truth.

Justice Tottle has definitively established the truth. The allegation of a political cover-up has had a tremendous adverse effect on not only me but also on Ms Brown for whom I care very deeply. I am profoundly pleased that his Honour, like Justice Lee, has found so clearly in favour of Ms Brown's recollection of the events.

In paragraph [455] of his Honour's detailed reasons, Justice Tottle identifies 26 statements made by Ms Higgins in her media interviews that were objectively false or misleading and so indifferent to the truth that they could only be regarded as dishonest. These findings of fact by his Honour absolutely dispel the allegation of political cover-up and are matters that ultimately formed the foundation for Ms Higgins' civil claim which resulted in a rapid and unchallenged multimillion-dollar settlement by the Labor Government.

His Honour concludes that Ms Higgins' account of how she was treated (which has now been proven to be false) could not be attributed to difficulties in recollection. He finds that the account of Ms Higgins was plainly dishonest.

It was vitally important for me to establish in a manner binding upon Ms Higgins (who was not a party to the proceedings before Justice Lee) that her statements concerning me were false and dishonest.

It was clear to me that Ms Higgins' attack on me was not going to end without a binding judgment. She had evidenced her intention to write a book and engage in public speaking activities as an advocate of the victims of rape and for workplace reform. It was therefore essential for me to protect and restore of my reputation and stop her from continuing to perpetuate her false and dishonest allegations about me.

I emphasise that I do not consider this judgment to be about recovering substantial damages. It has always been about the truth.

This judgment allows me to move forward confidently and assuredly.

Finally, I address 3 key findings by his Honour.

The first is my statement that described Ms Higgins as a "lying cow". His Honour accurately found this to be an emotional and involuntary reaction on my part responsive to Ms Higgins' description in the nationally broadcast television show The Project of how she was treated by me and Ms Brown. Matters which I knew to be fundamentally untrue, and which Justice Tottle has so found. His Honour correctly held that my comment was an emotional reaction expressed in my private office and I had no expectation about to the extent to which the statement would be disseminated.

The second concerns my exclusion from the private multimillion dollar settlement that occurred between the Commonwealth and Ms Higgins after the Commonwealth took over the defence of Ms Higgins' claim against me. A claim was compromised in a single meeting. His Honour correctly recognised that my concerns were based on, 'first, the fact that the settlement of the claim could be regarded as a validation of Ms Higgins's public criticisms of me in the face of which I wished to defend my conduct. Second, that I knew that the claim rested on allegations made against myself and Ms Brown and I knew those allegations were untrue, thirdly, that not only was I deprived by the Commonwealth of the opportunity to defend my conduct and my reputation, but no one acting on behalf of the Commonwealth asked me about the allegations and finally my perception that the decision-makers (the Attorney-General, Mr Dreyfus) had a conflict of interest and were therefore acting beyond power'. His Honour found that I was justified in raising my concerns publicly about the process and that I had both a legitimate interest and a public interest in doing so.

The third is confirmation that Ms Higgins and Mr Sharaz concocted a deliberate plan to weaponise Ms Higgins' legitimate rape allegations for a false political purpose. Justice Tottle made findings concerning Ms Higgins' experience with the media and held that she 'must be taken to have understood the seriousness of the enterprise she and Mr Sharaz had embarked on and to have thought about how she wanted to tell her story'. He found that the timeline document created by Ms Higgins and Mr Sharaz was prepared as a 'briefing document for the use of journalists and sympathetic politicians' and that 'the focus of the document was [Ms Higgins'] interactions with Ms Brown and myself'. He further found that many of the statements contained in the document were incorrect and presented a misleading impression of events in significant respects.

He also found that Ms Higgins' willingness to speculate and embellish reflected a desire on her part to enhance the credibility of her allegations of a political cover up and her allegations that I (and Ms Brown) treated her poorly. He found that Ms Higgins and Mr Sharaz (together with Ms Maiden, Ms Wilkinson and Mr Llewellyn) had reached 'an understanding about the strategy to be adopted for ensuring the disclosure of [Ms Higgins'] story achieved widespread attention in the media and major political impact'.

Finally, he found that there was an intention to inflict political damage on me and through me on the Coalition government. He finds that 'it is clear such [political] damage was intended by making the disclosure at the beginning of a sitting week and ensuring [my] political opponents were briefed with the materials necessary to question [me] in the Senate.

It is now time that the Prime Minister and the Federal Labor Government (the only party that has not yet been forced to defend its reputation) accept the significant impact their conduct has had in enabling Ms Higgins to perpetuate her lies. Had the plainly false allegations against me been properly investigated by the Commonwealth and its lawyers, and had I been permitted to defend the plainly defensible allegations she had made against me, I (and many others) would not have incurred the cost and stress of litigation that has been so damaging financially and emotionally.

I thank Justice Tottle for his careful consideration of the evidence and his decisive and comprehensive judgment.

I also thank Martin Bennett and his amazing team for fighting for me.

Finally, I thank Robert, my family and my many friends who stood by my side. They never stopped believing in me and supporting me.

Today as I look to the future, having served my country for over 40 years I look forward to finding new ways to serve.

Thank you.

That was the statement of the Hon. Linda Reynolds, CSC.

As Martin Luther King Jr said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'

Senate adjourned at 21 : 07