If there is no objection, the meetings are authorised.

I was saying last week in debating this excellent piece of legislation presented by the Leader of the Opposition that, clearly, what we have here is an arrangement between the Australian Greens and the government, which is harmful to the rest of the participants in debate in this chamber. Crossbench senators and opposition senators have been penalised by a vindictive approach being taken by this government—the reduction of resources available to members of this place to do their jobs properly and hold this government to account. I described it as a 'buy now, pay later' arrangement between the Australian Greens and the government, where they get that beautiful, sumptuously appointed party room down the other end of the building there with beautiful, comfortable, leather seats and large, special-species-timbered desks to sit at and make their big decisions, all in return for supporting these dodgy deals with the government.

It is a disappointing approach to democracy. You would expect more from the Greens, who, typically, are defenders of everyone's rights to do their jobs. But the leader of the Greens has moved a second reading amendment to this piece of legislation which, I will point out, is very similar to a motion that has been put into this place by Senator Payman. Given the leader of the Greens proposed this second reading amendment, I will be very interested to see how the Greens vote on Senator Payman's motion when it comes up for decision in this place. I would expect, given they are proposing such a thing, that they will support that motion, because that would be the right thing to do, because they have gone and put something like this on record. Let's see how that goes. This is an excellent bill and I commend it.

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I support this bill to restore fairness, integrity and justice to allocation of staff in crossbench senators' offices, to protect accountability in parliament and to guard democracy. The Prime Minister currently has the authority and sole discretion to determine the number of parliamentary advisers to crossbench senators.

Here's how he allocated staff in the previous parliament, and then after the recent election. Firstly, the crossbench senators who largely vote with Labor. David Pocock had two advisers before the election. After the election, it was unchanged—two advisers. Tammy Tyrrell had two advisers before the election. After the election, it was unchanged—two advisers. Lidia Thorpe had two advisers before the election. After the election, it was unchanged—two advisers. Jacqui Lambie had three advisers before the election—three! After the election, it was unchanged—three advisers.

Secondly, let's move on to the crossbench senators who often oppose Labor in the Senate. Senator Ralph Babet had two advisers before the election. After the election, it was cut in half, to one adviser—one! One Nation senators had two advisers each before the election. After the election, on average, it was cut in half, to one adviser each—one!

Thirdly, crossbench senator Fatima Payman, who resigned from Labor in the last term, embarrassing the Prime Minister and the Labor Party, had zero advisers before the election—nil! After the election, she had zero advisers—nil, none!

Next, consider this: the Prime Minister sacked both of my advisers. He bypassed me, their employer. The parliamentary adviser's duty, the personal adviser, is to assist senators with researching proposed legislation, assist senators in writing speeches, advise on parliamentary tactics, help prepare questions for Senate estimates hearings, be the first point of contact for community groups, and deputise for the senator in meetings when the senator is engaged in the chamber or elsewhere in the state. The Prime Minister radically gutted the staffing of those senators who hold the Labor Party accountable. This does not pass the pub test, nor any test for fairness, integrity or justice.

When the Prime Minister cuts the staffing of those senators who take positions opposing his, he has an obvious conflict of interest. The incentive for the Prime Minister is to cut the resources of his political opponents, seeking to take political advantage and to cut us off at the legs. Reducing the number of support staff for a senator effectively reduces the ability of a senator to function on behalf of the electorate and provide an effective opposition, a foundation of our Westminster system of democratic government. This is an abuse of taxpayer funds and of the nation's top political office—that of Prime Minister—to cripple senators with the courage to hold the Prime Minister's government accountable and to reward those senators who support the Prime Minister's agenda. This Prime Minister seems to forget that parliament does not serve him. He serves the people through the democratically elected parliament.

The state I proudly represent, Queensland, has 5.7 million people. Tasmania has 575,000. The state I represent has around 10 times the number of constituents as Tasmania. Queensland is 25 times larger in area that Tasmania. Queensland has more diverse regions and climates and a much larger and more diverse economy. Queensland's gross state product is 12 times larger than Tasmania's. Yet the Prime Minister allocates more than twice the number of advisers to each Tasmanian crossbench senator than to each Queensland crossbench senator. Senator Whitten's state of Western Australia has an area almost 40 times that of Tasmania. He has to get around that. The state of New South Wales has a population 14 times that of Tasmania's. The disparity between our states and the Australian Capital Territory, with its tiny population, are even more striking than with Tasmania.

This treatment of different Senate offices is inequitable and raises issues of bias, discrimination and political bastardry. This clearly shows the Prime Minister to be incapable of fairness and clearly displays his vindictiveness, incompetence and biased behaviour. Is he aiming to cripple One Nation after we received a huge increase in votes, doubled our members in parliament and came close to having a total of seven senators elected? One of our candidates for the House of Representatives achieved two-party preferred status and came close to being elected. Is the Prime Minister afraid of One Nation's rise? Perhaps the Prime Minister is sensitive to criticism or to being held accountable. He reportedly found $886,000 of taxpayer money to splash on refurbishing the new Greens party room, his partners in the government's communist coalition. By the way, the journalist who exposed this news was banned from parliament for a week. Of what is the Prime Minister afraid?

Further, after his gutting of our staff, the Prime Minister and his chief of staff refused to meet with Senator Hanson and me together. He insisted that he and his chief of staff would meet with only one of us. In my subsequent meeting with the Prime Minister and his chief of staff, I raised three main issues: the unfairness of the Prime Minister's staffing allocation; that the Prime Minister's actions breached recognised processes expected under administrative law provisions; and that the Prime Minister was imposing needless stress on staff who are already working hard in the taxpayers' interest.

Let's next consider the process the Prime Minister chose to follow. On 23 June 2025, Prime Minister Albanese notified Senator Pauline Hanson of his decision to slash half the parliamentary staff allocation for each One Nation senator, from two each to one each. In doing this, he had exercised a discretion authorised under sections 4(1), 11(3) and 12 of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act, the MOPS Act. In determining these allocations of parliamentary advisers and implementing these notices of allocation, the Prime Minister breached important provisions of administrative law, which is defined in common law as decisions from courts, including the High Court. The breaches include that he gave no reasons for his decision; he had not consulted or sought input from any One Nation senator; he did not act in good faith; he did not act with a proper purpose; he had not considered relevant matters; he had not acted on reasonable grounds, given that One Nation had doubled its number of senators from two to four, with no increase in personal staff offered; he did not act based on supporting evidence; and he had not provided procedural fairness to affected persons, including personal parliamentary staff and senators.

Senators and affected staff were given no opportunity to put their case to the Prime Minister before he made his decision to slash staff allocations. He or his office ordered the employment of my staff to be terminated before my staff were made aware—the only senator's office in which that occurred. I was given 12 minutes notice to respond to a communications deadline late on a Friday evening, and I worked that night until 10.30 pm and did not check my emails—12 minutes notice to respond! The Prime Minister had not properly considered the merits of the decision. He has still not indicated that he had evaluated all relevant evidence. He had not acted reasonably or fairly, as senators were not allocated staff on the basis of need. Nor were senators treated evenly. Some senators had savage cuts made to their staff, while others had no cuts made at all. The Prime Minister did not inform senators that he had made a decision that affected them. Some senators found out via the media.

Our Australian courts have clearly recognised that the exercise of administrative discretion, including the decision to reduce support for selected senators, must follow the procedural principles set out in Australian case law. The Prime Minister did not follow these principles. The process he stumbled through appears to be different for every crossbench senator.

The decision also flies in the face of the recent Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet review of health risks to parliamentary staffers from workplace stress and excessive work demands that lead to workplace health and safety issues. A Parliamentary Workplace Support Service review into the resourcing of parliamentary staff concluded:

Staffing levels overall are not adequate to meet all the parliamentary and electorate work demands placed on staff in some offices.

This translates to the fact that personal staff are overworked and translates further to a workplace health and safety issue.

The way in which the Prime Minister slashed some senators' staffing and caused staff to be brutalised shows he does not care about workers. If the Prime Minister supports a fully functioning parliament and democracy and supports accountability, then he should ensure that members and senators are provided with reasonable resources, including qualified and professional advisers as personal staff. After securing re-election based on promises of transparency, the Prime Minister appears to have abused his position, disrespected Australian law and courts and jeopardised democracy for his political advantage. The Prime Minister shows he is incapable of fairness and competence. He will be more able and likely to hide with a reduced opposition. That hurts Australia. It hurts democracy. This is clearly a further example of the Prime Minister seeking control over democratic processes.

I remind everyone that always beneath control there is fear. Why is he afraid of democratic scrutiny? Why is he afraid of losing the control that he covets? Why is the Prime Minister afraid of me? I'm not a big bloke. Is he afraid of my work as a crossbench minor party senator? Is he afraid of my passion for exposing the truth and serving constituents? Is he afraid of my teamwork with my staff, making us more effective as a team? Is that why he dismantled my team and stressed them needlessly? Is he, with just one year's experience in the real world, afraid of my diverse practical experience, including underground coalface miner, vineyard labourer, engineer, mine and project manager, executive leadership consultant, and board director? Is he afraid of One Nation rising, or does he still have blind prejudice towards One Nation, as revealed in his adjournment speech of May 1998? Last week during question time in the House of Representatives, why did he try to ridicule me, a small-party crossbench senator? Doesn't he realise that name-calling and labels are the refuge of the ignorant, the incompetent, the dishonest or the fearful and are signs of fear?

Before the election, the Prime Minister promised transparency and fairness. His actions show why I take note of people's actions, not their words. What's important is what we can do, not who we can be. In other words, what we do matters; our title matters not.

This new bill's co-sponsors include Senator Payman, Senator Babet, the Liberals and One Nation—indicating a unity of support. Under this new bill, the government retains over 520 staff and access to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of departmental staff. The bill provides fair allocation of staff to government, opposition, Greens, other parties and crossbench senators. This bill is well considered, well written and fair. The bill offers career progression for crossbench staff. It nominates only minimum standards. The Prime Minister still has the freedom to allocate more and to exercise his discretion.

We are all tired of partisan politics that threaten to destroy our country and our democracy. This bill will ensure that support for senators and for Australian democracy is not subject to the whims of a recalcitrant prime minister who puts his own needs ahead of the effective operation of this chamber. Both preceding Liberal prime ministers allocated equal numbers of personal advisers to each crossbench senator, showing that they both saw merit in fairness and in democracy. Prime Minister Albanese hides from, buries, prevents and kills democracy.

One Nation welcomes the spirit with which many diverse senators approached this issue's resolution in a united way. This bill is a sensible, practical and responsible solution to digging the Prime Minister out of the ridiculous and embarrassing hole he has dug for himself. All One Nation senators support this bill. I encourage all senators to support this bill. I say to all Australians: the ABC, and the media generally, won't report this issue, so, if you're concerned about the Prime Minister's abuse of power and taxpayer money, please share it and spread it. Bringing back and restoring our country starts with the people driving parliamentary accountability.

I rise to speak on the Members of Parliament (Staff) Amendment (Providing Certainty and Improving Integrity) Bill 2025. I do so to restore equity and fairness to the allocation of staffing resources for all senators and members regardless of political affiliation. This bill amends the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 to place statutory minimum staffing guarantees for non-government parliamentarians and to remove the power of the executive to reduce these. This bill provides that opposition parties will be entitled to at least 110 personal, non-ministerial staff in recognition of their role in holding the government to account. With the Albanese government riding roughshod over parliamentary staff allocations, and so many other matters, this accountability is more vital than ever.

To help the opposition manage parliamentary business and perform its most primary function—holding the government to account—this bill provides that a non-government party with eight or more parliamentarians must be allocated at least 25 personal staff or five per cent of the government's total allocation, whichever is greater.

Holding governments and their ministers to account is intrinsic to our Westminster system of government. This bill will help the opposition and other parties in this house do just that. Accountability is essential to enhancing the quality of our governments and maximising transparency for the benefit of the Australian people. Whatever views we may have of the various minority parties in this parliament, this bill respects the place that they have at the table. Accordingly, it guarantees that independent parliamentarians and those of minor parties with fewer than eight sitting members must receive at least three personal staff, including one classified a senior adviser. With this Prime Minister behaving autocratically, with a tin ear to the interests of parties other than his own and the Australian Greens, this bill clarifies that the sitting Prime Minister cannot reduce these minimum entitlements through the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 but may increase them.

The allocation of sufficient staffing resources is essential to the proper functioning of every senator's and member's office. Staff play an indispensable role for parliamentarians when it comes to research, policy analysis and advice, office management, media monitoring, stakeholder engagement, community liaison and a whole host of other functions. By guaranteeing minimum staffing resources for all members of parliament, this bill ensures that our elected representatives work at their optimal capacity, not so much for themselves but in the interests of the people they're elected to serve and represent.

This bill is sorely needed as the Prime Minister has used parliamentary staffing as a political weapon to weaken the standing of his opponents. The Prime Minister's actions to cut the legs from the staffing resources of his political opponents is partisan, petty and puffed up. It is unbecoming of a leader that aspires to be a statesman. One of the measures of true statesmanship is the ability to rise above partisan interests to serve the interests of all, whether they support you or not. The Prime Minister has clearly failed this test by his recent actions to cut the staffing resources of opposition and minor parties bar the Australian Greens. Most ominously, the Prime Minister's recent staffing cuts represent an unhealthy development for our democracy. Our parliament must be a domain for teams of all colours to compete on a level playing field, and yet the Prime Minister's actions are likewise breaching the rules of fairness, by reducing the staffing resources of opposing parties. Quite simply, this is putting the PM's Labor Party and Greens bedfellows at an unfair advantage. It's also setting a dangerous precedent for future governments. If a future government wishes to undercut its political opponents, it can go straight to the Albanese playbook and make staff cuts to the members and senators of parties they simply dislike. At some point those in government will be on the other side. Treat others as you would be treated. This is not how parliamentary democracy should function.

Australia is so much better than this. That is why we need this bill. It restores essential balance to our parliamentary democracy and guarantees fairness by ensuring that parliamentarians of all parties, or none, can have the resources they need to do their job. Importantly, this bill provides a check on the hubris of a Prime Minister by ensuring that neither Mr Albanese nor his successors can ever again escape scrutiny or evade accountability by reducing non-government staffing below a democratic floor. We've seen it so much in these past two sitting weeks: government hiding behind numbers. The aged-care numbers show 200,000 older Australians not being able to get the care that they need. The Albanese government promised to bring transparency to government. What else have we seen this week? New laws on freedom of information—the truth tax—that ask Australians, journalists, academics, members of parliament and senators to pay for the information that they are entitled to. It is an absolute disgrace. Rather than face scrutiny, Labor wants to bury it. We firmly believe that transparency is not a burden; it is a duty of this parliament and everyone who serves within it, and accountability is too. That is why this bill is so important, and I commend it to the Senate.

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

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

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

Today we are debating a bill that will have profound impacts on many in our community—the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. This bill will make technical, transitional and consequential changes to support the commencement of the Aged Care Act from 1 November 2025. In speaking this morning, I would first like to commend my wonderful colleague Senator Allman-Payne, as the holder of the Greens' older Australians portfolio, and her incredible team for their work on this bill. I echo the contributions made by Senator Allman-Payne in the debate to this point.

As with the last aged-care bill, it would be remiss of me not to raise concerns around the rather rushed legislative process of this government. The Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill, for example, allowed only one week for submissions. For individuals and volunteer groups, one week is a very short period of time to give feedback on a bill that will have a profound impact on the lives of so many people. To me, it is deeply disappointing that the limited time for scrutiny in the inquiry has left much still unknown. It is clear that this government is not really any more committed to proper scrutiny of legislation in this term of parliament than it was in the last.

That said, the Greens do welcome some parts of this bill that seek to address community concerns, including providing more flexibility for people to access cleaning and gardening services by removing the ability for the rules to set caps on such services—rather wild that that even had to be done in the first place, but there you go. Many aspects of this bill also make technical changes to the Aged Care Act 2024 that are necessary to strengthen the proper functioning of Australia's new aged-care system.

However, the Greens hold some concerns, which I will step through now. It is clear that the bill was made with the interests of aged-care providers in mind, rather than those older people in desperate need of quality care. Instead of ensuring that people in aged care are not facing unreasonable costs, this bill seemingly makes it easier for aged-care providers to charge unnecessary fees and to add surprise charges. That prompts me to ask the question of why this government is enabling the fleecing of older people. The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety recommended a new aged-care act. Particularly, it recommended that that act should 'have the rights of older people at the very centre', and the Australian Greens do not believe that this has been fully realised in this bill.

Let me turn for a moment to the issue of young people in nursing homes. One aspect of this bill that is of deep interest to the community is how it chooses to prevent disabled people under the age of 65 from entering residential aged care. For years, young disabled people have been forced to move into aged care because there was nowhere else for them to live. Today, with the NDIS and specialist disability accommodation, there are more-appropriate homes for people who are disabled. But there are still young people moving into aged care right now. Let me emphasise that: we have the solution to the totally unacceptable situation where a young person is forced to live in a residential aged-care facility, yet we continue to see this precise thing happen.

The reason young people have had to enter residential aged care is that disability and health services do not work together, let alone in a timely way. Simply put, the government refuses to provide them with the disability support they actually need. Last year, when the Aged Care Bill was before the Senate, I shared my concern regarding the loophole in the bill that still allowed people under the age of 65 to enter residential aged care. The government did not take the opportunity to close that loophole, and they have failed to close it again with this legislation here before the Senate.

What I don't understand is that this government talks big—we've had promise after promise; in fact, on their website they state, 'We are working to stop younger people under the age of 65 from going into residential aged care'—yet, when it is time to put pen to paper and amend the legislation, this government leaves the loophole wide open. This is an utterly shameful act by a Labor government, and it has real-world consequences. As of March this year there are still 959 people under the age of 65 in residential aged care.

We need the government to stop this talk-without-action approach. We need this government to get itself together, to take a whole-of-government approach, to once and for all put its money where its mouth is and champion the rights of young disabled people. This government needs to work in good faith with disabled people and with their advocates to ensure that disabled young people do not continue to end up in residential aged care, because the government has a responsibility to these citizens to ensure that the policies of this nation support their human rights. We cannot continue to have a situation where people fall through the cracks, slip through the safety nets and end up in residential aged care as young people. That is not right.

I thought I'd share some words of a young person who has lived in residential aged care: 'Nursing homes for young people take away your self-respect and leave you where you can't make a decision. You are stripped of dignity.' Think of that, being stripped of dignity and agency because the safety net let them fall through. Another person who lived in residential aged care for over seven years shared their experience, which they described as, 'It's like being sentenced.' For them, it felt like jail.

When someone is in residential aged care, they are not living amongst their peers. They cannot access a NDIS plan, nor can they access the support that comes with it. They are provided with the same support as an older person, and that may not meet their individual needs. It is unacceptable that disabled people continue to fall through these cracks. The government cannot claim it does not know because, my Lord, there have been enough Senate inquiries, investigations and royal commissions that have found this exact dynamic, have called out exactly these loopholes and have flagged again and again that this is an issue. But because these young disabled people are structurally out of sight, they are apparently out of the mind of this Labor government. They are not out of the minds of the Greens. Those 959 people are on the minds of the Greens, and on my mind, every single day. It is disgusting that, through a lack of intellectual engagement with the potential flow-through impacts of its legislation, the government have allowed this loophole to continue. It is completely unacceptable.

While we are discussing the bills, I remark on how unacceptable it is that the NDIS still has an age limit of 65. Currently, once someone turns 65 they are no longer eligible to apply for NDIS support, even if they have had types of disability support before then. Many disabled people who are over the age of 65 would benefit massively from the NDIS. Right now, many Australians with significant disabilities are forced into the My Aged Care system, which is ill-suited to meet their needs and often requires them to sacrifice their independence. The Bonyhady and Paul review of the NDIS recommended that this be changed, yet what have we heard from this government? Crickets. The government should work to ensure that the NDIS is available for all people who need it regardless of their age. To do any less is discriminatory.

There are so many issues present in these bills—bills that will affect the lives of millions of Australians. The Greens once again urge the government to work in good faith with older people and their advocates to address these issues. I foreshadow a second reading amendment in my name and a second reading amendment in the name of Senator Allman-Payne.

In the eight years that the people of Western Australia have seen fit to send me to the Senate, there are certain issues that have come up again and again. In certain topics of inquiry that we see different MPs take on, the evidence is gathered, the submitters give evidence and the reports are created and delivered to government, yet there is a failure of action. This is always to me and always to the community a deeply frustrating dynamic to witness play out, but where it gets me most and where it gets people in the community most, where it elicits that deep anger, is when there are policy areas where there are changes needed, and where the solutions are known across the chamber, yet nothing changes. It doesn't matter which colour the Prime Minister is—red team or blue team—nothing changes. This is one of them.

Young people in nursing homes in Australia is something that has been spoken about in this place since the moment I arrived. Governments have made statements, ministers have issued press releases, patting themselves on the back as the numbers have gone down, committing to action when the number goes up, and yet here we are in 2025 and 959 young disabled people are still living in residential aged care. I ask anyone under the age of 65 in this parliament: Would you like that? Would you like to be in residential aged care under the age of 65? They're not there because there wasn't an alternative program, somewhere that could give them individualised support. No. They are there because nobody in the positions of power, paid for by the public purse, can be bothered to get to work on what they perceive as a 'complex, niche issue'. Do you know what? It's not that complicated, actually, if you sit down and read the reports.

These are people who are within institutional settings. They've been placed there because government services failed to stop them falling into those settings or placed them there in the first place many years ago. Those people in those settings often become institutionalised. So what is needed to support them to move out of those settings of institutionalisation is in-reach work of deinstitutionalisation. It's programs of deinstitutionalisation. It's not complicated. There are global examples and national examples of what deinstitutionalisation in-reach work looks like. You sit down with somebody, you take the time, you make the plan and you support them to move. We can do this. Morally, we must do this. We can't be here for another decade and still have the better part of 1,000 people in institutions where they should never have been in the first place. (Time expired)

I rise to speak on the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. I do so in the interests of ensuring that our senior Australians receive the best care, which they deserve. Importantly, this means making the rollout of aged-care support as seamless and timely as possible. The coalition and I support the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, subject to our amendments. This bill is integral to delivering the Aged Care Act 2024 and, hence, essential to delivering the recommendations of the aged care royal commission instituted under the former coalition government.

To be clear, the Aged Care Act 2024 was Labor's package of reforms and was not co-designed alongside the coalition. This is why the government has introduced this bill to amend 325 items of their Aged Care Act. Had the government listened to the opposition and the aged-care sector in the first place, many of these items could have been rectified during the debate on the 2024 legislation.

The coalition was always realistic that the scale of reforms foreshadowed by the 2024 act could not be implemented in a matter of months. That is why, during the debate on that legislation, the coalition moved an amendment to ensure that the Home Care Packages Program could exist on a transitional basis without the need for further amendment to the Aged Care Act nor delaying its enactment. By creating these transitional provisions, our amendments sought to ensure that the Aged Care Act 2024 could come into effect on 1 July 2025. Our amendment also ensured that the new Support at Home program, with the promised additional 83,000 packages, could commence from 1 July 2025. I think we can all note that we are well past that date.

We moved the amendment so we could give our older Australians the care provisions they needed as soon as possible. But, shamefully, this government voted against it. As a result of their action, older Australians have been denied their rights and the care they have been assessed as needing. The government's introduction of this amendment bill, whilst welcome, proves that their previous actions to vote down all amendments moved by the coalition in relation to the transition timelines were nothing more than them playing politics. Their actions were petty, short sighted and foolish. Above all, the government short-changed our senior Australians by delaying the implementation of the act's provisions which would've given them the care supports they have been patiently waiting for.

At a Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee hearing, department officials confirmed that, without this amendment bill, elements of the Aged Care Act 2024 could in fact be enacted. The inquiry also heard evidence from the department that this government was aware of the need for legislative change as early as January of this year. Clearly, this government deceived the Australian people at the last election. They refuse to admit they were not ready to transition to the new aged-care framework that they had trumpeted so loudly. Now, the introduction of this amendment bill simply proves that the government has been forced to do an embarrassing backflip.

The introduction of this bill vindicates the coalition's position that the amendment they moved last year was necessary after all. If it had been supported by Labor in the first place, we would not be needing this amendment bill to bring the provisions of the 2024 act into effect. The Senate committee inquiry into the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 confirmed that existing legislation was not adequate to implement aged-care reforms and that it was the government who required more time to ready their systems for change, not the sector. The sector has indicated that it is ready to go.

We will not seek to delay the passage of this amendment bill, because, without the passage of this bill, the aged-care rules that allow the provisions of the 2024 act to be executed cannot be registered. And, as I will go on to illustrate, our senior Australians have waited long enough already to receive the support services they need. These are real people waiting for help. They have waited a long, long time for help, and the last thing they need is for us to stand in the way. As it is, the Albanese government's delay on its aged-care reforms has been unacceptable. Older Australians who need essential home-care services should not be subjected to a bureaucratic headache or fooled around by this government's politicking. They deserve much better.

One of the big problems here is the time from wanting to get assessed to getting assessed and then from being assessed to finally being approved for care. The whole process from being approved to getting hands-on care is years long, with months between steps. In my recent work on the community affairs committee, I came across some very distressing cases of people being let down by the aged-care sector—particularly on wait times. During the committee proceedings, some harrowing stories were shared about there being no home-care packages and about people waiting over 15 months to get home-care packages they were assessed as needing.

In some cases, elderly people waited years before getting their aged-care package, and we heard the saddest story of a woman whose husband had Parkinson's. He deteriorated a lot over the time he waited for his home-care package. During that time, he got two forms of cancer, and he died three days after his package came to fruition. He also worked all his life for Centrelink and believed in it. It let him down in the end, and it was a very tragic story to hear. It is very deeply moving when you see an older person who is brought to tears by the way the government has let them down, and I will never forget it.

The sad truth is that people are dying while they wait, and the providers don't know why there is such a wait or why the government is holding off. There is such a huge backlog. People are waiting for assessments. There is an unseen waitlist to actually get an assessment.

In addition to holding up ready access to aged care, the Albanese government has abandoned those older Australians who choose to stay independent in their own homes yet require the support to do so. For seniors who choose this option, home-care packages offer excellent outcomes. I give the example of my grandmother, who is 105 years old. She stayed in her home until she was 102—the very best of outcomes. She is very happy where she is, but it was the very best thing for her to be able to stay at home. It is really important that we are able to provide home-care packages to the people who need them.

This government promised to deliver an additional 83,000 packages from 1 July this year, but they have broken this promise, leaving more than 87,000 older Australians waiting for a home-care package without the care that they deserve. This delay is inexcusable. The coalition absolutely condemns the government for the skyrocketing waitlist they have overseen and for their refusal to provide the promised packages. Under Labor's watch, the waitlist for home-care packages has almost tripled in the past two years. Many vulnerable older Australians are waiting more than a year to access the care that they have been assessed as needing.

This is nothing but a national crisis. For a first-world country like Australia, it is an acute embarrassment and something that this government should be ashamed of. The aged care minister must urgently deliver the promised packages and address the skyrocketing waitlist as a matter of priority. Older Australians deserve access to the care they need to stay independent in their homes for longer, and home-care providers deserve certainty as to how many packages will be released over the coming months. This is necessary for them to plan for increases in their staffing and resources to cater for the added workload but also to prepare for the incoming rules of the aged care sector.

The Albanese government, as we have seen many times over the past months, is not being transparent. This time, it's with aged care providers about what they need to prepare for when the 1 November date comes around. Every client needs a personal service agreement, all of which will be rewritten under the new rules of 1 November. They don't know the guardrails. They don't know what to plan and prepare for in all these many service agreements with clients—with real people. They don't know how much the co-contribution payments will be or how they should focus the workforce of these organisations to prepare for the transition. They need to make sure that clients aren't unnecessarily disadvantaged, because the cost of transition will be high.

As I've said many times, these are real people waiting for real help. The hidden waitlist is massively longer for rural and regional people. The plight of aged care is significantly amplified for rural and regional people, where they have to go to metropolitan centres to get assessed. Remember that the waitlist to get an assessment is excruciatingly long, too. It can be cost inefficient to run services in rural and regional places, but this does not mean that they do not deserve the same quality of care that people get in metropolitan centres. They must stay in community with their families and friends. We're talking about towns where services are lacking, where banks are withdrawing or non-existent, where there are no ambulances or SES and where services are severely lacking. But still people live there because that is there home and that is their right. They have a right to better care as they age.

The Labor Party is always keen to tout itself as the party of health and aged care. They say they're better placed than anybody else to look after older Australians, yet this record that I've talked about today proves otherwise. All we hear from this government is that all the providers of aged-care and home-care packages are ready to provide that care tomorrow—if those rules get adjusted, those service providers can do this all tomorrow. They do not have to wait until 1 November to provide care to the hundreds of thousands of Australians waiting for it. But the government is still stalling until November and letting senior Australians down every single day. We don't know how these packages will be released, whether they will be released at once or over the coming months and who will be prioritised. Remember, after all these years, people have aged significantly and their health has deteriorated. Their assessment will be different. How do you prioritise how those home-care packages will be given out?

With both aged care and in-home support, the coalition will always be on the side of senior Australians. We will never stop fighting to ensure they are looked after and provided for.

We are at a watershed moment for aged care in our country. After four years of work across the first term of our government and this term, we are at a point where we are about to usher in a historic new aged-care act, the first in a generation. It will be a generational reform for not only millions of Australians now but also our future selves. This work has incorporated the voices of older Australians, peak bodies, aged-care providers and unions representing those precious workers, those people who are at the front line, up close and personal, providing that care to older Australians in both residential aged-care facilities and their homes. We pay tribute to those workers.

The coalition claims that we did not co-design this. They put in the caveat that we should have co-designed this with them. In fact, they did provide support for this work. There is bipartisan agreement that we need major reform, a complete overhaul, to aged care in this country, and we thank them for their support. But, on the notion of co-design, co-design actually happens with stakeholders. It happens with the people the act is meant to support. At the heart of this act is a statement of rights, a statement of principles, that recognises that older Australians have a voice and autonomy and that they should have a say, and we absolutely should prioritise their preferences because this is about them. This is a key piece of information, a value, that was missing from the previous act.

This reform cannot happen a moment too soon. We have in the rear-view mirror, looming large with a long shadow over this work, the royal commission into aged care, which in 2019 released its interim report. Do you know what the title of that interim report was? It was Neglectneglect writ large. It was an indictment on the aged-care system that we inherited when we came to government. A quote from that interim report was that our aged-care system spoke of a shocking tale of neglect. It had 'designed neglect into the system'. Can you believe this? Such an important safety net for all Australians, underpinned by the principles of care, had neglect designed into the system. It spoke to systemic failings throughout the system—chronic underinvestment, a lack of standardisation of care and the complete disregard of the importance of that workforce.

I spent my whole career before coming into politics in medicine—a 30-year-long career. There is no care, whether it be in health care, disability care, aged care or child care, without the workers. The workers are everything. That care workforce is mission critical. It's mission critical not only to these important service sectors but also to the functioning of our country. That was evident during the pandemic. While I was wrapped up in PPE from head to toe, working at the Alfred on the front line, how do you think my colleagues—the nurses, the allied-health professionals, physios, OTs, pharmacists, junior doctors, senior doctors—and I felt when the then aged-care minister, Senator Colbeck, was found at the Ashes watching cricket when he should have been fronting up to a COVID inquiry? Meanwhile, we had a flood of older Australians coming through the door, gasping for air and drowning in the secretions in their lungs. They were delirious. They were completely disconnected from their families. You can imagine how much trauma those patients experienced and how much trauma we all experienced.

I can barely speak about this time because it was so traumatic. I have pretty much buried it and concreted over it. There's a real moral injury for a lot of those healthcare workers who worked during that time. But, as awful as it was for us on the front line in hospitals, it was much, much worse for those aged-care workers who were dealing with this in the aged-care facilities. In Victoria, we even had to send the Army in to support the workforce. There was a complete collapse of residential age care.

You can imagine that the first bill we passed as a Labor government in 2022 was actually on aged care. We had to do that because the system was in crisis. The word 'crisis' is overused. It is thrown around in this place far too casually. But this was a real crisis. People's lives were hanging in the balance. Families were shattered, unable to reach their parents and their loved ones. We had a workforce that was leaving in droves, decimated. I don't think we speak enough about the workforce, but I do. Standing up for that workforce is how I ended up in politics. They were a group of people that I fought for, and that's how I ended up here.

My experience as a general physician at the Alfred was a daily ward round, which started in the emergency department and then worked its way up through every level of the hospital. In train was an entourage of junior doctors, a pharmacist and allied-health professionals. Health care is provided not by an individual—it's not just by me; I was the boss and made the tough calls. It's provided by a team of high-performance individuals. We started in the emergency department, and the majority of that workload was older Australians with a whole catalogue of problems. These included frailty, as you don't get into hospital unless you've got major problems with frailty. Social isolation was common. Many were grappling with the loss of independence due to overlapping morbidities, comorbidities. Multimorbidity is the norm, where you have multiple health problems. It's not just one anymore; it's many. It might be heart failure, COPD, which is a type of emphysema, diabetes, cognitive decline, dementia. All of these things interact so that by the time a person comes to hospital—particularly during that COVID period—they may even have delirium. Delirium is not just confusion. Delirium is a lethal condition which is a predictor of mortality. The longer it goes on, the higher your mortality. It's very difficult in a hospital to manage delirium because hospitals are chaotic places.

I also experienced a lot of interactions with families, and what was evident was carer stress. Carer stress was writ large. It was an issue that was very much gendered. The burden was borne disproportionately by women, often spouses or partners but sometimes daughters. During the pandemic, from 2019 to 2022, I have to say that this was all turbocharged. Our time was spent on the ward round, seeing patients, but then getting on the phones and trying to reach loved ones to convey to them what was going on with their families and their parents.

Another observation I would make is that the decision to enter residential aged care is not an easy one for anyone. It's not easy for the patient, even if they have lost their faculties. It's certainly not easy for the families, because the families carry a great deal of guilt. They feel guilty that somehow their parent has to enter aged care. What I found was that people will generally go through a fairly long phase of recurrent admissions to hospital before the penny drops that they aren't coping and that they need to go into residential aged care—falls, delirium, sepsis, and so on and so forth, until it is evidence that coping at home is no longer possible. There's a very long period, a precontemplative phase, that people will go through before that decision is made.

So one of the first things we did when we came into government in 2022 was to try and lift standards in residential aged care and rescue that workforce. What we did was pump $18 billion into the aged-care workforce, with successive wage rises. It does mean that now registered nurses are $430 better off per week and carers around $320 better off per week. In some cases that's a $17,000 per year wage rise. It's phenomenal. It's arrested that egress of workers from the sector. We're now also seeing much lower vacancy rates for these sorts of positions in aged care.

Honestly, aged care is a profession. It should be seen as a profession. The staff in the aged-care facilities that I visited when I was in the lower house, in my own community in inner Melbourne, were very much a tribe. There was a sense of camaraderie and pride in the work that they were doing. That's exactly what we want to see, because when people have pride in their work quality follows.

What we also did was introduce food standards to try to make the food in residential aged care more appetising for people, noting that many of them will have swallowing difficulties or other such issues. So that can be a challenge. We mandated 24/7 nursing, and now a registered nurse is on site in aged-care facilities 99 per cent of the time. What does that mean? It means that a nurse is there to basically call up a doctor if there's a problem, prescribe medications and sometimes even manage the palliation of a patient, without loading them onto an ambulance, sending them to hospital, where they endure a busy, chaotic emergency department and then go up to a ward for more chaos.

Hospitals are chaotic places. People get shuffled around like chess pieces from bed to bed. Alarms are constantly going off. Emergency calls are constantly going off. This is extremely overstimulating and bad for elderly Australians. It actually leads to delirium—not to mention the fact they end up basically stuck in a bed, and then they decondition. It's called 'PJ paralysis'. That's not a medical term. PJ paralysis refers to pyjama paralysis. As much as possible, we try to keep people and manage them in their residential aged-care facilities. There are mobile teams that are often deployed from hospitals to do that. We certainly had a dedicated team. Other major health networks in Victoria have these.

We're now going a step further. We're trying to actually fulfil the wishes of older Australians to remain at home. So, on 1 November, a new act will begin that will usher in support at home. With that will come an additional 83,000 or so home-care packages, on top of the around 300,000 home-care packages that are distributed. This is double the number of home-care packages we had five years ago. There has been a steady uplift. We know there is a waiting list of around 120,000 people awaiting an assessment. Looking at the data, which I had a look at from the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing during the inquiry last week, the median waiting time until you are assessed to get a home-care package is around a month. In Victoria, the median time in some places is about a week. It's not a prolonged period. That timeline is coming down. I thank those assessors. They are often aged-care teams that are positioned in the community and go out and do home visits. Sometimes it's done by phone or telehealth.

We know that the need is urgent, and it's not acceptable to have older Australians dying at home, as we heard last week, while waiting for a care package. We know that. It is not acceptable. It reflects how broken this system is and why it is so urgent that this parliament and the Senate pass the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. We are completely overhauling this system. At the heart of it is the wishes of older Australians. It is a generational reform that we will reap the benefits of for years to come.

I stand to talk on the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. I thank Senator Ananda-Rajah for her comprehensive contribution to the debate today. This bill is another important step in our reform of aged care. It builds on the Aged Care Act 2024, which replaces the old 1997 law and puts the rights and dignity of older Australians at the centre of care. The royal commission called for a new aged care act, and we have delivered it. This new act begins on 1 November this year, after a short deferral announced in June by the minister, to give providers, workers and government time to prepare systems to support a smooth changeover. Two bills are before the parliament to make that happen: the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 and the Aged Care (Accommodation Payment Security) Levy Amendment Bill 2025. Together they make the technical, transitional and consequential changes needed for the new framework to operate as intended.

What does the main amendment bill do? It improves the way fees and services are managed and makes sure people are not left behind in the transition. It allows providers to charge for missed appointments and cancellations, applies the no-worse-off principle for subsidy calculations and transfers unspent funds from the old to the new system, so people keep the benefit of the support they have not used. It ensures interim packages are available under Support at Home so nobody falls through the cracks as the new arrangements are phased in. It also removes caps on cleaning and gardening hours, requires a review of the Aged Care Quality Standards every five years, and allows the regulator to use compliance data to inform star ratings, so families have clearer information.

The bill confirms that Services Australia and the Department of Veterans' Affairs can carry out means testing and subsidy work, so older people receive fair and accurate co-contribution decisions. And, to deal with any unforeseen issues during the transition, it contains a time-limited Henry VIII power, so that the minister can make rules to keep the system working while parliament considers any permanent legislative fixes. The companion bill, the Aged Care (Accommodation Payment Security) Levy Amendment Bill 2025, keeps the accommodation payment security scheme in place under the new law, protecting residents' accommodation payments and giving families confidence that their money is safe.

Support at Home remains central to our plan to help people live independently for longer. The aim is timely, tailored and transparent in-home support, with interim packages to help people move across without losing services. We will continue working with older people, families, workers and providers to make sure the changeover is practical and fair.

These reforms sit alongside the improvements already made. There is now a registered nurse on site in residential aged care, on average, 99 per cent of the time. Older Australians are receiving an extra 6.8 million minutes of care every day. We have backed in pay rises through the Fair Work Commission process, with $17.7 billion invested in wages for the aged-care workforce and further increases due on 1 October this year and 1 August next year. For older Tasmanians and their families, this is about real outcomes: quicker, cleaner, clearer access to the support you need at home; better information on provider performance; a regulator with the tools to enforce standards; and a system that carries your information, entitlements and unspent funds with you as you transition.

What stays the same matters, too. My Aged Care remains the front door. If you're already receiving care you will not need a new assessment, unless your needs have changed. The statement of rights will apply across the system so that people know what they can expect, whether at home, in residential care or in a specialist program.

Older Australians built this country. They deserve care that is safe, respectful and reliable.

These bills ensure the new rights based system starts well on 1 November. They protect people during transition, strengthen accountability and keep the focus on quality. This is another practical step in putting the care back into aged care and in giving families the confidence that the system will be there for them when they need it. I commend the bills to the Senate.

I also rise to speak on the Aged Care (Accommodation Payment Security) Levy Amendment Bill 2025 and the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, also known as the ACOLA Bill. As the chair of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, on behalf of the Albanese Labor government I want to thank Minister Rae, in particular, for his carriage of these bills and I note the important work that was also covered by our former minister, Minister Wells. I also extend that to their ministerial officers and the pieces of work that they have done to assist in the important inquiry into these bills.

As we enter into a time when our population is ageing and the concept of juggling care becomes a reality, some people—in fact, most people—are actually not prepared for what that might look like and some need some guidance on how to ensure that our older Australians have everything that they need. As we juggle caring with the responsibilities we have for raising a family, working, studying full-time and being active in the community through volunteering, hobbies or sports, caring for our older parents and grandparents is becoming more prevalent, and, in some cases, more complex. When I think about the ability for us all to be able to provide quality care for our older Australians, I think about my mum and, as a grandmother, what she needs as she ages and continues to work part time in our community and help care for her grandchildren. But, more importantly, what is my role as her daughter to ensure that she has everything that she needs?

I want to also thank my constituents in Western Australia who shared with me their experiences with older people in the health and aged-care system. I want to say to them that the Albanese government is acting on delivering this reform and that I will continue to advocate strongly on their behalf here in the federal Senate for the urgent assistance that we need in Western Australia.

This must be an effort of both the federal and state governments to ensure that we restore the respect and dignity that was missing in action for decades under the previous coalition government, as has been highlighted in the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, and, in fact, make sure that that is delivered upon. Senator Ananda-Rajah was very clear that we on this side of the chamber will not be lectured to by the coalition government, because the word 'neglect' was used during the royal commission. This royal commission was established in 2018 and it investigated the state of aged-care services in Australia. It focused on quality, safety and whether it in fact met the community's needs. The commission's final report, delivered in 2021, highlighted the systemic issues and made 148 recommendations for reform. These recommendations were aimed at improving safety, health, wellbeing and quality of life for those receiving government funded aged care.

These are important, and I want to highlight an important feature of that royal commission. For a long period of time, legislation has been focused on funding requirements for aged-care providers rather than the genuine care of older people. That is what the Albanese government is about to change through these bills. The approach that Minister Rae has outlined in his second reading speech is actually to fix that. It's to ensure that that very clear essence of what that royal commission was saying is actually delivered. Through the ACOLA Bill, we will continue to provide further support on our government's ambition to transform the experiences of older Australians who are receiving care.

I want to also recognise the tremendous contribution that our aged-care and home-care workers make. Having high-quality care means increasing provider accountability through the appropriate mechanisms of support to our workforce. It's a workforce that is sometimes not given the respect that it absolutely deserves. The aged-care and home-care workforce must be supported to provide professional care that encompasses dignity. I want to do a quick shout-out to the amazing aged-care workers who are members of the United Workers Union, who are doing some amazing work on behalf of the sector. We see you and support you always.

These bills are required to make the necessary amendments to the existing legislation and to support the commencement of the Aged Care Act. It actually passed both houses in 2024, but the commencement and the release of those home-care packages will be on 1 November this year. There are many, many technical amendments. I notice that I'm running short on time here, so I won't address all of them. But why this matters is that it enables an effective rollout of the rights based aged-care system that was recommended by the royal commission and includes the Support at Home program. It protects the rights and entitlements of existing care recipients through transitional provisions. It clarifies incorrect definitions, procedural mechanisms and regulatory powers critical to the Aged Care 2024 Act so that it functions as was intended. It ensures governments can respond flexibly and quickly to implementation issues, particularly via the temporary rulemaking powers. I know that that has seen some contention in the inquiry into these bills that was held but also in this place and there has been some politicking about that. None of that is without scrutiny and accountability. It can still be scrutinised and held to account around the decision-making.

As a government, we are focused on the delivery of quality care to older Australians. This includes that preparatory work done through proper consultation with the sector, through the Aged Care Transition Taskforce and the Aged Care Council of Elders. I want to acknowledge them, their work and their partnership to ensure that these reforms are actually delivered, and delivered in a timely and efficient way. That was relayed to us through the inquiry into these bills.

In this place you will hear, if you listen carefully, some people say that the sector didn't want the delay. They were the things that they chose to tell you during this debate. They were the things that were not part of what the representation was. We didn't get a whole sector into an inquiry. We got a couple of those representatives. They don't speak for the whole sector. They were the larger providers who said that they could absorb some of those packages. These related bills, through the community affairs committee, received 20 submissions. Only one recommendation was made at the conclusion of this inquiry. That conclusion was that the committee recommended that the Senate pass these bills without delay. That's pretty straightforward. This was echoed by the majority of the witnesses who gave evidence to the committee. If you weren't there on the day, you didn't hear it. It was clear that it should be without delay. That was the first thing they said.

The politicking has to stop. It is about what we are here to deliver for older Australians. Across this chamber, I hope that we can all agree on this single point: that aged-care reform is a priority, so that we can ensure our older Australians are supported, and that this reform must proceed without delay. That is exactly what the Albanese Labor government is doing, and it will deliver.

Senators, pursuant to the order agreed to yesterday, the time allotted for the second reading debate on these bills has expired. The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Ruston on sheet 3419 be agreed to.

I will now deal with the remaining second reading amendment circulated by the opposition. The question is that the amendment on sheet 3426 be agreed to. Senator Pocock?

I was trying to get your attention to ask that part (a) and part (b) be put separately.

Yes, I can do that. Thank you, Senator Pocock. So the question is that the amendment on sheet 3426 part (a) be agreed to.

I'll now deal with part (b). The question is that the amendment on sheet 3426, part (b), be agreed to.

I'll now deal with the second reading amendments circulated by the Australian Greens. The question is that the amendments on sheets 3404 and 3418 be agreed to.

Australian Greens' circulated amendment—

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

(a) notes:

(i) 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,

(ii) the most recent government data shows more than 87,000 people waiting for a home care package, with some industry estimates expecting the waitlist to reach 100,000 by 1 November 2025, and

(iii) the Commonwealth Home Support Program is unlikely to be able to meet increased demand for support at home prior to 1 November 2025; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) release more Home Care Packages as a matter of urgency, and

(ii) 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 home, residential care or hospital".

Australian Greens' circulated amendment—

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

(a) notes that:

(i) the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety recommended that no person with disability under the age of 65 should remain living in residential aged care from 2025,

(ii) while the Government accepted this recommendation, this bill retains in the Aged Care Act 2024 a formalised pathway to place people under 65 in aged care, and

(iii) as of 31 March 2025, there are 959 people aged under 65 in residential aged care, this cohort includes disabled people who should not be in residential aged care and instead should be receiving NDIS supports to enable them to exit residential aged care; and

(b) calls on the Government to implement the recommendation of the Royal Commission and ensure no disabled person under the age of 65 remains in residential aged care".

I'd like to vote differently on each of those two, 3404 and 3418.

Okay. I'll put those separately, then. The question is that the amendment on sheet 3404 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The question now is that the amendment on sheet 3418 be agreed to.

Minister, I was wondering whether you would have a number as to how many people are on the national priority system as of 31 August?

We've canvassed this in this chamber and also in committee hearings last week. As of 31 March, the number of people on the priority waiting list is 87,597.

Thank you, Minister. Yes, that information has been continually provided to us. I was wondering whether you could tell me how many people are currently on the national priority system as of 31 July 2025?

Thank you very much, Senator Ruston. I'll refer you to my earlier answer.

Senator David Pocock?

A point of order on relevance. It seems to be a very clear question about a very specific number.

I'm just interested to understand why the advice that you're receiving is to not provide me with updated data? In just about every other situation when I've asked for this data, I've been provided that data within the following month. Therefore, it would be reasonable to expect that you would be able to provide information as to, at least, what the priority waiting list was on 31 July 2025. You gave me an answer from 31 March 2025. But, on the public record, the number is 108,924 on 31 July 2025. I'm keen to understand why you refused to provide me with that information in the previous answer.

I think this was canvassed in the committee hearing separate to this bill but related to these issues on Friday. I understand that the advice provided to you at that time is that there are additional quality assurance checks that are made prior to publication and the data for which such checks have been undertaken and confirmed is the data that's already been provided to you.

Having been at the hearing on Friday, I will let the Senate know what happened. Senator Ruston and I were asking for those numbers. If I can quote the department, they said:

I will take it on notice to be able to provide it for Monday.

The official also said, to Senator Ruston:

I can take it on notice and I can provide it to you with the usual caveats attached.

I'm interested if the government is claiming public interest immunity on this, or what's going on, given we had questions on notice and an undertaking from the department to provide this information—which it has—which we were told was easily accessible and would be provided with caveats, and now we have a government that simply will not provide the information.

Senator Pocock, I'm advised that, at the time that the discussion took place that you're referring to in your question, officials were clear that there are some limitations on what can be provided, particularly given the timeframes involved and that there are challenges in relation to quality assurance around these numbers.

Minister, what is the unconfirmed number that the department has that applies before quality assurance is undertaken?

Thanks, Senator Allman-Payne. This is, essentially, the same question Senator Ruston has just asked me, and I'll refer you to my previous answer.

There are two parts to my question. The first one is that, in past practice—on 26 February, in estimates this year, I asked this question of the department, and the department gave me the data from 31 January. They were quite clearly prepared at the time to provide the data in the format in which you are now claiming you can't provide the data. I'm interested to understand what has changed between 26 February and today, as to why you, the minister, representing the government, are withholding the data today when it wasn't being withheld on 26 February. Is there something that has changed in terms of how the data was dealt with between then and now?

As I've indicated to you, the government is keen to provide the Senate with good information that has been checked and against which the ordinary quality assurance measures have been undertaken. It's on that basis that we're providing you with the number we've provided both today and in answers during question time earlier in the week.

With the greatest amount of respect, I don't think that answers the question. You provided this data to me on 26 February in relation to data on 31 January. I am simply asking you why you were prepared to provide me the uncleansed data, as you describe it, in February but you're not prepared to provide me with the uncleansed data today. That's all I'm asking—what's changed? Why did you do it then and why aren't you doing it now?

I've provided you with an answer about our reasoning on this occasion.

I'm really keen to understand why I have received official notification from your government that the number of people on the national priority system as at 31 July 2025 is 108,924. Can you confirm whether that is correct or not?

McALLISTER (—) (): That is my understanding of the data, with all the caveats that we have attached to it both now and previously in talking about how this data is managed.

Without belabouring the point, why would you not give me that information until they provided it to you?

I've repeatedly explained that the government's approach is to provide data to the Senate that is of a high standard and a high quality of which we can be confident. That's the approach we have taken now and up until this point. You have introduced a different number into the conversation. I can confirm that that is the number, but it has not been subjected to the quality assurance processes that we ordinarily subject this data to.

On 6 June last year, the first assistant secretary provided me the waitlist as at 31 May. I will quote to you what was said at the time:

… very recent, not yet published, data … it's fresh data. We may not have the usual granularity around it.

They provided me with that data with those caveats, with full transparency, six days after the actual data was collated. So I am still at a loss to understand why your government has been so keen not to provide this data, given it has provided it every time before. The department has indicated it is happy to provide caveated data, yet you're not. We know now that the waitlist is in excess of 20,000 people more than it was on 31 March 2025. We know that the waitlist is now in excess of 80,000 people more than it was 24 months ago. We know now that the average wait time for a package has blown out: 24 months ago it was one to three months, and it's now between nine and 12 months. Minister, I'm keen to understand why your government is withholding this vital information, particularly given the absolute crisis that is facing the aged-care sector and that has befallen the sector over the last 24 months.

But, clearly, the public record can now state that the government has provided data—even though they failed to provide it to their minister who is managing the bill in this place, which seems a little incredible—that 108,924 older Australians have been assessed by this government as needing a level of care, and that care has not been provided to them and has not been provided to them for a much, much longer period of time than has previously been the case. So, Minister, I'm keen to understand, if you would like to put it on record, why your government thinks it is reasonable not to provide this publicly important information and why you have withheld this information for nearly six months now.

Senator Ruston, I simply don't accept that the government has withheld information. We have been engaged in a series of public discussions, in committee hearings and in the chamber, about the approach that we are taking to the reform of the aged-care sector. I think everyone in this chamber acknowledges the significance of that reform. We were very pleased to work with the opposition to bring the reforms through in the last term, and I think that is because there is a commitment here to improve outcomes for older Australians.

These issues have been canvassed through a legislative inquiry, which some of the senators here chose to participate in. They have been canvassed, additionally, through a references inquiry, which had its first hearing on Friday. We have had debates during various parts of the program in the Senate and, as I understand it, in the other place, and we have had questions asked in question time. This has been a very public debate. And the government's every purpose in reforming the aged-care system is to make sure that we produce better outcomes for older Australians. I will add that it builds on the work that was done over the last term to improve the performance of the system and the quality of care that's available to people.

A lot of work was done in the last term that, frankly, could have been done in the previous decade when the Liberal Party and their coalition partner, the Nationals, were in power. But it wasn't done, so a great deal of work had to be done over the last term to get us to this point. It included a $5.6 billion reform package that reformed care minutes to deliver registered nurses onsite in aged care more than 99 per cent of the time, which allowed more direct care to over 250,000 older people in aged-care homes. We have invested $17.7 billion in support of award wage increases for aged-care workers so that we have the aged-care workforce ready to implement the improvements in quality that older Australians rightly expect.

In December 2023, only 54 per cent of aged-care homes had an overall star rating of four or five stars. Now, 74 per cent of aged-care homes have such a rating. And now, under the leadership of Minister Rae in the other place, we are committed to implementing the Aged Care Act. As I think senators understand, it will expand aged-care support to hundreds of thousands of older Australians, it'll lift quality and it will lift the range of aged-care services that older Australians can access in their final years of life, and that is no less than they deserve.

Minister, I'm just trying to square up your comment that the government hasn't withheld information. Several minutes ago I asked you if you could give us the unconfirmed number. You said you couldn't. Senator Ruston gave you a number, and you immediately said that you could confirm that that was the number. I'm trying to understand why you couldn't give me that number when, clearly, you have it.

Senator Allman-Payne, I've really clearly explained the approach that the government has taken to this. We want the Senate to have good-quality information. That's been assured; that's the approach we have taken. Senator Ruston has in her possession information that has not been subject to that process and may be subject to change as a consequence. She asked me about it directly; I confirmed it. But our preference is to work with data that has been quality assured, and that's the approach that we've taken through this debate up to this point.

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3413 (revised):

Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:

(2) Page 171 (after line 30), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 4 — Release of 20,000 home care packages

Aged Care Act 1997

1 At the end of section 23B-1

Add:

(7) The Secretary must make such determinations under subsection (1) as are necessary to ensure that before the commencement of the Aged Care Act 2024 there are available and released to recipients a number of home care packages under the Australian Government framework known as the National Priority System that is equal to or greater than the number worked out as follows:

(a) the number of such home care packages available and released to recipients immediately before the commencement of this subsection; plus

(b) 20,000 such home care packages.

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

Amendments (1) and (2)

Amendments (1) and (2) are framed as requests because they amend the bill to provide for the release of 20,000 additional home care packages in accordance with the Commonwealth aged care system.

This will increase the amount of expenditure under the appropriation in section 96-10 of the Aged Care Act 1997.

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

Amendments (1) and (2)

If the effect of the amendments is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 96-10 of the Aged Care Act 1997 then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendments be moved as requests.

Minister, I'm interested in the government's approach to this, given that yesterday I was effectively told by Minister Farrell in question time, when asking about the secrecy of the Albanese Labor government—which is the second most secretive in the last 30 years, if you look at FOIs, OPDs and the claiming of PII—that you are a very transparent government. Yet when we have a question about a number, which you have in front of you, which the department said they could give us on Friday, with all the usual caveats, as they do at estimates, you haven't given us that number. How is that transparency from a government?

I have answered this question in different forms, in answering questions from Senators Ruston and Allman-Payne, and I refer Senator Pocock to those answers.

Are there any contributions that senators would like to make?

Returning to the issue in relation to packages, I indicate that the coalition is absolutely delighted to support Senator Pocock's amendments for the immediate release of these packages. The cold, hard reality that the government seems to be failing to accept is that the sector is capable of delivering these packages, the department is able to deliver these packages, and there are budgeted amounts within the budget for 2025-26 for these packages to be funded, yet the only thing that seems to be standing in the way of older Australians getting access to the care that this amendment seeks to deliver for them is that the minister is actively—intentionally—refusing to release any aged-care packages. To that end, Minister, how many new aged-care packages have been released this financial year?

This was canvassed in the hearing on Friday and explained very clearly to senators who were present at that time.

In the interests of providing full transparency for the Senate, can you tell me what the answer was, Minister?

When both the minister and the officials at the table spoke to you, they were very clear that we have continued to release packages throughout this financial year and that the government has been preparing for the release of new and additional packages which are intended to commence with the commencement of the act.

Minister, could you please answer the simple question: how many new home-care packages have been released this financial year?

I've answered your question twice now, Senator Ruston.

Well, you haven't answered the question, Minister, and I don't know why you're not prepared to actually be honest and transparent with the Senate and the people of Australia. There have been no new home-care packages released by this government this financial year. That is the sum total of none. You refer to the reallocation of existing packages. These are packages that become available when older Australians on a package either go into residential care or they die. These are the only packages that are currently being released by the government.

Minister Rae last week said that there were 2,700 packages on average per week being released. Yesterday or maybe Monday, the minister said that the number of packages being released was 2,000 packages a week on average. Could you please confirm what is the average number of packages released per week? Is it 2,000 or is it 2,700? If it is 2,000, what's happened to the other 700?

The advice that I have is that the number varies, and it's an average. But the advice I have before me is that we are releasing an average of more than 2,000 home-care packages every week, and that number, as I indicated, moves around.

Can I confirm that when Minister Rae said on national television last week that there was an average of 2,700 packages released a week that figure was incorrect on the basis of the advice you've just received from officials?

No, Senator. It depends on the timeframe, I gather, over which the average is calculated. That's the advice that I have in relation to your question.

Would it be possible for you to provide us with the timeframe when the average of 2,700 came into play and the timeframe of when it was an average of 2,700 and now is an average of 2,000? Finally, on Senator Pocock's amendment—I was wondering what is the reason, if there is a reason, why the government has stopped releasing any new home-care packages this financial year?

As you know, the government, over the period that we've been in office, has continued to release new packages, but the focus since July has absolutely been preparing the system for the significant influx of packages which we expect to occur on the commencement of the act. That involves consideration of the ability of the sector to absorb those packages, and our every focus, to be honest, has been on getting the system ready for what is a very substantial change to the aged-care system, which we are very excited about.

Minister, I'm really keen to unpack what you've just said. You have just told the Senate that your government's priority over the period leading up to 1 November is to get the system ready. Your priority has not been the 108,924 older Australians that, on 31 July, had been assessed as needing a home-care package and haven't received a home-care package. Your priority has been getting the system ready.

You also made a comment around being focused on making sure the sector is ready. The sector quite clearly told us last Friday that they were ready. The sector told us they could absorb these packages in a very, very short period of time. In fact, they told us that they were already geared up and had staffed up to be able to start delivering those packages from 1 July. And yet the government has just told this place that its priority is getting the systems in place. This is tantamount to having a reform in the hospital sector and saying to Australian patients who need hospitalisation, 'Sorry, we're not taking any new patients into our hospital because we're getting the system in place.'

I am absolutely floored that the government would prioritise a system rebuild over delivering the care that older Australians have been assessed by this government as needing. They're prioritising the system over their care. I find this quite extraordinary. So far we've had the government and the minister blame older Australians. They've blamed the sector. They've blamed their own government departments. They have blamed their own reforms. And now the minister has actually belled the cat that their priority in this process is to get the systems in place.

What I would say to you is that you weren't there on Friday, but Senator Allman-Payne and Senator Pocock were, when Margaret told her story. Her husband, Tony, was assessed as needing a level 4 home-care package, the highest level of package. He waited nearly 18 months to receive that package. The really cruel irony of what happened to Margaret and Tony was that Tony was taken to hospital on 4 May this year. Tony's wife received notification from the department, nearly 18 months after they were set up for assessment, that Tony had been assessed and his home-care package was going to be delivered to him. Tony passed away on 9 May this year and Margaret said she didn't have the heart to tell Tont that he had got a home-care package. So Tony passed away not even knowing that he had a home-care package. This wasn't an isolated situation. We heard of hundreds. I'm sure Senator Pocock and Senator Allman-Payne have other stories of a similar nature where the human face of the tragedy of the waiting list is told around Australia. So, Minister, I have to say that I am quite astounded that you have actually put on the public record that system readiness is your priority, not the delivery of home care.

Senator Ruston, that is an unhappy, disingenuous mischaracterisation of the discussion, which is intended to be conducted in good faith. Actually, the reforms to the aged-care system are incredibly significant and they cannot be separated from the outcomes that we are seeking to deliver for older Australians. The reforms that were agreed to by your party—not by the Australian Greens but by your party—seek to, in a really essential way, reorganise the way that care is delivered and provided to older people in a complex system. It is a system that involves providers, workers and, of course, older Australians themselves. It is worth getting this reform right. It's on that basis and because of our determination to deliver a very good outcome for older Australians that we took the decision to defer implementation.

At the time, that decision was endorsed by you personally, Senator Ruston, and by your party. But it was also endorsed by the sector. For example, Ageing Australia said:

We applaud the Government for listening to the concerns of the aged care sector and putting the needs of older Australians first.

…   …   …

This is a win for the 1.4 million older Australians, who rely on aged care. We need to do this reform once and do it right.

The CEO of Anglicare said:

Taking the time to get this right will lead to stronger outcomes for everyone, especially older Australians who rely on quality care and support.

UnitingCare said:

UnitingCare Australia welcomes today's sensible decision to delay the commencement of the new Aged Care Act, recognising the opportunity it provides to ensure a well-prepared and effective transition.

Given the scale of change—particularly in the Support at Home program—this extra time will ensure the foundations are in place for a seamless implementation.

Catholic Healthcare said:

We strongly support the reforms enacted in the Aged Care Act but this delay is needed to ensure a smooth transition that avoids unintended negative consequences.

So you can hear in the voices and words of those organisations and those people who care daily for older Australians the significance of getting the system ready and getting the sector right.

We make no apologies for leading on this reform, Senator Ruston. And what is actually surprising to me is that you don't seek to associate yourself with it. You supported the reforms. You supported the deferral. I think, Senator, that you do sincerely understand the need to provide care to older Australians and older people.

We were pleased to work with the opposition on this question. Our purpose is to improve things for older Australians. That's why we've done the work that we've done. And we are very grateful for all of the people who've joined with us, in what is a very substantial endeavour, in a spirit of goodwill. We are looking forward to the implementation of the new act and the positive changes that we expect it will bring for older people.

I think the minister is conflating the desire of the sector to defer the start of the Aged Care Act with the delay in the rollout of aged-care packages, because the minister has referred to both Ageing Australia and UnitingCare. I was at the hearing on Friday, and both Ageing Australia and UnitingCare said they supported the delay in the commencement of the act. They did not support a delay of release of home-care packages. And, across the board, the sector said that they are ready to roll them out.

The minister has said that they are preparing for a significant influx of people on home-care packages on 1 November. Well, I put to you, Minister, that you wouldn't have as big an influx on 1 November if you continued to roll them out from 1 July until then.

Five thousand people died, in the last 12 months, waiting for a home-care package. Is the government seriously saying that they're prepared to watch more people die than is necessary in that four-month period, over systems? Is that genuinely what you are saying to older Australians out there and to their families—the over 200,000 of them? We've had to work hard to get those numbers out of the government. And is it any wonder that you didn't want to give them to us? Are you seriously saying to them, 'Because we want to change the system, you lot can wait for months'?

We heard clearly on Friday that eight weeks is a massively long wait for an older person, and that having to wait three or four months or longer is catastrophic. You had senators get up here, in their speeches on the second reading, saying that the royal commission report was titled Neglect and we shouldn't be neglecting older people. Well, what is more neglectful than stopping rolling out home-care packages for four months?

Senator Ananda-Rajah said that lives were hanging on the balance. You bet they are! And yet, for four months, you are not rolling out any additional care. Those 200,000 that you keep talking about—those aren't new packages; those are packages that are being reallocated when people go into residential aged care or they die. Senator Ananda-Rajah talked about the large influx of older people into hospitals. Well, of course they're going into hospital, because they're not getting the care that they need at home. She talked about carer stress and the disproportionate amount of care that is falling on women in particular. Well, we could reduce that carer stress if the government invested in sufficient home-care packages so that people could actually get the care that they need at the time that they need it.

The royal commission said: 'Stop rationing care.' Not only are you rationing it still, you're refusing to roll it out! Talk about neglect!

Providers have told us that they can manage this. Senator Ananda-Rajah talked about the wage rises that Labor has rightly given aged-care workers and that have stemmed the egress from the system. It's working, and the sector is saying that they have the workforce to provide additional care. So why on earth would the government stop rolling out additional care for four months? Labor senators said, 'The government is trying to fulfill the wishes of older Australians to stay at home.' My questions to you then are: Why are you waiting? Why are you making 200,000 older Australians wait for care that could be rolled out now? We now know that the care that you are proposing to roll out on 1 November is going to be wholly inadequate—83,000 home-care packages for a waitlist of over 200,000. We've see no modelling on how you're going to reach that target. We've seen no modelling on how you're going to get to three months. Given the level of refusal to give information today unless figures are actually put to the government, I'll be surprised if we get that too.

Labor senators also talked about the fact that the government doesn't want anyone to fall through the cracks. I'd say 200,000 people waiting for care is a pretty big crack. Again, I ask the government: why won't you act to close that gap by rolling out new home-care packages now? Labor senators in their contributions in the second reading debate also talked about how care needs to be timely, that people need quicker access. If you are asking 200,000 people to wait an additional four months before you will roll out any new home-care packages, how on earth is that timely or quick?

Minister, my questions to you and the government are: What do you have to say to the 200,000 or more Australians who are desperately waiting for the care that they need for themselves, older parent or grandparent? What do you say to them as to why you are making them wait four months without any additional release of home-care packages?

Senator, you've incorrectly asserted that there are more than 200,000 people waiting. That's simply not accurate. I understand the basis on which you arrived at that number, and I think it's been put to you previously that that is not an accurate way of assessing the demand in the system. However, the government understands that further resources are required in this sector because we don't want to see people waiting for too long. When we hear the stories—and we have heard many stories—we hear many stories about what people need at home, and they are very moving. All of these stories reinforce the need for reform of the system.

System reform, as people in this chamber I think should understand, required legislation, and it requires an injection of resources, new resources which we intend to deliver. It also requires a reconfiguration of the way that people work—with each other and with the older Australians that they support and care for. All of those things are significant changes to the aged-care system as it currently stands. They require significant thinking, working with the sector and preparation, and that is the work that our government has been doing.

I made this point earlier in the debate. It's work that could have been done in the 10 years that the coalition were in power. But it's work that wasn't done during that time. That task has been left to this government, and that's a very great shame, because there are many people that would have been better off had the reforms that were necessary for the aged-care system been undertaken much, much earlier.

It is heartbreaking, Senator Allman-Payne, to hear of people experiencing distress in any way, and my thoughts are with families who have experienced difficulties, particularly those who have lost a loved one. But that is why we are getting on with this job of delivering the change to the system. We know that older Australians have worked all their lives and that they have cared for their families and their communities, and they deserve the very best. That is what motivates our government, and it's why we did all that we did over the last term and why we intend to do it in this one.

Minister, you talk about it being heartbreaking hearing about people experiencing distress, waiting for home-care packages that they've been approved for. Yesterday in my speech on the second reading I read out half a dozen stories from over 100 that my office has received from Canberrans who are desperate for more supports so that their parents or they themselves can age at home with dignity. Imagine if the government was actually in a position to do something about it. Imagine if you could change the lives of 20,000 older Australians before 1 November, which we heard on Friday there's capacity to do. I urge the government to support my amendment to release 20,000 home-care packages now, given that there is a great need for them and there's capacity to do so.

I understand that for you this may be a cost. You want to balance the books. But I put to you that it is Australians, families, communities, and the states and territories that are bearing the cost. One of the stories I read out yesterday was from a local Canberra GP who has had to go to part-time work to care for her elderly parents. We have one of the lowest ratios of GPs to population in the country here in the ACT. Another story we hear about is how Canberra Hospital is full of older people. So every Canberran is copping an extra $100 healthcare levy because our hospital is bursting at the seams. Yet we have a Labor federal government that is happy to balance the books on old people.

We could do something about it now, and I certainly hope you will when we vote on these amendments. I urge you to back them. But what I'm hearing is that you actually just want to balance the books on old people who desperately want support and who we have deemed worthy of support. They have qualified for a home-care package, and yet we're going to make them wait until November. So I urge the government to support these amendments, and I commend them to the Senate.

Thanks, Senator Pocock. You're right. There are important investments that we should make. You spoke about cost. The government understands the importance of investing in older Australians. I spoke earlier in my contribution about the $5.6 billion that the government is investing in the aged-care system, because we know it needs to do better. You won't find an argument with us about that proposition. We understand the human stories that sit behind every family—about seeking to support another person, whether that person wishes to be at home, whether that person needs to be in a residential aged-care facility or whether that person needs hospital care. The government is in fact making very significant investments to support those people and to support their families.

We have throughout this period ensured that older Australians assessed as a high priority continue to receive their packages within a month. We look forward to rolling out further resources, as has been clearly signalled by both Minister Butler and Minister Rae over a long period of time. Over the last five years we have gone from having 155,000 people accessing in-home care to over 300,000 people. In part that's due to our additional investment in the last term of $798 million. This matters.

I think you will understand, Senator Pocock, from your engagement with people in the ACT, that Australians increasingly want to be at home. People want to be at home for as long as they can, and many people express a preference to spend their last days at home. One of the important aspects of this reform is it will provide a pathway for people to obtain the resources they need to do so. These are incredibly important, significant reforms. They have been achieved through discussion with the opposition. We are looking forward to implementing them.

I move that the question be put.

Senator Pocock, you can't put the question on your own motion, but some other senator can.

I move:

That the question be now put.

A division having been called and the bells being rung

Order! I have just been advised—I can't remember all the words, but we will cancel the division because we have a set time limit and a cut-off. We will come back to questions. The bill is being considered under a guillotine. I know you're all looking at me weird; you're not the first people to do that, I can tell you!

Can I seek clarity?

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Sure. We're at a stage where the bill is under a guillotine. We cannot call that to an end. We will continue because there is a set time. I'm taking the advice of the Clerk, with the greatest respect, colleagues. You're welcome to ask any questions, but I'll put the Clerk's advice before anything else.

Just to be very clear, the government are now playing funny buggers because they don't want the Senate to pass a bill with these important amendments. That is what is going on here.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Hanson-Young, resume your seat. The government is not doing whatever you're accusing the government of doing. I have taken advice from the Clerk, and, as far as proceedings go in this place, I will take the Clerk's advice before any senator's.

In going through this legislation, I'm interested to look at some of the other elements. I totally respect the pieces of the legislation that my colleagues have raised this morning and earlier through the week. Some of them are deeply critical and important areas. What I would like to go to is some of those other areas which, while maybe not as deeply critical, are important and important for us to understand.

I would like the minister to step through for us the element within the legislation that is about the reimbursement to individuals for the cost of sourcing own consumables. There are some elements of that that I'm not particularly clear on. I wonder if the minister would be so kind as to step us through why this particular amendment is required. From my own experience of talking with aged-care providers, I know there are often some challenges in how the structure of the aged-care provisions work and how they actually access the appropriate care and the appropriate services in all and many circumstances. I wonder if the minister could take us through why this amendment is particularly required.

Thank you, Senator Grogan. You're right that, from time to time, there are circumstances where individuals may wish to directly purchase an item, so this amendment introduces a new subsection into the act. It, effectively, provides that a registered provider will be taken to have delivered a funded aged-care service. The technical language is 'even where that service was delivered by one or more associated providers of the registered provider'.

What it will mean is that an individual can directly purchase an item—it might be a continence product; it might be a low-cost assistive technology—and then receive reimbursement from that registered provider. It will also mean that individuals could be reimbursed when paying provider invoices as part of self-management. In that scenario, the registered provider would remain responsible for the services being delivered to the individual and for the aged-care workers delivering those services. There are a wide variety of consumables that people might be seeking to purchase under this system. It might be things like assistive technology devices that help with mobility, communication or daily tasks; or barrier creams to protect skin and maintain skin integrity. People might need to purchase wound dressings for managing or protecting wounds, continence pads to support bladder or bowel management, or catheters. These are important features of care, and this is a small but consequential change to the act.

That's very helpful. The other element that I would like to understand better is the transition of unspent funds, not only why the amendment is required on unspent funds but also how long that transition of funds will be managed. We know that there are a lot of challenges in the aged-care sector. I know that when we were previously in government we made a significant amount of change. I was honoured to have been involved in that, working for the minister at the time. It is such a deeply complex area and such a deeply complex portfolio.

Of course, we're dealing with such challenging areas involving older people. We often see a decline in health and a decline in cognition. That impacts not just the person themselves but also their family and friends. The decline we see—maybe post stroke; maybe it's just a natural decline—can be really challenging to people's sense of themselves. My family are dealing with this ourselves. The challenge of being able to source exactly the right service that you need at the right time is not just a difficulty for government in terms of the volume of service provided but also the challenge of the right service in the right place to suit people, whether that be, as the minister very kindly outlined before, the issues of consumables and reimbursements and how that actually plays out, or those other services, particularly when we're talking about more remote or regional areas. There are many aspects to the challenges we face in the aged-care sector not just for the individuals but also for their families.

The transition of unspent funds is something we also need to have a solid understanding of. Minister, could you outline why this amendment is required and how the transition of funds will be managed? That would greatly help me.

You're right that there are, again, technical amendments that are before the chamber in the form of this bill. They will assist in the transition of unspent funds. Notional home-care accounts will be established for all eligible persons transferring to Support at Home from the Home Care Packages Program. They will be credited on 1 November as per the balance under the home care program on 31 November. Essentially, those funds will be rolled over and the Commonwealth-provider-held proportion—and this is perhaps too technical for your question—will remain a recoverable debt.

The particular thing to note is that unspent funds accumulated under the Home Care Packages Program will be managed by type. There are three types of unspent funds. Notional home-care accounts will be set up on 1 November 2025 for all participants, as I have already indicated. Providers will be able to view the balance through the Services Australia systems. These amounts may be used to fund funded aged care and services in accordance with the subsidy calculator. The Commonwealth-provider-held portion will continue to be held by providers, and the subsidy calculator will prescribe how these funds must be used. Providers may also elect to return these amounts to the Commonwealth, and the rules will prescribe the circumstances in which these funds become a recoverable debt. The amount that will be in the account on the transition day is the amount that is in the individual's account immediately before the transition day. Any changes in their funding won't impact their rollover.

Thank you, Minister, for that comprehensive response. I think that in a lot of these debates, unfortunately, the nuance gets lost, and so does the detail. On the topic of support at home, which is really the substance, I think, of this particular debate, it was evident from the consultation that we've done over many years now—the three years of our first term and the start of this term—that Australians, resoundingly, want to spend as much time as they can at home before they have to, in some cases but not inevitably so, make a decision to enter residential aged care. We are absolutely of the opinion that we want to support that decision-making as much as possible.

What was also evident was that the current system is wholesale broken and needs to be overhauled. We all agree upon that; the coalition agrees on that, and we agree on that. But, with respect to the packages, there is a narrative forming that we are somehow holding back and that we're doing that for budgetary reasons. I really reject that. On Friday during the committee hearing, the evidence the Department of Health and Aged Care gave to us was—and I quite clearly remember this—that not all providers are ready to absorb a slush of new packages into the system.

This is important, Minister, because we heard on that day from a handful of mostly large providers—the likes of Bolton Clarke, Catholic Health Australia and so on. We did not speak to every single provider in the sector, and they're not all big. There are some medium-sized and smaller providers that provide care to communities all over this country, not only in cities but in rural and regional communities as well. This consultation has been done by our government and by the aged-care ministers, former minister Anika Wells—and I pay tribute to her—and current minister Sam Rae, and the department.

Not all providers could absorb the flood of packages if we were to release them tomorrow, but I was particularly interested in the other types of non-care provisions in the act, particularly around cleaning and gardening and why they're so important to our constituents, to older Australians. Could you please elaborate on that?

To respond quickly to Senator Ananda-Rajah's question, it is the case that this bill removes the caps which were previously in place in relation to those services. But I can indicate—and I know Senator Pocock was keen to have his amendment dealt with—that the government has been in discussions with the opposition about the approach we might take to some of the questions in Senator Pocock's amendment. Accordingly, we are not in a position at this time to support his amendment, and the government will not be voting in support of it.

The question is that requests (1) and (2) on sheet 3413 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

by leave—We didn't seek a division on this, but, as indicated, the government did not vote in support of Senator Pocock's amendment, and, under the standing orders, I ask that the government be recorded as being opposed to the motion.

by leave—I move Greens requests for amendment (1) and (2) on sheet 3403 revised 2 together:

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

(1) Schedule 1, page 68 (after line 12), after item 229, insert:

229A After subsection 323(6)

Insert:

Excluding redress amounts

(6A) In working out an individual's total assessable income, disregard an amount paid to, or for the benefit of, the individual by way of compensation under a scheme established by a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory for providing redress to survivors of any form of abuse or wrongdoing.

(6B) To avoid doubt, an amount mentioned in subsection (6A) is to also be disregarded in making determinations under subsection (1) or paragraph (2)(b), (3)(b), (4)(b) or (5)(b).

(2) Schedule 1, page 69 (after line 6), after item 236, insert:

236A After subsection 330(8)

Insert:

Excluding redress amounts

(8A) In working out the value of an individual's assets, disregard an amount paid to, or for the benefit of, the individual by way of compensation under a scheme established by a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory for providing redress to survivors of any form of abuse or wrongdoing.

(8B) To avoid doubt, an amount mentioned in subsection (8A) is to also be disregarded in making determinations under paragraph (2)(a) or (b) or (3)(a) or (b) or subsection (4).

I want to put on the record that the coalition certainly understands the intent of the amendment just moved by Senator Hanson-Young in relation to redress payments for the purposes of means testing. We know that these payments are made because of some extraordinary circumstances that the individual has suffered during their life. But, whilst we have incredible sympathy for the intent of this amendment, the reason that we will not be supporting the amendment at this time is that we believe that the government should have a look at redress payments in terms of how they are handled when it comes to the broader application of payments made by government to individuals.

So, as I said, whilst we would be more than happy to support it in a more general context, because it is so specific in its nature in relation to the payments and to this alone, we will be supporting the government in their endeavours to not support this amendment. But I want to make sure that it is on the record that we absolutely understand the intention of the Greens in moving this amendment. We'd be very happy to work with the Greens to make sure that the issue of the exclusion of redress payments from means testing, more generally, is something that is consistently applied across the whole of government.

The question is that requests for amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3403 revised 2 be agreed to.

It being after 12.15 pm, we shall move to senators' statements.

I know that the last few days caused a great deal of hurt and harm in the Australian community. The public displays of hate, the violence, the Neo-Nazis, the trumpeting of division—this is not the Australia we know and this is not the Australia we live in. My family's history goes back to both Malaysia and China on my father's side and to the very first settlers in South Australia on my mother's side. This is a uniquely Australian story but it is not a unique story in a nation with people from over 300 ancestries, where half of us are born overseas or have a parent who was born overseas. That is a story made possible because we are a great multicultural nation. That is who we are, and I am proud of it. This is the Australia we must protect and this is the Australia we must nurture.

Neo-Nazis and anti-immigration rallies are not who we are. These are not Australian values. Australians are not haters. Australians don't turn on one another. Australians know that we are stronger together and Australians know that together is how we build our country, whether you've been here for five years, 100 years or 65,000 years.

But let us be clear. There are people, including in the alternative government, the Liberal and National parties, who are trying to divide us for political gain. It is an old Liberal tactic—we know it well—of voting with Pauline Hanson and One Nation instead of backing modern Australia, of having debates which legitimise Senator Hanson and One Nation instead of backing the Australian community, of using migrants as a scapegoat for housing crises the Liberal Party presided over. The Liberals are so busy looking for someone to blame they've forgotten that the majority of Australians rejected their divisive tactics at the last election.

Australians know we are strongest as a nation when we stand together, when build each other up, not tear each other down. We are a nation that welcomes different races, different faiths and different views, and we are united by a respect for each other's humanity and for each other's right to live in peace. This is the Australia I believe in. This is the Australia we believe in. It's the Australia we live in. It's the Australia we see every day in our cities and our suburbs, from Perth to Paramatta, from Adelaide to Arnhem Land—throughout our country. This is the Australia we know.

My message is this. Let us always choose unity, not division. Let us always choose respect, not prejudice. Let us always look to hope, not fear. Let us stand together against hate, because in doing so we make our nation stronger at home and in the world.

I rise today during Women's Health Week to reflect on the progress we are making and the challenges that remain when it comes to women's health, safety and wellbeing in this country. This week is an important moment in our national calendar. It gives us the chance to pause and take stock, to listen to women's experiences and to recommit ourselves to building a fairer, healthier and safer Australia for women and girls. When we talk about women's health, too often it is a conversation that's limited to doctors' visits and hospital care, but women's health is much more than that. It is about dignity. It is about safety. It is about financial security and independence. It is about ensuring women have the foundations they need to live healthy lives, to raise their families, to participate fully in the workforce and to thrive in their communities. This week is an opportunity to say clearly that women's health matters, and the Albanese Labor government is making it a priority.

Since coming to government, we have been working to deliver change that makes a real difference to the lives of women. We know that for far too long women's specific health needs have been underrecognised, underfunded and in some cases completely dismissed. We know that too many women have had to put up with the pain that wasn't taken seriously, the costs that have made essential treatment unaffordable or the systems that were simply not designed with their realities in mind. That is why this government is determined to do things differently. Women's health is not an afterthought for us. It is central to our work, it is central to our vision and it is central to the Australia that we are building together.

During this Women's Health Week we can see the real results that are part of this commitment. Since we launched our women's health package earlier this year, more than 365,000 women have accessed over 715,000 cheaper prescriptions for oral contraceptives, for treatments to manage menopause and for medicines to treat endometriosis. These are conditions and experiences that millions of women live through every day, and, for the first time, many of those essential treatments are now affordable on the PBS. The difference this makes is huge. Before these new listings women were paying up to $380 a year for contraceptives like Yas or Yasmin and Slinda. Now those costs have dropped to $126 a year. For women with a concession card it is as low as $30.80c. That is not just a small saving; it is the difference between being able to afford reliable contraception or going without. It is the difference between control and uncertainty.

For menopausal therapies, the impact is even more striking. Before Estrogel and Prometrium were added to the PBS women could be paying up to $670 a year. Now that cost is $31.60 a script or $7.70 with a concession card. For many women that is lifechanging. It is recognition that menopause is not something women should just have to put up with. It is a health issue that deserves proper care and support. Care should not come with a price tag that locks women out. More than 20,000 women have had menopause health assessments through Medicare since the service became available in July. For the first time in our history menopause care is embedded in our national health system. That is extremely long overdue. It is about dignity, it is about fairness, and it is about listening to women when they say what they say what they need.

We are not stopping there. From 1 November this year women will have access to affordable IUDs and birth-control implants through Medicare. These changes mean women will be able to make choices about their reproductive health without costs being a barrier. They mean fewer unintended pregnancies, fewer health risks and more autonomy for women over their bodies. This is what fairness looks like in action. This is what it means to have a government that puts women at the centre of health policy. We've also established a National Women's Health Advisory Council, chaired by the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care, Rebecca White. This council will ensure that women's health issues remain a priority in government decision-making not just this week, not just this year but permanently. It means expert voices will be at the table guiding us on emerging priorities and making sure that women's needs are never ignored again.

When we talk about women's health, we cannot separate it from women's safety. We know that violence against women is one of the biggest health issues that we face as a country. Violence robs women of their security, of their wellbeing and of their independence. Too often it robs them of their lives. It leaves lasting scars on mental health, on financial health and on families and communities. That is why the Albanese Labor government has delivered a crucial reform in giving Services Australia new powers to waive social security debts to victims-survivors of abuse and coercive control. For too long women have been forced into debt by abusive partners where they were left to carry that burden on their own. They were punished twice—once by their abuser and again by the system. This reform changes that. We recognise that financial abuse is one of the most insidious forms of control. It is when someone is forced to sign documents, claim payments or take on debts against their will. It is about trapping women in poverty, limiting their choices and making it harder to escape.

That is why this change matters so much. By allowing these debts to be waived, we are lifting a huge weight from women's shoulders. We are saying clearly: 'We believe you. We support you. We will not let this system retraumatise you.' This is about women's health every bit as much as it is about justice. Financial stress is a health issue. Poverty is a health issue. Being trapped in unsafe situations because you cannot afford to leave is a health issue. By fixing this injustice we are giving women the chance to rebuild, to return to study or work, to care for their children and to live free from fear. This reform did not come from nowhere. It was driven by the courage of victims-survivors who spoke up, often at a great personal cost, to share their experiences. It was driven by the persistence of frontline services, financial counsellors, legal centres and advocates, who never gave up fighting for change. To all of them I say thank you. Your voices are being heard.

Together, these reforms—cheaper medicines, Medicare services, reproductive health support and debt waivers for victims-survivors—are part of a bigger picture. They are about building an Australia where women's health, women's safety and women's economic security are treated as national priorities, not as optional extras. And they reflect the values of this government. We believe in fairness. We believe in compassion. We believe in listening to women and acting on what we hear. And we believe that when women are safe, healthy and supported our whole country is stronger. That is why we are investing in the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children. That is why we are closing the gender pay gap and improving workplace equality. And that is why we are building stronger maternity services, expanding women's health clinics, particularly in regional and rural communities, and making sure that women everywhere—whether in Perth, in regional WA or across this country—can get the care and support they deserve.

Women's health care is not a niche issue. It is a national issue. It affects every family, every community and every workplace. When women are forced to carry costs that they can't afford, it affects their families. When women are trapped in unsafe relationships because they can't afford to leave, it affects their communities. When women are excluded from the workforce because of untreated health conditions, it affects the whole economy. The Albanese Labor government understands this, and we are acting on it. We are delivering practical reforms that are already making a difference to hundreds of thousands of women, and we are determined to keep going.

So, this Women's Health Week, let's celebrate the progress we have made. But let us also recognise the work that is still to be done. Let us keep listening to women, keep lifting the barriers and keep fighting for fairness, because women's health is everyone's business, and when we make it a priority we will make it a stronger, better, fairer Australia for all of us.

Today is National Flag Day. On 29 April 1901 Australia's first prime minister, Edmund Barton, announced a competition to design our federal flag. Despite there being only 32 days to submit designs, more than 32,000 entries were received. Five entrants, who submitted similar designs, were declared equal winners and shared in the 200-pound prize. They were Ivor Evans, Leslie Hawkins, Egbert Nuttall, Annie Dorrington and William Stevens. How fitting that a schoolboy, an optician's apprentice, an architect, an artist and a ship's officer had the same vision for our national flag. How fitting that the flag to represent the people of Australia was designed by Australian people.

On 3 September 1901 our national flag was first flown over the dome of Melbourne's Exhibition Building, the site of our first Commonwealth parliament. The Brisbane Courier captured the sentiment of that moment, stating:

Nationhood is better for the concrete expression; and nothing will stir up enthusiasm or rouse the sense of regard for the country in which we live like a constant sight of the flag of Australia.

It wasn't until 1953 that the parliament passed legislation to formalise what had become the routine practice of flying the national flag.

So, what are our national flag's symbols? There's the constellation of five stars, the Southern Cross, a reminder of our unique place in the world and the common geography that Australians share. My elders, from a tiny community near Tennant Creek, have spoken about how the Southern Cross is part of Dreaming, or Jukurrpa. So, contrary to the views of activists, Indigenous Australians certainly are represented by our national flag. Then there's the Union Jack, a reminder of our British heritage and the Christian ethos that forged a modern nation. And there's the seven-pointed Commonwealth or federation star—six points for our six states and a seventh point for our territories—a reminder of our unity.

Together, these symbols remind us of our nation's history and the contributions of generations of Australians: of the Indigenous Australians who knew and cared for the land; of the British settlers who gifted us the institutions and ideas that have underpinned democracy, modernity and progress; of the farmers, miners, labourers, builders, manufacturers and constitutional drafters who transformed colonies into a federated country; of the soldiers, sailors and airmen who served to defend our nation and defeat evil, including more than 103,000 who gave their lives; and of the migrants who arrived after the Second World War and in the decades after, to this day, who embraced our values, helped build our nation, and became cherished Australians. When we look at our flag, we remember our history in the round. Yes, we remember the dark chapters, like the mistreatment of Indigenous Australians and returned Vietnam veterans. But we also recognise that our achievements and successes far outweigh our wrongdoings and failures. Australia was formed without civil war or the level of bloodshed most other countries have known. We haven't experienced the enduring enmities of difference or separatism that have beset other nations. A defining national achievement has been the weaving together of Indigenous, British and broader migrant threads of our story. Each bestows an inheritance.

Today, we Australians naturally have many differences: differences of where we live and work; differences of ancestry and heritage; differences of faith and fellowship; differences of age and gender; differences of opinion. Despite these differences, our flag reminds us that we're united by our common values. We're aspirational, egalitarian and compassionate. We believe in reward for hard work. We treasure individual freedom. We respect the rule of law. We want our nation to be defended. We have a sense of duty to those we love, to our families, to our communities and to our nation. Our national flag represents so much: our history, story, geography, resources, people, mateship, deeds, sacrifices, institutions, traditions, values, unity, loyalty and patriotism. Our national flag signifies our common citizenship and the fellowship that makes strangers acquaintances. Our national flag is for times of celebration and times of commemoration. And, as historian Geoffrey Blainey said, our national flag 'links the living and the dead'.

When one appreciates our national flag's symbolism, it's impossible to not have a sense of gratitude—gratitude for the fortune to live in this great southern land; gratitude for our forebears and all they did to protect this country and ensure it prospers. With gratitude comes something more important—a sense of responsibility. Our national flag reminds us that we are the custodians of a remarkable legacy. We have a duty to hand over to the next generation a country better than the one we inherited. Our national flag reminds us of the duty of responsible citizenship, doing something that is bigger than ourselves—for example, raising a family, contributing to one's community, working hard in a chosen field or serving the nation in some capacity.

When one understands the history behind our national flag, when one values its symbolic weight, it's beyond comprehension that the burning of our national flag is not a criminal offence. Like most Australians, I was appalled by the footage of pro-Palestinian protesters burning our national flag in Melbourne on Sunday 3 August. That event coincided with the disruptive, disgraceful and divisive rally across the Sydney Harbour Bridge, a rally where some protesters chanted genocidal slogans, displayed Hamas symbols and Nazi swastikas, waved flags of terrorist organisations and carried a photograph—

Senator Nampijinpa Price, could you please resume your seat. Senator McKim, on a point of order?

Yes, thank you, President. I ask for a ruling, please, on whether the senator, who is wrapped in the national flag at the moment, is contravening the standing order that prevents props. And I do want to make the point that, if it is okay for Senator Nampijinpa Price to wrap herself in this flag, I would intend to wrap myself in a Palestinian flag and come into the chamber and exercise the same rights that Senator Nampijinpa Price is currently exercising.

Senator McKim, I will—

Sorry—do you wish to respond on the point of order?

On the point of order: Senator McKim chose to debate the issue rather than raise a point of order. And, if we are not going to wrap ourselves in the national flag, I would ask that, when you're considering your ruling, Deputy President, consider: the flag is not a prop; it sits in our chamber right now. So, if it's ruled out of order if over a senator's shoulders, we will have to consider its stance in our chamber itself.

I did allow both points of order to stray into a debating point because this is clearly a sensitive issue—particularly on this particular day. I am going to refer this matter to the President because I think it does require consideration by the President. However, Senator Nampijinpa Price, in order not to set a precedent at this point, could I ask you to please finish your speech without the flag on your shoulders. That way, we do not—Senator McKenzie, I will address you directly: we do not want to set a precedent in this place that would have very unfortunate consequences for the future, and I think you know what I'm talking about.

It's so disappointing from the Greens but also so typical. You can wear a keffiyeh in here. Perhaps you should remove that article from you whenever you walk through the chambers, for the benefit of all Australians in this country.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Yes, snark all you like—it's revolting. You don't love this country the way I do and certainly not like most Australians do. But the Greens would rally alongside the terrorist organisations, as you have. You would probably also stand beside the photograph of Iran's oppressive dictator, as many of you Greens have—and like your Senator Faruqi, who has called for genocide in this country against those that support Israel. It was a rally the Prime Minister astonishingly described—

On a point of order, Senator McKim?

Standing order 193(3) prevents a reflection on a senator. Senator Faruqi was named by Senator Nampijinpa Price, who had improper and inaccurate motivations attached to her actions.

Senator Nampijinpa Price, I ask you to withdraw, given that you named a particular senator.

Deputy President, I would like to understand what it was that I said that was incorrect.

We're not going to debate this. A senator has objected to something you have said. Please withdraw it and continue.

I withdraw, but I will never call out genocidal notions like 'from the river to the sea', like some others do. A rally that shouldn't have been permitted to proceed—

Senator McKim, what is the point of order?

It is that, consistently and repeatedly, the chair has required withdrawals to be made unconditionally. It has been absolutely consistent from the chair that withdrawals are made unconditionally. I ask you to enforce that call, which has repeatedly been given by the President.

I'm happy to rule. I asked Senator Nampijinpa Price to withdraw and continue her statement. She withdrew, and then she continued her contribution.

The Greens certainly don't respect or acknowledge Indigenous Australians in the Senate. The burning of our national flag on that wretched weekend wasn't the first time it's happened, and it won't be the last, but is it any wonder it took place? The disrespect of our country and our values has been on the rise since the sordid events on the steps of the Sydney Opera House on 9 October. This government's supine response to the crisis of antisemitism gripping our nation has only emboldened an anti-Australian sentiment that is shared by the Greens.

The protests at home and in other democratic nations have in common a national self-loathing and anti-Westernism that have been hallmarks of many protests since the late 1960s. The divisive Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice referendum hasn't helped matters. What's more, our national flag isn't even afforded the respect it deserves by the Prime Minister. His prerequisite for standing in front of our national flag is to stand in front of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags too. Yes, both are proclaimed flags, but they're not national flags. We have one national flag, just like almost every sovereign nation. The Prime Minister's decision to stand in front of three flags isn't an act of respect; it's an act of disrespect. From disrespect comes division, from division comes disloyalty and from disloyalty comes a greater motive for desecration.

Of course, no country should be beyond criticism and, in a democracy like ours, there are many ways one can voice criticism. May we forever cherish the right to freedom of speech and wearing our Australian flag, but the burning of our national flag goes beyond free speech and political protest. It's an abuse of liberty. It's a rejection of responsible citizenship. It's a display of historical ignorance. It's an expression of national ingratitude. It's performative disrespect, with subversive characteristics, and it's an act intended to sow division, disunity, national hatred and even violence.

No self-respecting nation, especially a country with Australia's achievements, should tolerate the burning of a national flag. There are no provisions in the Flags Act 1953 or in other legislation that criminalise this. Things need to change, especially at a time when our nation is facing social cohesion challenges unlike anything we've seen in generations. The coalition calls on the Albanese government to enact legislation that criminalises the destruction or desecration of our national flag.

Tasmania's forests are some of the most carbon-dense in the world. They are also, of course, beautiful, worthy of protection for their intrinsic values and worthy of protection just for their own sake. They are home to countless threatened species and countless other species that live in our forest ecosystems in Tasmania. Today, a report was published from the Tree Projects, the Tasmanian Climate Collective and the Wilderness Society that shows native forest logging in Tasmania is the highest emitting sector in our entire state.

Just so folks can understand what a mass emitter of carbon that the logging of Tasmania's native forests estate is, it emits 2½ times the carbon-equivalent emissions of the entire transport sector in Tasmania. Annual emissions from native forest logging in Tasmania between 2020 and 2024 averaged nearly 4½ million tonnes of carbon dioxide every year. The 4.65 million tonnes of carbon emitted by forestry in 2022 was equivalent to the annual emissions of over a million cars, roughly double the number of cars on Tasmania's roads.

We all know the vast majority of Tasmania's native forests that are logged end up as wood chips, and they end up as so-called waste on the forest floor. About 60 per cent of forest biomass in a destroyed, logged ecosystem remains on site. Branches, stumps, the smaller trees that are piled up with bulldozers into wind rows are then burnt, emitting mass amounts of carbon that blackens Tasmania's skies and for that matter blackens the insides of the lungs of many Tasmanians who are unfortunate enough to have to breathe in that pollution. The emissions from those industrial logging burns alone produce 1.6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalence annually. They are carbon bombs.

A recent UNESCO report noted Tasmania's World Heritage forests removed more carbon from the atmosphere than any other wilderness UNESCO site. Tasmania's forests are massive carbon banks and, if left undisturbed, will continue to draw down carbon from the atmosphere, helping us in the fight against dangerous climate breakdown. If Australia takes its emissions reduction targets seriously, if it takes its global leadership role on climate change seriously, if it takes its net zero commitments seriously, it must tear up the RFAs and end native forest logging now. The Liberal and Labor parties are in lock step on forest destruction in this country. It's time to break the political duopoly. It is time to end native forest logging not just in Tasmania but right around the country.

This Sunday, 7 September, is Threatened Species Day. This is a day to commemorate all Australian plant and animal species that are listed as threatened, and it's held on the anniversary of the death of the last Tasmanian tiger, which died from exposure at the Beaumaris Zoo in Hobart in 1936. Australia has one of the world's highest rates of extinctions, with 100 species of flora and fauna lost since European colonisation. Earlier this year, Australia's tally of ecosystems, plants and animals recognised nationally as being threatened with extinction reached 2,245.

We all recall the Labor Party coming to government just over three years ago, promising, firstly, to strengthen Australia's environmental laws and, secondly, promising no new extinctions under their watch. However, what we saw from Labor in the last term was a weakening of Australia's environment laws—a weakening of the EPBC Act at the behest of the foreign owned multinational salmon-farming corporations in Tasmania. This weakening will allow for the continued drive into extinction of the Maugean skate, which has as its only home anywhere in the world Macquarie Harbour, on the west coast of Tasmania. This ancient species has its very existence threatened by salmon-farm corporations operating in Macquarie Harbour.

Just recently, we've seen Minister Watt green-light a massive industrial wind farm on Robbins Island, off the north-west coast of Tasmania. It's a critical habitat for the only naturally occurring disease-free Tasmanian devil population anywhere in the world and also a critical habitat for migratory birds. Robbins Island has been identified by the Commonwealth as being suitable for international Ramsar listing. It should be listed as a Ramsar site, and it is an absolutely inappropriate place for the kind of development that is being proposed. Of course we need more renewable energy, but it's got to be the right project in the right place—and that is the wrong project in the wrong place.

The report released today by the Tree Projects, the Wilderness Society and the Tasmanian Climate Collective identifies and warns of the increased use of biomass as an energy source in Tasmania—in particular, biomass sourced from materials from Tasmania's native forests. Let's be very clear about this: if you log native forests and feed the results of that logging into a biomass generator or into an industrial process, that is not renewable energy. That is not renewable energy.

There are five current and proposed projects in Tasmania alone that require wood biomass as a fuel or a carbon source, but there are only enough sustainable, plantation based sources to meet 35 per cent of the biomass needs of those facilities. That means the rest will have to come from Tasmania's world-class, high-conservation-value native forests. These projects will perversely be greenwashed as renewable-energy powered—but they are not renewable-energy powered.

I want to talk about one of those projects, the Railton cement works—astoundingly, the recipient of over $50 million from the federal Labor government under a project designed to reduce emissions. Taxpayer subsidies are going to go to the Railton cement works, when we know that they are going to take timber from Tasmania's native forest estate. Logged native forests are going to be fed into the cement works at Railton under the guise of renewable energy, with a taxpayer subsidy.

We all know that the Tasmanian native forest logging industry is a mendicant industry. It cannot survive without significant taxpayer subsidies. And, again, it is the political duopoly in this place—the Labor and Liberal parties—that are supporting the logging of our native forests.

Let's be very clear about what else is going on here. A year ago, Coles and Woolworths made a promise to Australians that they would stop selling beef linked to deforestation by the end of 2025. To its credit, Coles does appear to be keeping to that commitment, but Woolworths did a complete 180 last week by listing beef as a low-risk commodity, thereby walking back its commitment to deforestation-free beef. I want to be very clear. Woolworths must recommit to deforestation-free beef and cease its walk-back of its previous commitments.

Land clearing and habitat loss is now our biggest driver of animal extinction. The koala, the greater glider, the grey-headed flying fox, the pink cockatoo and many others that are being driven towards extinction. Last year we saw Labor undermine global efforts to fight deforestation by working to delay European Union antideforestation regulations. Woolworths, today's greenwash people: get with the program and recommit to deforestation-free beef.

Only a few technological advancements have revolutionised the world as we know it: the telephone in the 19th century, the computer in the mid-20th century, the internet and later the smartphone in the late 20th century and early 21st century—and now artificial intelligence. In late 2022, the world was introduced to ChatGPT, OpenAI's conversational AI tool, which amazed the world with its ability to comprehend. Powered by a large language model, it was unrivalled in its capacity to solve problems, write essays and answer endless questions with minimal effort from users. It took the world by storm, with OpenAI reporting it had an amassed one million users in its first five days alone. This has now grown to over 400 million active users each week. Christopher Columbus's exploration of the New World ushered in new opportunities and trade routes, and after five centuries we are once again on the verge of a new world. This era, which is just 12 to 24 months away, will be a fundamentally different world to the one which we exist in and inhabit today.

Artificial intelligence is rapidly approaching a threshold where it doesn't just regurgitate information but reasons and creates in ways previously unique to humans. This new frontier, known as artificial general intelligence, or AGI, is not decades but mere months away. OpenAI's ChatGPT-5, DeepMind's Gemini, xAI's Grok and Anthropic's Claude are rapidly advancing towards AGI, with models capable of planning, reasoning and decision-making that in some areas rival human performance.

Once limited to simple query answering—like you would give to Google or a search engine—AI now matches or surpasses humans in tasks such as comprehension, translation, coding and complex problem solving. This development changes everything. Let me say it again. This development changes everything. The world as we know it is rapidly changing around us. Goldman Sachs estimates that AI could automate the equivalent of 300 million full-time jobs globally. Locally, AI is already being integrated into an array of workplaces. We're seeing AI-backed technology writing out doctors notes, divorce agreements and even sorting through fresh produce. No job is exempt, with job displacement set to affect all levels of work, from data entry, content generation and administrative assistance to knowledge based workers—policy advisers, dare I say—marketers, paralegals and even coders.

Although this shift will generate new opportunities, it also comes with urgent risks. The issues are multifaceted and indeed complex. Firstly, AI is accelerating faster than our ability to contemplate regulation let alone actually regulate it. While many countries are busy putting safeguards in place, Australia has so far contributed little more than recommendations to the AI policy conversation. The European Union passed the world's first comprehensive AI act in March 2024, creating clear obligations for developers and protections for citizens. The UK launched its own strategy, including an AI safety institute. Sadly, Australia is missing in action.

In July, US president Trump issued sweeping executive orders titled 'Winning the AI race'. These orders ban ideological driven AI models in federal agencies. They mandate neutral systems, and they rescind prior safety mandates, favouring innovation focused action plans instead. China's recent AI summit promoting global solidarity included a proposal to base a UN-style AI body in Shanghai. This is a clear power grab that should alarm anyone who values transparency and rights based AI rules. The world's leading surveillance state cannot be trusted to oversee global AI governance. Without immediate implementation of effective and coordinated frameworks, AI technology will rapidly outpace Australia's capacity to manage it. We need frameworks that mitigate serious risks including sovereign risk, biases, disinformation, propaganda, foreign electoral interference, online harm, cybercrime and copyright violations.

It's not just safety and protections that Australians must regulate; our long term economic and fiscal survival is also at stake. We need to answer the hard questions: Who should benefit financially from AI? Who should be taxed when algorithms and AI replace human labour? How should IP be protected and properly remunerated if used? How do we make sure global tech companies pay their fair share of taxes in Australia when they expect to freeload on our infrastructure, our energy and data? We cannot outsource our digital future. Australians must be creators and curators not just consumers of this new frontier. If we're serious about sovereign capability in AI, we need to get serious about energy. AI runs on electricity, not ideology, and right now our energy grid simply isn't fit for purpose.

Microsoft and other tech giants are turning to nuclear energy to meet the staggering power demands of their AI infrastructure. Meanwhile China, who is unburdened by the ideological constraints of net zero at any cost, is building coal-fired power stations to ensure that it can dominate the AI age. If Australia wants to compete in this space, we need to put energy security and affordability back in the centre of our policy. That means keeping all options on the table, including nuclear, and being honest about the limitations of the current approach. Technology has long played a significant role in bringing people closer, and there is the desire to solve problems closest to home. The cochlear implant was developed in part by Australian researcher Graeme Clark, who was motivated by his father's struggle with hearing loss. Innovation has always been best fuelled by the impulse to protect, connect or restore something essential for people.

AI takes us one step further. It shapes not just communication but also our thoughts, beliefs and how we see ourselves in the world around us. It's not out of the question that our identity will become increasingly homogenised and shaped by AI to reflect dominant international narratives instead of focusing on national and local factors. Social media platforms powered by AI algorithms are already key to driving this trend. In this new era, knowing what you believe and why will become more important than ever. Our national identity and our virtues that underpin its formation, as well as ideas of individual dignity, moral equality and the duty to protect the vulnerable, cannot be assumed. As historian Tom Holland observes in Dominion:

To live in a Western country is to live in a society still utterly saturated by Christian concepts and assumptions.

Even our most secular values are shaped by this inheritance. These foundations must be taught, protected and actively championed, especially as we enter an era in which global AI systems may be indifferent to them at best or hostile to them at worst. Our teachers, classrooms and education system must equip children for this new reality. Students must be encouraged to learn reasoning, rationalisation and formations of opinion. Privacy for students and teachers must also be addressed in Australia's AI policy development. I say all of this not as a doomsayer, but as a technological optimist. My colleagues and family know me as an early adopter of technology. I love the latest advancements and innovations, and I remain optimistic about our future where technology continues to make our lives smarter, faster, easier and, indeed, more connected. But optimism is not a strategy. Regulation must keep pace with innovation, and ethics must persist alongside AI capabilities because right now technology is outpacing our laws, our policies and our institutions. The time to act is not now; it was yesterday. We have to urgently catch up and do what we can to make sure that AI policy in Australia is fit for purpose not only for where we are now but, indeed, for where we're going into the future.

Today I'd like to give a shout-out. We all know the vital role of early childhood educators across Australia. I want to explain why the sector deserves significantly more investment and support. When you walk into an early childhood centre, you see smiling faces and warm, welcoming educators ready to support your children at the beginning of their day and at the beginning of their educational journey. But what you're really seeing are qualified educational professionals performing one of our most complex and demanding jobs.

I'm sure early childhood educators would love it if the job was simply teaching, but the role is much more than that. They're mentoring children through emotional development, helping them navigate reasoning and making sense of our complex world. Any parent can tell you how often a child can ask 'Why?' in a day, and that's when they're you own kid. A roomful of them feeding off each other is a battle royale of patience. These educators update us about our kids' days when the children are too tired to tell us themselves. They support our children's excitement and curiosity as they move through their days. They create spaces where wellbeing isn't just a buzzword but a fundamental principle ensuring our children get the best opportunities. That's what these unsung heroes do. They're there when parents can't be. When we're at work, that's when their work begins. It's not babysitting; it's nurturing.

So, when we pay them babysitting wages, we show them how little we value that nurturing. And then we make cuts and tweak regulations, and the ones who to have to make that work are those smiling faces and unsung heroes. Currently, we're seeing profit being put before children. We're seeing an essential sector underfunded while underresourced staff are underpaid, and they are left burnt out and quit. Who does that benefit? We think we're saving money, but are we? There's no way to run a railroad having to constantly hire, rehire, train and retrain. Continuity doesn't occur. Kids lose out. That's not the system our children deserve, and it's certainly not the working conditions our educators deserve.

Tasmania is trialling early learning for three-year-olds across five sites: Bruny Island down south, East Devonport in the north-west, Zeehan on the west coast, St Marys on the east coast and an online option for Flinders Island. This trial recognises what we know to be true: that learning starts early and quality early childhood education gives children the foundation they need to thrive. I remember having to return to work when my children were young. My kids' early childhood educators gave me the confidence to go to work, knowing not only that my boys were physically and emotionally cared for but also that their learning and development were being actively supported. These educators teach children to concentrate, share, and take turns, skills that—let's be honest—many of us in this place are still trying to learn. That's why I want to see in this space more investment, better regulations and more support for early childhood educators.

These professionals deserve recognition for their vital role. They deserve opportunities to learn, grow, and thrive, and they absolutely deserve to be paid fairly. Early childhood centres should be spaces where both educators and children flourish with good outcomes. The people working in these centres are smart, strong, and qualified educational leaders. They are also the managers who keep everything running smoothly in the complex world of early childhood education. I support increased investment in early childhood education because it works. The evidence is clear, the need is obvious and the benefits compound over generations. This is what the research tells us. We hear this all the time from experts in this space. Early education is the greatest return on investment in the education space. In fact, if we care about improving people's standards of living then early childhood education is our secret weapon, and we're paying fast-food wages. To our early childhood educators, I say: Happy Early Childhood Educators' Day. I'm so grateful to you for what you do, and I'm sorry we aren't doing more to help you as partners.

I wish to share a couple of figures with the Senate before I go to the crux of my conversation. I want to remind senators and anyone listening that, on 8 October 2024, Qantas was ordered by the Federal Court to pay $100 million in penalties for misleading consumers by offering and selling tickets to ghost flights it had already decided to cancel and by failing to tell existing ticketholders of their flight's cancellation. Then, if we move to December of 2024, Qantas was fined $120 million in compensation to sacked workers, taking the financial impost so far to $210 million. Then, last month, the Federal Court fined Qantas another $90 million for illegally outsourcing ground-handling roles during the pandemic. That's $310 million, not small change in anyone's world. But then I read the paper yesterday and I found the title 'The lying kangaroo'. It said that Qantas was fined $2 million for misleading passengers in New Zealand. They have form through their Jetstar arm. This is after the Australian consumer watchdog took action against Jetstar for similar conduct in 2018.

What I want to say is this. Those of us in this building, like most of Australia, want to wish Qantas well. We want to wish Qantas success. But we should never, ever forget the stain left on this nation by Alan Joyce with his cohort mate Richard Goyder, the chairman, and that bunch of grifters that were on the board at the time. Let us not forget that. Fortunately, now Qantas has moved to one of the most decent human beings in the Australian business community, John Mullen, and I wish Mr Mullen all the very best success. I see Qantas have just about cleaned out their board. There are a few hangers-on. I wish them all the best for their success. I really want to believe that the CEO, Vanessa Hudson, who was the chief financial officer at the time—'Nothing to see here; I don't know about that'—has turned over a new leaf. She said she wanted to turn a leaf and wants to rebuild Qantas, and I certainly hope so.

That brings me to the crux of my conversation that I want to share with the Senate today. Let's leave an absolute tearing apart of Qantas and their behaviour. I want to highlight to the rest of the Senate and everyone else around that I saw a couple of weeks ago there had been the Australian Aviation Summit. I asked, 'What's the Australian Aviation Summit?' As someone who has been on the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee for 20 years and chaired it for 18 and a bit, I am very interested in Australia's aviation sector. But I could not believe it. Guess who the headline speaker to the Australian Aviation Summit was? You are not going to believe it when I tell you, but I have to. Alan Joyce! I thought: 'There can't be two Alan Joyces. Seriously, there cannot be two.' No, I was right. It was the same person who drove this national iconic company into the ground. And don't worry about all the bulldust that he will come up with; he entered into corrupt behaviour. He and all his lieutenants in Qantas couldn't wait for the darkness of night to sneak in and execute 1,700 well-paid Australian jobs in the aviation sector, the ground handlers.

How do I know this? Why am I so passionate about it? Because they were Transport Workers Union members. That's my union. I organised on the airport in my heyday as a young, brash organiser from the Perth eastern suburbs. Didn't I have fire in the belly? We fought for years to lift the wages and conditions of employees in the aviation industry. Then this fellow came in and in the dark of night slashed good-paying Australian jobs. He outsourced them. It led to $310 million in fines. I say to Justice Lee, 'Good on you.' They're lucky it wasn't Justice Sterle because it would have been a heck of a lot more and I wouldn't be finished with Alan Joyce. Seriously, the Australian Aviation Summit—who are you? Do you really believe that your members want to come in and listen to Alan Joyce? I better not call him a white-collar criminal because I might get pulled up.

But let me say this. The principal partner was Leidos—I don't know who Leidos are either; they could be some really decent people. Who would want their name associated with Alan Joyce in Australia's business community? Seriously, I thought I was having a bad dream, that it was a nightmare and I was going to wake up. But, no, there's more. Airservices Australia—and don't I have a relationship with Airservices Australia; but it doesn't extend to Christmas cards in December, I can tell you! We've been working with Airservices Australia for many years. I was thinking, 'Who else?' The list goes on, but I've run out of time. Damn it!

Every time I walk into this building there are more Aboriginal deaths in custody. This year there have been 23 that we know of. In the last month alone there were 10. Since the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, there have been 608 Aboriginal deaths in custody. Not one cop, not one prison guard has ever been held accountable. They're literally getting away with murder. If we marched for every stolen life, we would march for over 2½ years.

These are not just numbers; these are people. The day their lives are taken starts another violent ordeal for their families and communities, fighting for justice for a murder committed at the hands of government. And the government does not want to be held accountable. Every day black fellas are forced to face violent colonial courts, traumatic coronial inquiries, violent police, and government agencies. The result is always devastating: wrongful convictions, families torn apart, homelessness, penalties that entrench poverty and trauma, and zero accountability for the crimes committed against our people.

This is not by accident. It is a well-designed and well-oiled machine, whose ultimate aim has always been to wipe us out of our own country. The only tools to fight back, such as our Aboriginal legal services, are intentionally starved of funding. Meanwhile, those who kill us maintain their badges, their jobs, their privilege and their power and tell a story that criminalises us to avoid accountability. Shame!

This week, the country's eyes were opened once again through exposure to a horrific recording of another racist cop in WA, who shamelessly sent a voice message to her mate. She talked about how a young man told her he was going to take his own life. She ignored his cries for help. The next day he was sent to prison where he sadly took his own life. To laugh and to treat his death as a joke is criminal in itself. What kind of person would do this?

The young man she was speaking about was a proud Noongar, Wongai and Adnyamathanha man and his name is Linton Ryan. He has a family who love, mourn and miss him, including his mother Lynette, his older brother Shannon and his cousin Kyvia, who also spoke to the ABC about his life and death. Before he died, Linton lived in the colonial gold mining town Kalgoorlie, a true apartheid town. He lived in an abandoned rail yard, on cold concrete floors, with another 12 people, with no electricity or running water, and this racist cop had the audacity to laugh and think his life was not worth living. He was too unwell to attend court. Six days later, he took his life. When I talk about war and genocide in this country, you'd think it happened a long time ago. It's still real today, in 2025.

Under this Labor government, women's health is finally being taken seriously. That's what happens when you have a majority-women caucus and when you have a government that listens to women. When the government announced Australia's first ever gender equality strategy back in March 2024, we made sure that women's health was one of five key priorities.

Earlier this year, we announced our historic $790 million women's health package. This package brings more choice, lower costs and better health care for women. We've listed new contraceptives on the PBS for the first time in 30 years and new menopausal hormone therapies for the first time in 20 years. Combine that with the reduction of PBS medicines to $25 next year, and it means that women will literally save hundreds of dollars each year.

We're also delivering further savings for women's health care by expanding bulk-billing and increasing Medicare support for long-term contraceptives such as IUDs and implants. We believe women should have more control over their health care, and, for me, this is personal. I know all too well what it's like not to have your health taken seriously, to suffer debilitating pain and be told, 'It's just part of being a woman,' to be fobbed off by doctors time and time again, and then to finally get a diagnosis but realising you have to pay hundreds of dollars for the medication that will manage your pain because it's not on the PBS.

I am one of one million Australian women with endometriosis. I don't remember the first time I felt pelvic pain, but I do remember the first time I presented to the emergency room with pain so severe that the doctors thought my appendix might be about to burst. I was in year 5. I can't tell you how many GPs I visited in the almost 10 years that followed, but I can tell you about the day a male GP told my mum and I that 'every teenage girl is pregnant until proven otherwise'. I was 14. I can't count the number of times I was told, 'It's just bad period pain' or 'Just get pregnant; that will fix it.' It didn't. But I can count the number of people it took to change it all for me—five wonderful health professionals took my pain seriously and worked with me on a plan to get on top of it. I was 19. It had been almost 10 years.

My brilliant GP, Dr Jane Spencer, referred me to the pelvic pain clinic at King Edward Memorial Hospital in Perth. A physiotherapist, psychologist, gynaecologist and pain specialist work together in a multidisciplinary team to help women who, like me, feel like they're running out of options. I remember walking out of that appointment and feeling like a weight had been lifted off my shoulders. Finally, people were listening; finally, I had some answers, a name for what I had been suffering for so long; and finally, I had a plan. Then, of course, I realised that the medications that could help weren't on the PBS and that I would be paying upwards of $100 every time I filled a script.

My story is not unique. It takes women, on average, more than six years to be diagnosed with endometriosis, and too many women suffer medical misogyny, which delays diagnosis and minimises their pain. Accessing the treatment we need once we have a diagnosis has been too cost prohibitive for too long. So I am always proud to be Labor, but I was particularly proud on the day we announced our half-a-billion-dollar package to tackle women's health—to give back choice to women, to give back control to women. I am so proud to be part of a government that is expanding the network of pelvic pain clinics, because I know all too well how life-changing one of those appointments can be.

I was so proud when we announced we would finally list more medications for women on the PBS—because when you're suffering from something like endo, you shouldn't have to pay more to manage it. This Women's Health Week, we should talk about things that for too long have been ignored or fobbed off. My message to women today is this: if you're suffering from pelvic pain, don't suffer in silence. It's probably not just a bad period. Your pain matters and you matter. Help is available—and, under this Labor government, we're committed to providing it.

I'm going to provide a window into the feelings of one of our teachers:

Dear Senator Hanson, I'm writing as a passionate, frontline educator who's fed up.

The 2025 changes to the Western Australian Humanities and Social Sciences (HASS) curriculum are not just disappointing—they are a disgrace.

They represent a calculated, slow-burning dismantling of everything that once made Australian education proud, grounded, and worth fighting for.

What they're doing to our children's education is unforgivable.

They're stripping out what it means to be Australian—piece by piece, quietly, behind the backs of the very people expected to implement it.

Here's just a taste of what's been completely removed from the curriculum:

•   Who can become an Australian citizen, and what rights and responsibilities come with that

•   The roles of police, judges, and legal personnel—the people who keep this country safe

•   What it actually means to be Australian—our national identity, our shared values, our heritage

•   World War I and II, the Treaty of Versailles, the Great Depression—gone

•   Civil rights movements—erased

•   Ancient history, national heroes, social justice, responsibility, freedom, sacrifice—all gutted.

This is not education. It's indoctrination through omission.

They're teaching kids NOTHING of Value.

They want children to learn about scarcity in economics before they learn how to make a budget, how to save money, or how people live and retire in Australia.

They've removed content on how retirees earn income—no mention of superannuation, the age pension, or the value of hard work.

So kids won't understand how their country works or how their money works. Or how their own future might work. And by the time anything interesting shows up in the curriculum, they'll be tuned out, bored stiff, and convinced Humanities and Social Sciences is a waste of time.

Where's the National Pride?

Australia used to be proud of its story—the struggle, the conflict, the hard-earned democracy. But this new curriculum reads like a soulless, globalised spreadsheet, designed to avoid controversy, history, or truth.

They've even buried or erased: -The Eureka Stockade -The Pinjarra Massacre -The Anzacs' legacy in global conflict -The systems that underpin law and order.

If our children don't learn who we are, how we got here, and what we stand for—then who exactly are we raising?

This Is Not About Education. It's About Control.

These changes don't just reflect bad decisions. They reflect a system that doesn't trust its citizens, doesn't value its traditions, and doesn't care what parents or teachers think.

We're being given a lifeless curriculum that will raise a generation of students who know nothing about how the world really works, nor understand the country they live in.

Our young Australians will have no respect for law, citizenship, or democratic responsibility.

It's disgraceful, dangerous and it's happening now.

This is not about left or right. This is about truth, history, and national integrity.

Real Australians are feeling ignored.

This teacher is one of them. She wants our politicians and educators to call out what is happening before we lose a whole generation to silence, confusion and a curriculum that teaches them nothing of value about the country they call home.

Those are her comments. These are mine: I'm reading the paper today, and former Alice Springs school principal Gavin Morris is up on five counts of unlawful assault because he had to hold a student in a bear hug to stop him from kicking a railing bar and throwing chairs around the room. Our teachers have no control over their classrooms. You've allowed this misbehaviour to go on. You've got no control. Teachers are absolutely fed up, and that's why they don't want to go into the teaching profession. We've allowed this behaviour to go on, and that's why the teachers are leaving. Here's a principal who can't control a child who's out of control in the classroom. You know what the teachers told me? They said, 'If children start throwing things around, we get the rest of the kids out of the room and let them go berserk, and then we come in and clean up afterwards.' Nothing is done. What an absolute mess of the curriculum and of discipline. What we're teaching our kids is ridiculous. Shame!

We will now proceed to two-minute statements.

The March for Australia was an overwhelmingly peaceful event held across Australian capital cities last weekend, and 99.9 per cent of attendees were there for the right reasons, expressing their frustration over the terrible state of the country. The participants were everyday Aussies from all backgrounds, united with a concern for the terrible state of the country and Australia's future. Enter the appalling National Socialist Network, or the NSN; they are labelled 'far right' by the media but they use the term 'socialist' in their name, which always strikes me as odd! The NSN are a strange group—not face-tattooed, overweight men, like we've come to expect from these types, but oddly clean-cut, preppy-looking ones. Someone said to me the other day, 'It seems like they're straight out of central casting.'

For the last few years these men have been turning up to similar events now and then—mostly masked, sometimes not, but certainly right on cue. Why don't we know more about these people, and how come a group with so few numbers gets so much media attention? I think that's weird. And how did the leader of the group just happen to be in the area as the Premier of Victoria conducted a press conference with multiple cameras around? Must just be an incredible coincidence! Their stunts seem almost like pantomime; one would say 'cartoon-like', if the subject matter wasn't so appalling. It's very odd, and none of it seems to make sense.

One thing is for sure: these people don't speak for the views and concerns of everyday Aussies. That said, there is no doubt how useful they've been for the government, the media and the establishment, who are hell-bent on trying to subdue growing dissent in mainstream Australia about a country in decline. I think that's odd.

I have a genetic heart condition called familial hypercholesterolaemia, which affects one in 200 Australians and causes early heart attacks, even in very young people. Recently, a DNA screening study tested 10,000 healthy young Australians to detect genes that could put them at high risk of cancer and heart disease, including the condition I have. It found 200 people with these high-risk genes—that is, one in 50 people. Combined, these genetic conditions are not that rare; they're actually quite common. Because I know about my condition, I can take medication to avoid irreversible damage to my heart. Sadly, our current testing mechanisms find fewer than 10 per cent of people with these high-risk genetic variants.

Yesterday, at an event here in parliament, four young Australians spoke about what it means to have discovered their genetic conditions through the DNA screening study. Mitch now knows he has Lynch syndrome, a gene fault which interferes with DNA repair. He can now be tested regularly for early detection of a range of cancers such as colon cancer. Georgie now knows she has the BRCA2 gene, and she has had preventive surgery to avoid the breast cancer her mother suffered. Ben said, 'I am lucky to have found out early because I've now taken control of my health, and I owe that to DNA screen.' He can how help his family, including his children, to manage their risks. Monica found out about her familial hypercholesterolaemia when her first baby was three months old. She said this has given her precious time to prevent the heart attack which could rob her children of their mother.

I commend this study, led by Monash University researchers Dr Jane Tiller and Professor Paul Lacaze, which has shown us how population genomic testing could be used to prevent disease altogether.

Uni students have been showing up for Palestine from the very beginning. They have always been at the forefront of movements for social justice or for climate justice. While their universities shamefully silence them, censure them, smear them, punish them, vilify them and even spy on them, they have refused to back down and they have continued to show up. I'm so proud and grateful to every student who has refused to accept the lies and gaslighting and who has refused to sit back and watch the slaughter, starvation and genocide of Palestinians.

Over the past two weeks nearly 5,000 students across the country voted in a national student referendum on Palestine; 97 per cent of students voted to censure the Australian government for its complicity in Israel's genocide in Gaza and for universities to end their complicity in genocide by ceasing all partnerships with weapons companies. The thousands of students who showed up at 19 campuses across the country have shown the courage and the moral fibre that is so lacking in the Albanese Labor government. I thank them for their courage, their strength and their moral integrity in standing for justice in the face of all that has been thrown at them and all the pressures young people are under, from crushing student debt to the climate, cost-of-living and housing crises.

The message could not be clearer: uni students will not accept their government, their education institutions, their research and their resources being used to support a rogue genocidal state. These students give me hope that Palestine will be free from the river to the sea.

Today is National Flag Day, and I want to say a few words about why I think our flag is so beautiful. It is National Flag Day today because on this day in 1901 the first Australian prime minister, Edmund Barton, announced the winners of a flag competition that designed our flag. The flag, as it is, is so beautiful because it speaks to so much of our nation's heritage and where we've come from. Of course, it has the Union Jack, which represents our British roots as a nation, and that flag is itself made up of three separate Christian crosses representing St George, St Andrew and St Patrick—representing England, Scotland and Ireland. It's a beautiful representation of our cultural roots as well as our religious roots in the Judeo-Christian faith.

And the flag of course has the Southern Cross, a great representation of our wonderful place here in the Southern Hemisphere. Probably few people realise that the first political use of the Southern Cross was on the flag of the Anti-Transportation League, which is a very similar flag and also has a Union Jack, in the top-left corner. That league was all about ending the transportation of convicts to Australia. So our flag also represents, in its form, our efforts to get rid of our colonial past and become an independent nation that decides what happens in our own country and not have people forced here upon us. The federation star was then added at the bottom of our flag, which represents the unity of the six colonies that came together to form Australia in 1901, and a seventh point on that star representing our territories.

It's a wonderful uniting force. It's a beautiful flag. How good was it to see it displayed so vibrantly at rallies all around Australia last Sunday? May we always unite behind our beautiful flag.

Men's health is a vital topic, often overlooked in the rush of daily life. This Father's Day, let's make a priority to reach out to our fathers, our brothers, our grandfathers and our uncles and encourage open conversation about physical and mental wellbeing. Investing in health isn't just about medical check-ups. It's also about supporting each other emotionally and mentally by openly discussing health issues so we can break down the stigmas and let our loved ones know they don't have to face these challenges alone.

Yesterday I met with the Special Envoy for Men's Health, the member for Hunter, Dan Repacholi, to talk about how we can inspire men to invest in their own health and wellbeing and have a regular appointment with their GP. A simple conversation can be the first step towards healthier habits and a brighter future, a more connected future, for the men we care about. There are so many options out there for men to connect and get involved, through the fantastic men's sheds program, through local sporting clubs or through community groups.

So, this Father's Day, have a conversation with those you love and encourage them to put their health first and centre to ensure that they have a long and happy life. And for all those partners out there, all of us who are trying to engage and make sure men are reaching out: what they need to know is that they don't have to do it alone. If there is a health issue, if they have some mental health issues—they have anxiety, they're feeling depressed—the most important thing is to reach out and let them know that they are loved, they're supported and they don't have to do it alone. It's very important. I wish all the fathers out there a wonderful, happy Father's Day.

Homelessness in my birthplace, India, is a national scandal. Close to two million people are living on the streets—children, women and the elderly—vulnerable to violence and disease.

Why would the government be discussing bringing hundreds of thousands of Indian labourers and tradesmen here to build one million new homes, financed with a United Arab Emirates loan? Is it a loan or will these be build to rent?

How about India borrows the $500 billion and builds housing in their country, getting their children, women and elderly off the streets? The Indian Minister of Commerce and Industry, Piyush Goyal, told us about this plan and Indian mainstream media confirmed it. After days of coverage, this government has neither confirmed nor denied it. One would think that's a concession. If you are not planning this, say so. If you are planning it, then admit it and answer our questions, starting with the fact that hundreds of thousands of Indian migrants have to sleep somewhere. Is that what the spare bedroom tax was for—billeting these new migrant workers? If not, then the first two years will be spent building homes for these imported workers who will, no doubt, never leave them. Where does that get us? Are these 200,000 workers on top of the 2.9 million new visa holders the government has let in since 2022 or are they extras?

It's been four years now, and I understand that less than 10,000 of the 2.9 million you've let in are qualified construction workers. That's 0.3 per cent building houses for the 99.7 per cent. Where are your plans to provide land, building inspectors and trade qualification checks to make sure these homes are built to standard? All over our country construction companies are going broke due to rising costs. The Treasurer must know that this massive construction plan will cause runaway demand inflation in building materials, forcing more of our builders to the wall. All you'll do is destroy Australian companies and take jobs from Australians. Why do you hate our country?

Working families and, indeed, all Australians continue to be failed by this Albanese Labor government. Recently I had the opportunity to visit the Launceston Benevolent Society in my home state of Tasmania, a charity that has been providing support to those doing it tough in the Launceston community since 1834. A not-for-profit service, the Launceston Benevolent Society has a mission of offering immediate relief through the provision of food, clothing and household goods to allow clients to focus their resources towards bills and other necessities. They help everyone, without discrimination—just kindness and care. Their staff and numerous volunteers commit to countless hours of support each week. I thank them all for their positive approach and outstanding commitment to the Launceston community.

Powered by the generosity of community and business donations, the Launceston Benevolent Society also provides wraparound services, like mental health support and financial counselling, to help get people back on their feet. Like all crisis charities, the Launceston Benevolent Society has a diverse range of clients. During my visit volunteers told me they had experienced unprecedented demand over the last few years but had seen a marked increase in one specific cohort: individuals and families with full-time jobs.

Despite the Albanese Labor government claiming that people have never been better off, a recent report by Anglicare has laid bare the human cost of their failure to effectively manage the economy and the resultant cost-of-living crisis. The report showed that a worker on the minimum wage is left with just $33 a week after paying for rent, food and transport. We're no longer talking about the cost of living; we are talking about the cost of surviving.

Organisations like the Launceston Benevolent Society work hard to support those struggling to survive in this crisis. However, all Australians deserve a government that acknowledges the economic conditions impacting Australian households.

The RSL Veterans Ball 2025 in Victoria was a very memorable night and I was very honoured to be there. I was also honoured to see the strength of service and the spirit of Victoria's veteran community. It was a night of reflection, gratitude and unity and an occasion that I was very much proud to be part of.

One of the most moving moments of the night was the powerful tribute by Doug Baird OAM to his late son Corporal Cameron Baird VC, MG, who was killed on operations in Afghanistan in 2013. Doug's words reminded us of the courage and the sacrifice that define not just Corporal Baird's legacy but the legacy of all who have worn our nation's uniform and those who continue to serve today.

The ball also served as an opportunity to recognise the volunteers whose efforts strengthen our veteran community every single day. I want to congratulate everyone who was honoured on the night for their outstanding contributions.

I'd also like to particularly acknowledge the Hawthorn RSL Sub-Branch for hosting an exceptional event and the many other sub-branches across Victoria for their continued commitment to organising such events that support and celebrate veterans and their families. Thanks also to RSL Victoria for the support and the care that they provide to our defence personnel past and present and their families.

Also, fittingly, from 31 August for the remainder of this week, we mark Legacy Week, the annual national appeal to raise awareness and funds for the families of deceased and seriously injured veterans. Events like these and initiatives like the RSL Veterans Ball play a vital role in honouring the sacrifices of our veterans and their communities and the service that they provide every single day to our great nation.

In the last term of government, Labor approved more than 30 new coal and gas projects in Australia. Today we find out that Minister Watt has just approved a 20-year extension to Glencore's Ulan coalmine near Mudgee. This is a climate crime. It's a crime because we in this building are knowingly doing harm with the decisions that we make. The No. 1 question I get is: 'How is it possible for an environment minister and a government to approve new fossil fuel projects, when they know that every single project is a nail in the coffin of our climate?'

Minister Watt has been down to South Australia multiple times and seen the impact that that marine heatwave is having on the toxic algal bloom, and the devastation that is causing to communities in South Australia. He's got the best scientific advice on what is happening in Antarctica, which he feigned concern over yesterday in Senate question time. He has been advised on the sixth mass coral bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef in the last eight years. He knows about the devastation that we've seen off the Western Australian coastline at the World-Heritage-listed Ningaloo, that has just recorded the biggest marine heatwave in our nation's history. But we still approve new fossil fuel projects. The conservative International Energy Agency has said that we must stop approving all new fossil fuel projects and rapidly transition to renewable energies.

This is why, with our new climate laws, we need a climate trigger. This is why we need strong climate targets. And this is why we need people in this parliament who will fight for nature and fight for climate action.

Obviously today is National Flag Day. How good is that? St George's cross, St Andrew's cross, St Patrick's cross and of course the almighty Southern Cross—four crosses.

But that's not what my speech is about. It's about something else.

Atheists are safe in Australia—safe, of course, because atheists live in a country founded on Christian values. Atheists get to say, 'There is no God,' and the worst that happens in this country is that somebody rolls their eyes and everyone just moves on. But try denying the existence of God in Iran or in Saudi Arabia and see how you go—or in any other nation that hasn't been marinated in Christian values for the last few centuries.

Few people realise that a person's right to reject Christianity itself is a Christian idea. Free will is a Christian idea. So, too, are freedom of speech and association and the rule of law. None of the things that protect atheists from being imprisoned for being atheists happened in a vacuum. They came from a world view that said, 'Humans are made in the image of God and therefore have value.' Even the separation of church from state is a Christian idea.

Atheists may like to try and portray themselves as rebels or as thinkers, but they are neither of those things. They are people doing no more than challenging the system that literally gave them absolutely everything they have and that continues to sustain them. Atheists can deny God and roll their eyes at Christianity all they like, just as long as they keep in mind that the only reason they can do that is that the faith they mock is too gracious to silence or persecute them.

When I talk to Tasmanians about the cost of living, I hear directly that managing the cost of medicines has been a real issue for them. Whether it's treating their child's illness or managing chronic pain or chronic conditions like diabetes or arthritis, these stories are why I'm so stoked that this week our National Health Amendment (Cheaper Medicines) Bill 2025 passed the parliament.

The PBS was introduced by Labor in the 1940s and remains a cornerstone of our health system. Under this Labor government, PBS scripts will be capped at $25 from 2026, down from $31.60 and the lowest it's been since 2004. Cheaper medicines are especially important for Tasmanians as our health outcomes lag behind those of the rest of the country. Chronic illnesses are more prevalent, particularly diabetes and kidney disease. Joe O'Malley, a highly respected community pharmacist and Tasmanian Branch President of the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, sees the impact firsthand. Based in the north-west, Joe is a trusted voice in the community and is a strong advocate for affordable medicines. Joe says:

Cheaper Medicines will make a big difference for my patients on the north west coast. I've got several patients who need multiple medicines each week. Capping these costs means they can make better choices for their health. There's been a lot of cost-of-living pressure on Tasmanians recently. This is a real way to ease those pressures.

Federal Labor are committed to family health, and that's why we've reduced the PBS safety-net thresholds by 25 per cent. We've cut the costs of scripts. We've introduced 60-day scripts, and we've frozen costs for the first time in 25 years, and we've locked in the freeze. (Time expired)

There are some in Tasmania popping the champagne corks over Minister Watt's approval of the Robbins Island wind farm proposal. I am not one of them. Firstly, it is in the wrong place, and, secondly, it has no community support. I have been talking about the problems with this wind farm proposal for years now. It not only impacts the only disease-free Tasmanian devils in Tasmania but also screws up a key squid fishery because the wind farm has to build a 500-metre wharf right on top of the squid breeding ground.

The really crazy thing is that there is a much better proposal for a wind farm a few clicks down the road at Whaleback Ridge. In stark contrast to the Robbins Island proposal, the Whaleback Ridge proposal has broad community support and doesn't have to rip up farmland, because there is an existing powerline. It doesn't impact the forest, because it's all on button grass, and—this is crucial—it has broad community support. And it's owned by a Tasmanian company. The owners of the Robbins Island wind farm are a Filipino company—nothing wrong with that—but you'd think as a country we'd be prioritising Australian companies first.

Despite bird experts saying this will directly impact 20 critically endangered shorebirds, potentially chop up our swift parrots and our eagles and screw up a productive squid and fish breeding ground, none of that mattered to Minister Watt. The Minister for the Environment and Water was obviously oblivious to any science presented to him and ticked it off anyway.

I am not against the development of renewable energy projects. We need them. They lower our emissions and provide jobs, but these things need to end up in the right place, and, once again, you need to take the community along with you. When you have a bigger, better proposal that has community support, I just don't understand why you haven't done that in the first place. I would love to know exactly why you picked this proposal over the other one, which had offers to train its people at the Burnie TAFE. Why have you done what you have done? It beggars belief.

Camp Sovereignty is a peaceful, sacred, spiritual place that brings people together for healing. It is our place of worship. We've seen the attacks by the racist Neo-Nazi groups—the hate crime that they committed—and we see a federal government who say they are our friends but have done nothing about these hate crimes. Yet, when a mosque or a synagogue is attacked, those affected are straight on to the Prime Minister, who writes a media release, which we have not seen in this case, and the government do something about it at the federal level.

Now, while we see some arrests of these racist Nazis, that is just a small drop in the ocean of many more racist Nazis roaming around, committing violence against anyone who is not white in this country. So the federal government need to get off their hands and stop treating us like we are less than. That's what we are seeing right now. It doesn't matter how many black MPs we've got in the federal parliament. It makes to difference. They are complicit here, and you would think that they would stand up for our people and make this a hate crime so it can be taken seriously, and a clear message can be sent to everybody in this country that black lives matter in this place, black lives matter in this country, black lives matter at Camp Sovereignty and black lives matter every single day. Why are we not seeing any federal action—meaningful action—to call these racist Nazis to account? Do your job.

I rise to warmly congratulate Papua New Guinea this month on celebrating its 50th anniversary of independence. Papua New Guinea achieved full independence on 16 September 1975. The celebrations ushered in a new dawn of a new age for this remarkable country. Dignitaries officiating the ceremony, including then Prince Charles, joined the inaugural prime minister of Papua New Guinea, 'Grand Chief' Sir Michael Somare, who is recognised as father of the nation, or papa blo kantri. In his historic address at the first independence celebration, Grand Chief Sir Michael Somare declared:

I wish to remind all that this is just the beginning. Now we must stand on our own two feet and work harder than ever before. We are indeed masters of our own destiny

Papua New Guinea's journey to independence came from within. Despite its internal challenges since independence, Papua New Guinea has pressed on with determination to chart its own course. Australia has been privileged to share this journey with our northern neighbour through trade, tourism, sport, education and people-to-people links. Our people enjoy a very special bond. We share a rich past, and in World War II Aussie diggers fought as brothers in arms with PNG's fuzzy wuzzy angels to keep our nations free. The bond between us on the battlefield is immortalised in the Australian War Memorial as well as in our national memory.

In his address to our parliament last year, the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, James Marape, reminded us that Australian and Papua New Guinea are joined at the hip. We remain family and stand shoulder-to-shoulder in our democratic values and our vision for a thriving Pacific.

This week the South Australian parliament will recognise the 50th anniversary of my home state becoming the first place in Australia to decriminalise male homosexuality. The push for decriminalisation gathered momentum after the suspected gay-hate murder of Dr George Duncan, a professor at the University of Adelaide. Dr Duncan's death provided a catalyst for reform which was ultimately enacted by the Dunstan Labor government. But it was actually a Liberal and Country League member, Murray Hill, who first introduced the bill in 1972 to partially decriminalise homosexuality. In doing so, Murray Hill drew on classical Liberal principles—freedom of the individual, protection of minorities and the separation of church and state. I remind Liberal senators of this proud Liberal tradition of expanding rights and protections for gays and lesbians and for women, and of support for Australian multiculturalism. Next month the South Australia parliament will host a reenactment of the 1975 parliamentary debate on decriminalisation, co-ordinated by my dear friend and long time gay-rights advocate Ian Hunter MLC.

In 2017 I spoke in this parliament as our nation passed laws to legalise marriage equality. I said that to remove discrimination in our laws was essential, but that we as LGBTQIA+ people had, more than that, worked to change hearts and minds. That work remains unfinished. Divisive actors, both here and abroad, seek to roll back our hard-won rights. In doing so, they often draw on negative stereotypes as familiar as they are offensive to paint LGBTQIA+ people as a danger to society. So we continue in the spirit of the great Don Dunstan and his great reforming South Australian government 50 years ago to fight for equality and to be recognised wholly for who we are.

Before we go to question time, I am going to make a short statement on a matter that the Deputy President referred to me. The Deputy President referred a matter to me arising out of senators' statements today. A point of order was taken asking whether wearing the Australian flag over a senator's jacket amounted to the use of a prop. If I recall correctly—and I will have this checked—a senator has been permitted to wear a garment bearing a replica of the Indigenous flag, partly on the basis that the Senate has ordered the display of that flag in the chamber. It may be that the same principle applies here. However, noting the contribution of senators to the point of order, I intend to refer the matter to the procedure committee for discussion. Until the procedure committee can discuss the matter, I endorse the direction of the Deputy President earlier today that senators should not wear any flags as a garment to avoid setting a precedent.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors. The coalition has dragged Labor kicking and screaming today to deliver all of the 83,000 home-care packages that were promised by them during the election, including 40,000 of these places before the end of the year and 20,000 of those places right now. Labor didn't want to do this, but we're pleased, along with the Greens and Senator Pocock, that we have made this happen today on behalf of older Australians. Why did it take the government to the last minute for it to support this sensible position?

The government is very pleased to have worked with the opposition and indeed with parliamentarians from across the parliament both on the first round of legislative reforms that will usher in the new aged-care arrangements from 1 November and on the bill that is before the parliament now. As Senator Ruston indicates, we have continued to engage in those positive and constructive negotiations with the opposition over this sitting period and we are grateful for their genuine desire to help us build a better aged-care system. We also, of course, now and always listen to older Australians. This is about them. Older Australians deserve our support. They deserve the very best aged-care system that our country can deliver. And that is what we are determined to bring into being.

We know that there is increasing demand on the aged-care system, and we will continue to see that as our population ages. To keep up with increased demand, the Albanese government is bringing forward the release of the 83,000 additional home-care places. We will make an extra 20,000 home-care packages available in the next eight weeks until the new Aged Care Act comes into effect. Once the new Support at Home program comes into place, we will provide support to a further 63,000 extra older Australians in its first eight months by 30 June 2026.

This is a responsible decision. It is a decision that will deliver more care faster to older Australians who need it most while maintaining the medium-term fiscal save that was a key pillar of our aged-care reforms last year.

Senator Ruston, first supplementary?

The Minister for Aged Care and Seniors has repeatedly claimed that there were 'around 87,000 Australians waiting for a home-care package'. But this morning in the Senate, under pressure from me, you confirmed that there were 108,924 elderly Australians waiting for the care that they'd been assessed as needing as at 31 July 2025. Minister, for how long have you been holding this information?

As I answered in response to questions from Senator Ruston this morning, the government's preference is to provide information that has been quality assured. It's on that basis that the government has provided the numbers which were relevant in March. Senator Ruston asked me a very direct question about updated numbers this morning and I do need to provide a qualification in relation to those. That data has not been screened. It has not been quality assured. It may be subject to change. Our preference is always to provide information to the Senate that is accurate and relevant—

I rise on a point of order on direct relevance. I was just keen for the minister to go to the question. I was asking: how long has she known about the information that was provided this morning?

The minister is being directly relevant to the question. Minister, have you finished?

Yes.

Senator Ruston, a second supplementary?

Minister, could you please explain why the Labor Party voted this morning in the chamber against the immediate release of 20,000 home-care packages?

I am informed that technically the minister should not be responding to unreported-as-yet proceedings from this morning, but I will invite the minister to contribute to the answer in whatever way she sees fits the portfolio.

Thank you, President, for the guidance. Senator Ruston, I think the best way I can answer your question is this. From the very outset, we have sought to work with the opposition on the reform of the aged-care system, and there is good reason for that.

Senator Ruston?

I would just like to draw to the chamber's attention that the minister is actually making statements that she does not know to be true—

Senator Ruston, that is a debating point. There is no point of order for this answer. I have explained the nature of your question. I have invited the minister to respond in her capacity as the portfolio minister.

In answer to Senator Ruston's question, the point I seek to make is that it is a good thing if the government and the opposition can work together on significant reform. It's important because these are challenging reforms that matter to older Australians. It's important because implementing them well means providing certainty to providers and the workforce and means significant change that will endure over time. That is why we sought to work with the opposition on the original legislation and also on the legislation that is before the Senate at the moment.

I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the gallery of a delegation from the parliament of Kiribati's Public Accounts Committee, led by the chairman, the Hon. Dr Tofinga. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and, in particular, to the Senate.

I also draw to the attention of senators the presence in the gallery of a Senate delegation from the France-Australia Parliamentary Friendship Group. 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 for Women, Senator Gallagher. This week is Women's Health Week. Minister, we know for too long women's health has been ignored. Can you expand on how the Albanese Labor government has taken action, including making record investments in women's health with pelvic pain clinics, new contraceptives and Medicare rebates for menopause? Minister, our commitment to investing in women's health, of course, sits alongside the government's commitment to strengthening Medicare and making medicines cheaper. How are Australian women benefiting from the government's investments in women's health?

I'm so pleased that Senator Smith asked me this question. It gives me the opportunity to place on the record and acknowledge the work that she did in the previous term in the area of women's health, particularly the focus on perimenopause and menopause. It's a direct result of some of Senator Smith's work that we are able to incorporate some of the measures we have and are implementing in this term of government.

This week is National Women's Health Week. It's a nationwide campaign, with events focused on improving women's health. I would also like to acknowledge the work that the member for Cooper, Ms Kearney, did on the women's health package throughout last term. Over the last term, we opened 22 endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics across all states and territories. We've also listed new contraceptives on the PBS for the first time in 30 years, including Yas and Yasmin from 1 March and Slinda from 1 May. We've listed new menopause therapies on the PBS for the first time in over 20 years, including Prometrium, Estrogel and Estrogel Pro from 1 March. We've established a new Medicare rebate for menopause health assessments, and over 20,000 women have undergone a menopause health assessment, covered by Medicare, since they became available on 1 July.

We've made longer gynaecology consultations cheaper through two MBS items, from 1 July, which allows for consultations of 45 minutes or longer, allowing those complex conditions women may have to be addressed by a doctor. We are also opening a further 11 endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics. We're making long-acting reversible contraception insertion cheaper, and we're training more medical professionals on how to do that. (Time expired)

Senator Smith, first supplementary?

Women across Australia often face barriers to diagnosis and higher costs when it comes to accessing the care that they need and deserve. How will Labor's cheaper medicines bill, passed earlier this week, help women with the cost of their health care?

(—) (): Senator Smith is correct in linking the women's health package, along with other measures, going into cheaper medicines and bulk-billing incentives and the increases we have put in there. New figures released today show that hundreds of thousands of Australian women are already accessing cheaper medicines and better health care, thanks to those measures. Since announcing the women's health package earlier this year, just in the last seven months, more than 365,000 women have accessed more than 715,000 cheaper scripts for oral contraceptives, menopausal hormone therapies and endometriosis treatments listed on the PBS. Before the listings of Yaz, Yasmin and Slinda on the PBS, women were paying about $380 a year for their contraceptives. Now they are paying less than half that, at $126,40, or just $30.80 with a concession card. Before the listing of Estrogel, Prometrium and Estrogel Pro, women might have paid up to $670 a year. They are now paying $31.60 per script. (Time expired)

Senator Smith, second supplementary?

The Albanese Labor government is investing in perimenopause and menopause, periods and contraception, and endometriosis and adenomyosis. The government is listening to women and investing in health support for all stages of life, but, of course, not in isolation. How will broader investments to strengthen Medicare also support women in accessing the health care that they need?

As Senator Smith points out, we are looking at how we can bolster and strengthen women's health care across the board, not just in specific clinics, like endo clinics, or in specific medicines but across the board. We are looking at how we can make sure that women get the health care they need, when they need and where they need it. We've already seen how women are benefitting from 60-day dispensing and through lowering the price of medicines. We know that women visit the GP more often and often have higher out-of-pocket costs. Women will be a big beneficiary of our biggest investment in bulk-billing, which will start from 1 November. We'll also open 50 more Medicare urgent care clinics so that four in five Australians will live within 20 minutes of an urgent care clinic across Australia. These will support women and their families in accessing the care they need when they need it. We're also investing $1 billion to deliver more free public mental health services, which will also support women, including younger women.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. There are reports that a number of individuals associated with the Islamic State terrorist group, ISIS, will be returning to Australia. Many of these individuals made a conscious decision to wilfully abandon Australia to join the ISIS death cult, a group which committed genocide against Shia, Christian and Yazidi communities, murdered a large number of civilians, and used rape as a weapon of war against women and girls. Is the government aware of how many individuals associated with ISIS are intending to return to Australia from Syria, and does the Prime Minister support these individuals coming to Australia despite their links to terrorism?

I understand that the Minister for Home Affairs has provided a comment to the media. I can indicate that we obviously are aware of media reporting. The Australian government is not providing assistance and is not repatriating this cohort.

Senator Cash, first supplementary?

Can the government guarantee that none of the individuals who made the conscious decision to wilfully abandon Australia to join the ISIS death cult have committed any terrorist acts, have had any association with terrorism or have any ongoing links with extremist groups?

Well, Senator, I think that question doesn't follow from my answer to the primary one. The government is not repatriating this cohort.

Senator Cash, second supplementary?

Can the government guarantee that, in the event these individuals do return to Australia, all of the individuals who have associated with ISIS will be monitored by our security agencies, and can the minister guarantee that, if these individuals are returned to Australia, there is no threat to community safety as a result of their return?

The government always takes the advice of our security agencies, and our first priority is to keep Australians safe.

My question is to Minister Wong. Minister, since dawn today, Israel has starved 13 more Palestinians and killed 105. Babies are withering away from Israel's man-made starvation, and people are pulling their loved ones out of rubble. This week the International Association of Genocide Scholars confirmed that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. The head of IAGS said:

… This is a definitive statement from experts in the field of genocide studies that what is going on on the ground in Gaza is genocide … There is no justification for the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide, not even self defence …

The United Nations, Human Rights Watch, the International Federation of Human Rights, Amnesty International and many other groups have also declared that Israel is committing genocide. Minister, when will you admit that Israel is committing genocide and start using the 'g' word?

Well, Senator, like you, we want to see a ceasefire and, I hope, like you, we want to see a pathway to a Palestinian state, because that is the basis of security and peace for not only Palestinians but also Israelis. What I would say in relation to the legal position—and you would have heard me say it on many occasions—is that Israel must comply with the binding provisional orders made by the International Court of Justice, which made provisional orders in 2024 in relation to South Africa's case against Israel under the genocide convention. You would have heard me, on many occasions, call on Israel to abide by its obligations under international humanitarian law.

What we would say in relation to this latest report is that the Israeli government should take this resolution seriously, just as they should take seriously all of the calls from the international community to comply with international law. That has been our consistent position. It remains our consistent position. We will continue to advocate in accordance with international law.

Senator Faruqi, first supplementary?

Minister, the genocide convention, which you mentioned and to which Australia is a signatory, not only requires states to take action when a genocide is occurring but to prevent it from occurring and ensure that states are not complicit. Thirteen states have already recognised Israel's genocide and resolved to take action to prevent genocide through the Hague Group. How long will you be a bystander without taking any concrete action against Israel's genocide of Palestinians?

It's disappointing that Senator Faruqi takes the approach she takes. She knows that this government has been steadfast in our calls for the observance of international humanitarian law. She also would have seen some of the response from members of the Israeli government when I have done that and when we have done that. You would have seen the response. We have been very clear about our position on international humanitarian law. We believe it is in Australia's interests to continue to assert that position, and we will go to the United Nations this month and we will work with others to recognise the state of Palestine, because we are working with others in pursuit of peace.

Senator Faruqi, second supplementary?

The former human rights commissioner Chris Sidoti, yesterday, said:

What is the alternative to a functioning international legal system? The only alternative is that might is right. The law of the jungle. The replacement of a rules-based international order with a fools-based international order.

Yet, Minister, you stand here and gaslight us every time we ask you to take action. Will you abide by international law or will you continue to shield Israel and support tyranny?

We are doing none of those things. And, on something as important as this, Senator, I do not understand why you feel the need to engage in personal attacks and the demonisation of others in pursuit of your own political objectives. I think it is objectionable. What I would say is this: I would invite you, Senator, to read many of my speeches about international law and the international rules based order.

What I have said, repeatedly, is that Australia has an interest in advocating for the rules based order—whether it is international humanitarian law or the law of the sea in the South China Sea, we have an interest in it. And I've made, actually, precisely the point you advert to—that, in the absence of that, we have an international system which is run by power alone. And, as a middle power, that is not in our interest. So what we do, whether it is with the law of the sea or what we do with others, is to continue to advocate for that system. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator McCarthy. We know food prices and availability are major issues for remote First Nations communities. The Albanese Labor government is committed to delivering cost-of-living relief to First Nations Australians in remote communities. Can the minister update the Senate on the progress of the Low-Cost Essentials Subsidy Scheme?

I thank Senator Mulholland for her question—a proud Queensland senator—and I particularly thank Senator Green for her advocacy on this issue as well. Senator Green and the now, new, member for Leichhardt went to the election promising cost-of-living relief in remote communities. Well, today, I can advise the Senate that we're delivering on our cost-of-living promise to remote communities, including right across northern Queensland.

Our Low-Cost Essentials Subsidy Scheme is seeing the cost of 30 essential items slashed. The scheme ensures that these 30 essential items are comparable to prices in cities. The expected savings for remote consumers on these items are up to 50 per cent. And I can inform the senator that residents across Cape York—here I go—in Bamaga, Coen, Kowanyama, Lockhart River, Mapoon, Napranum, Pormpuraaw and Wujal Wujal, and even in the Torres Strait, in Thursday Island, Boigu Island, Hammond Island, Coconut Island, Horn Island, Mabuiag Island and also in Doomadgee and Palm Island—in over 30 stores around northern Queensland, we are delivering cost-of-living relief.

Remote stores will be offering cheaper groceries, providing cost-of-living relief, and food items that have been made cheaper include tinned veggies, canned fruit and rice, along with everyday items such as nappies and toilet paper. And the Albanese Labor government is investing $50 million over four years to improve remote food security, including reducing the cost of essential items in up to 152 remote stores across the country.

Senator Mulholland, first supplementary?

I thank the minister for the update on the Low-Cost Essentials Subsidy Scheme. I know the scheme will make an enormous difference in regions like the Cape York and the Torres Strait, as you outlined. We also know the high cost of food in remote stores is linked to high levels of food insecurity and preventable nutrition related disease. How does this scheme support healthy eating and contribute to positive health outcomes as part of closing the gap?

The Albanese Labor government worked in partnership with the states and territories, and I do thank the states and territories, who have worked very closely with me to ensure that this is occurring in our remote stores right across the country and especially in Queensland to develop a national code of practice for remote store operations. This code works alongside our Low-Cost Essentials Subsidy Scheme to deliver better health outcomes for Indigenous Australians in remote communities. It establishes minimum standards for remote stores across operations, health and governance. Some of these standards include not promoting or discounting unhealthy food and drinks, not providing easy access to unhealthy food and drinks at counters and in high-traffic areas except for ready-to-eat meals, and ensuring all fresh fruit and vegie items are continuously available, well presented and clearly displayed.

Senator Mulholland, second supplementary?

Thank you for outlining the cost-of-living impacts and health impacts of this policy. What are the other benefits of this policy for remote communities?

The Senate might notice a return to a theme in this response. Yes, there is another benefit with this policy, and it's an important one. That is jobs, jobs, jobs. Not only are we subsidising essential items and creating minimum standards in stores for health outcomes; we are funding the creation of an in-store nutrition workforce. This means we will create jobs—real jobs—and equip locally engaged workers with skills to build healthier retail food environments and provide informed advice to customers about healthy food purchases. We know Indigenous Australians in remote stores receiving advice from trusted people in a supportive and culturally appropriate environment are more likely to make healthier purchasing choices. This will have a positive impact. Certainly, this is what we want to be able to monitor going forward in terms of health outcomes. We've got a plan and we are delivering on it.

My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, Senator Gallagher. Last Wednesday, I raised the question on the unfair classification of twin births as a single birth rather than a multiple birth. The multiple birth allowance was introduced in 1985, to quote a former minister, 'in recognition of the extra cost faced by parents following simultaneous birth as well as the indirect costs of reduced workforce participation'. Minister Farrell last week agreed that 'multiple' means two or more. You agree that parents of twins face extra costs. You accept that they have reduced workforce participation. What is the logic that justifies additional support for parents of triplets but does not also justify additional support for parents of twins?

I thank Senator Tyrrell for the question. As Senator Farrell said last week, the government recognises that families, including the families of twins, do face unique challenges when having multiple births and that those births, while time for much celebration, often involve increased costs of raising children and place pressure on parents around re-entering the workforce. I've had the opportunity here to meet with the Multiple Birth Association when they come to town. There are a range of payments and assistance available to the parents of twins.

In relation to the specifics of why there's a certain interaction between twins as opposed to triplets, I would have to take that on notice and see if I can come back. I imagine that, when it was designed, there would have been reasons around that, but I don't have that information in front of me. But I can say that parents of twins can of course access family tax benefit payments, both A and B; newborn supplement; and newborn upfront payment. Parents of twins will also receive the benefit of the expansion of PPL, and parents can also access both PPL and the family tax benefit supplements like the newborn supplement and the newborn upfront payment at the same time. This provides an additional $2,735.05 for parents of twins. This is not available to parents of one child and is specifically designed to provide additional support to families of twins.

The multiple birth allowance payment recognises that families with three or more children born at the same time face disproportionately higher costs across their children's lives, as well as it making it harder to work. But if there is more information I can provide around the history of that, I will. (Time expired)

Senator Tyrrell, first supplementary?

I received correspondence from the former minister, who stated, 'Extending the multiple birth allowance would represent a significant increase in family assistance expenditure and would need to be balanced against other priorities to align with the government's responsible management of the budget.' Minister, am I correct in understanding that the government's current position is that 98 per cent of multiple births should be ineligible for multiple birth allowance because it would be expensive to support them?

In my earlier answer I went through the payments that are available to the parents of twins—which is extra, in the order of $2,735.05—that are not available to parents of one child. I think there is definitely a recognition there of the additional financial support from the government, so I don't accept the proposition put forward by Senator Tyrrell.

As to the multiple birth allowance payment, the origins of that are that it's to accommodate births of three or more children born at the same time. I think the parents of twins accessing some of those other payments at the same time—that they can receive them for both babies—is recognition that there are extra costs and that those costs are, in part way, supported by the government through those additional payments.

Senator Tyrrell, second supplementary?

The then minister accepted that the costs associated with twins are five times higher than that of a single child. Minister, if you accept this fact and you accept that not supporting them financially saves the government money, isn't it also true that the money you're saving comes from pushing the cost onto families who can't afford it?

No, I don't accept that. We in the government, in each budget, look at what we can do to make sure that we are supporting families with cost-of-living relief. That's been right at the centre of a lot of the decisions that the Albanese government has taken, whether it be around childcare, whether it be about all of the health investments, whether it be through the tax cuts or whether it be us arguing for higher wages so that people can earn more and keep more of what they earn, but also in those other areas like investments in TAFE, and all of those areas, too, are about supporting families with cost-of-living pressures.

I've gone through the support that can be provided to twins. We always examine this at every budget, as to what further assistance can be provided, and I have no doubt that Minister Kearney and others will be considering the representations from the Multiple Birth Association and the parents of twins.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Senator, I refer to Senator Cash's previous question and reports about the proposed return from Syria to Australia of individuals who made the decision to leave Australia and join the ISIS death cult. It was reported that senior federal government officials are assisting the operation quietly in the background and intend to work with families of those in the camps and not-for-profit organisations to issue travel documents and obtain approvals from Kurdish led authorities in neighbouring countries. I also note, in the same article as you refer to, home affairs minister Tony Burke is quoted as saying, 'The government is not providing assistance to this cohort.' Can the government guarantee that no taxpayer dollars are being spent assisting former ISIS supporters or associates to return to Australia?

With respect to Senator Scarr, that is actually the same question the leader asked me, and I can only refer you to that answer. Those reports are not correct and the government is not providing assistance and is not repatriating this cohort.

Senator Scarr, first supplementary.

Perhaps I could be more particular. The report refers to federal government officials assisting the operation quietly in the background and intending to work with families of those in the camps and not-for-profit organisations to issue travel documents. Is any such assistance being provided? Or has any such assistance been provided since the last cohort came and were repatriated in October 2022?

For the first set of answers, I refer you to my answer to Senator Cash and my answer to the primary question. Your second question is, What has happened since 2022? If I can provide any further assistance on that I will. I don't believe there's been activity, but if I'm wrong I will come back to you.

Senator Scarr, second supplementary.

My second supplementary, then, is in terms of your taking on notice whether you can advise whether any taxpayer funds have been spent since October 2022, when that last cohort of women and children were repatriated to Australia and whether any assistance has been given since that date.

Well, my answer is the same as my answer to Senator Cash.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, Senator McCarthy. The ABC published a report today exposing shocking numbers of sexual assault committed by predatory driving instructors against mainly young people, who should be feeling safe learning how to drive. This is an issue that stretches back decades. In fact, my mother has been engaged in this industry for years, providing a safe teaching environment for people learning to drive in WA. I know how important it is for families to be able to trust the instructors. As thousands of children and others get into cars with strangers today, what is the government doing to protect learner drivers? And will you consider making dash cams compulsory in driving school vehicles to deter and detect abuse?

Thank you, Senator Payman, for the question. I certainly did hear the stories this morning. The young women and girls who told their stories—I'd like to commend their bravery in coming forward to speak about a really difficult issue but a very important one. So, thank you, Senator Payman.

Obviously learning to drive should be an exciting time for young people, where they commence their journey into adulthood and greater independence. And driving instructors, just like teachers and those in a position of responsibility in our society, have to ensure that these environments are safe. Each jurisdiction sets its own rules for instructor accreditation, compliance and disciplinary processes. Allegations of inappropriate behaviour by driving instructors are handled by the state or territory regulator responsible for issuing that accreditation. These regulators have the power to investigate the complaints, suspend or cancel accreditation, or impose conditions on an instructor's licence. But obviously, more critically, in instances of alleged criminality these matters should be reported to the police.

Senator Payman, first supplementary.

Thank you, Minister. Given the urgency of this matter—and I understand that it's a state matter, as you've mentioned—will the government act to drive coordinated national reform and place this on the agenda at the next National Cabinet meeting?

We certainly are taking action at the national level to prevent sexual harassment by creating safer, respectful and more-equitable workplaces. We've seen that through the implementation of the recommendations of the 2020 Respect@Work sexual harassment national inquiry report, which included an explicit prohibition on sexual harassment in the workplace through the Fair Work Act 2009 and also supported the Human Rights Commission to receive historical disclosures of sexual harassment, educate and enforce compliance from employers on the new positive duty to take reasonable action to prevent workplace sexual harassment and provide a one-stop shop for information and referral services.

Senator Payman, second supplementary?

In the United Kingdom, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency licenses driving instructors nationally and tracks misconduct complaints. The ABC report shows an increase in complaints after a public awareness campaign in 2018. Will the Labor government follow the British example and establish a national standards agency to regulate the sector to protect children from trainer danger?

As I said in my initial answer, it is up to the states and territories, and I am confident that our minister is also having a good look at what's going on here. But, as I said in my previous response, in regard to what we are doing nationally, that is important around the issues with sexual harassment.

My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Senator Walsh. Today is Early Childhood Educators Day. It recognises the vital contribution early childhood educators make every single day in supporting our children and families. For too long educators were undervalued, with low pay and high turnover undermining quality and stability for children. When the Albanese Labor government was elected in 2022, educators were leaving in droves. What is the government doing to back early childhood educators and stabilise this essential workforce?

Thank you, Senator Darmanin. Thank you for your advocacy over many years for the women workers of Australia. Today is indeed Early Childhood Educators Day, so today we recognise the extraordinary contribution that early educators make every single day to supporting children and their families, and we thank them for that contribution today and every day. For too long early childhood educators were undervalued, with low pay and high turnover undermining quality and stability for children. Under the Albanese government that has changed, because this government values our early education workforce. We respect them, we recognise them and we are taking action to support them.

We've delivered a historic 15 per cent pay rise, the biggest-ever Commonwealth funded wage increase for this workforce, and it's already paying dividends. Educators are staying longer in their roles, vacancy rates are falling and services are more stable. This is good for children because stable educators mean quality relationships and stronger learning. It's good for families too because we know families want to see the same faces when they drop their children off at early learning. And it's good for the economy, supporting workforce participation, especially for women, and unlocking productivity and growth. Today I met with Leanne, Nazish and Kathy, early childhood educators who told me that, for the first time, they feel their work is properly recognised. They are proud to stay in the sector and to build a career in early childhood education. That is exactly what happens when you have a government that backs early childhood educators.

Senator Darmanin, first supplementary?

Thank you, Senator Walsh. In your answer you spoke about workforce stability in the sector, which is so important. We know that the foundation of quality and safe early education is a good-quality workforce. How is the Albanese Labor government encouraging more workers into the sector and building a pipeline of future educators?

I'm pleased to report that the Albanese government is not only backing the educators of today; we are training the educators of tomorrow too. We've delivered over 50,000 free TAFE places for educators, and free TAFE changes lives. I heard just how powerful that is when I met Shae at TAFE Gippsland. Shae is a mother of five and a grandmother of 11. She was retired until she heard about free TAFE. She told me that she still had more to give and that it's never too late to retrain and start again. So she did start again, enrolling in early childhood education. Shae said she couldn't think of a profession that's more important right now, and I couldn't agree more. Free TAFE is not only changing Shae's life; it's helping to give our children the best start in life too. Free TAFE is building our dedicated educator workforce for the children of today and tomorrow. (Time expired)

Senator Darmanin, second supplementary?

Why is it important to create a respected, stable and secure early childhood education workforce that is backed by free TAFE, and what are the consequences of not having a workforce that is respected, stable and secure.

We have seen those consequences firsthand before. We saw the coalition's approach during its decade of drift and disdain for early learning. They left behind a workforce crisis. They left the educators without a proper pay rise for ten long years. They called our historic 15 per cent pay rise a 'sugar hit'. They voted against free TAFE, calling it 'wasteful spending'. At the last election, the former shadow minister said that they would abolish free TAFE—hello, Senator Henderson! We all remember Liberal leader Ms Ley declaring, 'If you don't pay for something, you don't value it.' On this side the chamber, we value Australian families, free TAFE and our nation's early childhood educators.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Ayres. Yesterday, the energy minister recommitted to Labor's goal of reaching 82 per cent renewable energy by 2030. In the first two years of your government, renewable energy has gone from 31 per cent of the electricity grid to 35 per cent, growing at a rate of just two percentage points per year. Renewable electricity's share would need to grow at quadruple that rate, at eight percentage points a year, to reach 82 per cent by 2050. What evidence does the government have that this is possible without the mass devastation of the Australian environment and without ignoring widespread community opposition to its renewables rollout?

It is a pleasure to get a question from the known environmentalist, who's passionate about the modern future of the electricity system, Senator Canavan. It is the case—

Opposition senators interjecting—

That's right. Senator Canavan says he's mates with Bob Brown on these questions. That's nothing to be proud of, in terms of the renewable rollout. That's nothing to be proud of, because on this side—you interjected, and I answered!

Senator Canavan, on a point of order?

It's on relevance. The minister has spent 30 seconds denigrating me, and the question is about his government's renewables rollout.

Senator Canavan, I believe you interjected, and, as you know, the minister is entitled to take your interjection. If it wasn't you, I apologise, but it was certainly someone in that direction. I beg your pardon; it was Senator Cadell. I would happily draw the minister back to the question, but you need to keep your side quiet because the minister is entitled to take interjections.

We have an enormous task in front of this government and in front of Australia. It is a task that is in the national interest. It's a task that has been made so much harder by two things that your side of politics could have made a patriotic national contribution to, and that is by spending the last ten years of the miserable arc of the Morrison-Turnbull-Abbott inaction period actually building a little bit of generation capability and building a little bit of transmission capacity—doing a little bit of work and lifting a bit in the national interest. Instead, what happened? Nothing. Four gigawatts went out of the electricity system, and only one gigawatt went in.

Off that base of inaction, we are working hard as a government to deliver 99 projects. They have been approved by this government to deliver energy for Australia and electricity for industry. But, of course, we started ten years behind because of the failure there. Secondly, wandering around in regional communities using the kind of hyperbole and misinformation generated mostly from internet offshore extremist politics is not in the national interest. (Time expired)

Senator Canavan, first supplementary?

The government's 82 per cent renewable energy target was derived from its RepuTex modelling that claimed that Labor's energy plan would lower power bills by $275 a year, which has not happened. Given that the government has distanced itself from this modelling, what additional modelling has the government done to give the Australian people confidence that its renewable targets are achievable?

One of the advantages of being in government is that you have all of the machinery of government and all the capability of government to make assessments about what is in the national interest in terms of climate change targets and in terms of the delivery of a low-cost, reliable electricity system. We're ably assisted in that by the new chair of the Climate Change Authority, Mr Kean, a former Liberal treasurer from New South Wales, who's working with the government and supporting the government's assessments on these. He's on the ground in regional communities and working with the electricity sector to make sure that we deliver the best outcome in the national interest, because we're focused on the real national interest for Australian industry and Australian households.

Senator Canavan, second supplementary?

It's clearly a hit-and-hope strategy. Last week, Minister, you said in question time that the big obstacle to transmission projects was 'silly billies stoking fear in the regions'. The Victorian farmer Rachel McIntyre has said: 'It's going to be difficult to farm underneath these transmission lines. We have a lot of legal operations we now need to consider, even just to do our daily tasks.' Does the minister believe that farmers like Ms McIntyre are an obstacle to the government's plans?

No. You know, it's sort of like the old FSB propaganda operation—the misdirection operation. That's what happened. Senator Canavan, you are the captain of the silly billies, he is the deputy of the silly billies—

Minister Ayres, withdraw that comment.

I withdraw all of it. Of course people like Ms McIntyre, and other people in the farming community, should be consulted; of course they should be engaged with. What they don't need is the silly billies from the Liberal and National parties campaigning against renewable developments hundreds of kilometres away from where they live because they are picking up the extremist politics from offshore, delivered by propaganda outfits that are not Australian and not acting in the Australian national interest, and creating fear and apprehension in their own partisan interests. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Senator Farrell. I refer to the Albanese Labor government's ongoing commitment to online safety and the delivery of world-leading social media minimum age limits. How is the government tackling a range of abusive and predatory technologies and taking a new proactive approach to protecting our wider community from the impacts of stalking, nudity and deepfake apps?

I thank Senator Walker for her question and the great work that she is doing on behalf of the people of South Australia.

Today marks yet another step in the Albanese Labor government's ongoing commitment to tackle the abhorrent spread of abusive and predatory technology. Alongside our world-leading social media minimum age reform, the government is acting to protect our most vulnerable against deepfake and online stalking apps. We've seen the apps spread at an alarming rate, with one child in every classroom in Australia being the victim of a deepfake abuse. Four out of five of these victims are young girls. It's clear that this abuse is not slowing down either. Recent reports from the eSafety Commissioner indicate that the use of these apps has doubled in the last 18 months, and the harms experienced at the hands of these apps are just too great.

That's why the Albanese Labor government is determined to take a proactive approach. Our government will work alongside industry to develop and deliver these reforms alongside our ongoing work on the digital duty of care. It will complement current state and Commonwealth laws, prohibiting stalking and the distribution of non-consensual explicit materials. While we all recognise there is a place for AI and tracking technology in Australia, there is simply no place for tech that is used to abuse, humiliate and harm our most vulnerable Australians.

Senator Walker, a first supplementary?

It is clear that the Albanese Labor government takes the impact and danger of online harms and abuse seriously, especially when it comes to our most vulnerable children. How is the government taking action today to protect our children from the pervasive and persuasive pull of social media and giving parent across the country peace of mind?

I thank Senator Walker for her first supplementary question. Our kids are always the priority. That's why today the Albanese government is committing to using every lever at its disposal to protect our kids. We must create an online environment which is safe for our kids to connect to, an environment free from predatory technology. Apps that are designed to abuse, to bully and to humiliate are unacceptable. They expose our kids at a time when they are most vulnerable.

Today's commitment to restrict access to these abhorrent apps will make a real difference in protecting young Australians. We want children to have their childhoods and we want parents and grandparents to have peace of mind.

Senator Walker, a second supplementary?

These social media minimum-age rules will act to provide Australian parents with yet another tool to protect their children at their most critical stage of development. What impact will the Albanese Labor government's world-first online safety reforms have for Australian families and children across the country?

Thank you, Senator Walker, for your second supplementary question. We have fewer than 100 days until the start of the Albanese Labor government's world-leading social media minimum-age restriction—fewer than 100 days until we give kids the chance to build a real-world connection. That's fewer than 100 days until our kids are empowered to know who they are before platforms assume who they are.

Australian parents know the Albanese Labor government has their backs. We stand on the side of each family faced with an increasingly scary and dangerous digital environment. Social media has a social responsibility, and our government will continue to hold it to account.

My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Education, Senator Walsh. Before the last election, the Prime Minister promised that he would introduce paid prac for future nurses, teachers, social workers and midwives. What do you say to Elliot, a just-turned-19 first-year nursing student at UTAS who, when he went to sign up for his paid prac on 1 July, was told he didn't qualify and wouldn't be getting paid because of the rules and guidelines that Mr Albanese has put in place?

We are really proud to be supporting Australian students with paid prac. I'm not sure about Elliot's circumstances, Senator Colbeck, but I can tell you that in my portfolio of early childhood education paid prac is making a real difference to people. We have shortages of workers in nursing, we have shortages in teaching, and paid prac is supporting people to stay at university and receive the support they need.

Senator Colbeck, a first supplementary?

How many student nurses, teachers, social workers and midwives will be like Elliot and won't get paid to do their prac because they don't qualify?

Thank you, Senator Colbeck. Well, our government's new Commonwealth prac payment started on 1 July 2025, and it will support around 68,000 eligible higher education students to complete their practical training each year. It will support a whole lot more students than how many you wanted it to support, which was zero.

Minister Walsh, please resume your seat. Senator Colbeck?

A point of order on direct relevance: my question was not how many students do qualify. How many students don't qualify?

The minister is being relevant to the question. Minister Walsh? Okay, second supplementary, Senator Colbeck?

Isn't Elliot ineligible because Labor designed paid prac with a 30-hour rule from 1 July and a means test that knocks thousands out? Will you fix the guidelines so all mandatory placements in nursing, teaching, social work and midwifery are genuinely paid, as the Prime Minister promised?

Thank you, Senator Colbeck. The Albanese Labor government is delivering on our promise. We are delivering on our commitment to deliver paid prac for students of nursing, midwifery, social work and education. This is a game changer for tens of thousands of university students in critical degrees and occupations—and you know what? There are tens of thousands of people who will benefit from this, which is tens of thousands more people than would benefit if you were in government, because the number of people who would have paid prac if you were in government is zero.

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

I have an update to a question from Senator Lambie. I took some questions on notice in relation to Russian oil imports and I've written to the senator to provide additional information. I table my letter for the information of all senators.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted.

I thank the Senate. Colleagues, this week is the final sitting week for a staff member who is well known to many of you, Mr Anton van Bavel. I think he's well known to most people across the chamber. Anton loves the Sturt Football Club, he loves American political history and he loves Australian election statistics, but most of all he loves the Australian Senate—its procedures, its intricacies, its traditions. Anton respects this institution deeply. Like me, he understands what it brings to our democracy. And, while he might have been my adviser, his first instinct has always been to protect the dignity of the Senate, and partisanship comes second. He is an example to everyone in this place.

Anton's respect and passion for the Senate started early. He tells me that, as a child, he listened to Senate debates on what was then the ABC Parliamentary News Network. Anton has absorbed both the knowledge and the philosophy of the great Senate clerks Harry Evans and Rosemary Laing, and he knows more about both the character and the workings of the Senate than anyone I know—except perhaps Mr Pye. Senators, particularly Labor but also others, have benefited from this knowledge. I personally have benefited greatly from his knowledge and his loyalty over some, in total, 16 years of service.

So this is the end of an era. I want to thank, publicly and in this place that matters so much to him, Anton for the sacrifices it takes to do this work, for his dedication to his craft and for his commitment to serving our nation. Anton, you go with my affection and my best wishes for life beyond this place.

I also seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted.

On behalf of the opposition, I'd like to associate the coalition with the remarks from Senator Wong about Anton. I think it is not often—in fact, Senator Wong, it's very rare in this place that, when a key adviser leaves, we are given the opportunity to thank them. In relation to Anton van Bavel: it is appropriate that we recognise the incredible service you have provided not just to the Australian Labor Party but to the Senate over many, many terms. In that regard, it is your partner in crime, Jonathan Sharman, who has provided me with these words today, along with Lilli Balaam, who has contributed—and it's Lilli's last day tomorrow, in fact, so it's the end of an era for both sides of politics. As Jonathan said to me: 'How does one sum up Anton? One might say "politics, religion, arts and sport", but not always in that order, I understand—especially when the Crows are playing or the cricket is on.' One of the things I didn't know about you, Anton, which I found out earlier today, is that you're also a man of deep personal faith; I would like to recognise that.

As Senator Wong said—and I think there are probably only 76 other people in Australia, quite possibly, who would understand the words of Senator Wong and agree with and wholeheartedly endorse them when it comes to the person who advises the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the person who advises the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate—you need to have a love of the Practice, the standing orders and the Senate institution. I know that between Jonathan Sharman and yourself, Anton, Senator Wong and I have always had implicit trust in the decisions that you both make and the advice that you provide us.

We know that you'll miss this place. You are very well known and respected amongst the opposition ranks. This is what Jonno said: 'Some have said he has at times a James Moriarty-Sherlock Holmes type of relationship with Jonathan Sharman as they go tit for tat in deploying Senate tactics.' It is interesting, and I won't take up time because this is Senator Wong's opportunity here. Other than the leadership, I don't think too many people know the hard work that goes on from the beginning of the day right through till night to ensure that we function in this place.

Anton, thank you for everything you've done to ensure the Senate is held to the best possible standards. I know that, when we were in government and you were in opposition, you had decent and honest dealings with the coalition over many, many years. You've been a solid foundation and support not just for Senator Wong but for the Australian Labor Party. Believe me, you will be missed. Good luck with whatever you decide to do in the future. On behalf of the coalition, we hope you have a well-deserved break.

by leave—I'd like to associate myself and the Greens with those well-deserved comments, Anton. Thank you for 16 years of working to try to make the world a better place, and we wish you all the very best in whatever comes next.

In question time on 26 August 2025, Senator Wong undertook to provide further information in response to questions about housing asked of her by Senator Bragg in her capacity as the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Senator Wong has asked that I respond on her behalf in my capacity as the Minister representing the Minister for Housing. I've written to Senator Bragg to provide additional information and I table my letter to the senator, for the information of all senators.

In relation to general business notice of motion No. 130, Treasury requested that Housing Australia conduct a thorough search of records to respond to the order. The search resulted in the production of 21 documents with over 2,700 pages. All documents identified were executed funding agreements and schedules. A public interest immunity claim validly applies to these documents and the decision to redact sensitive information. This is because the documents identify the location of specific types of housing and reveal market-sensitive information with detrimental impacts on future HAFF funding rounds.

Redactions were made by Housing Australia for the following reasons. Firstly, the addresses for projects involve housing for people fleeing family and domestic violence and people moving into social and affordable housing. Despite the Senate's note that any specific harm could be overcome by disclosing information in general terms without the identity of those to whom it relates, redacting this information is necessary for the protection of the health and safety of members of the public and the reasonable expectation that their home address information remains private.

Secondly, commercial information on the quantum of availability payments and/or concessional loans is contained in the documents, and publishing this information would compromise future funding rounds by providing uneven or unfair commercial advantage if it were to become public.

Thirdly, the documents include detailed information about the proposed commercial arrangements of each project to deliver services. The release of this information would give the market information regarding the provider's ability to deliver projects and at what cost, compromising future funding rounds through providing an uneven or unfair commercial advantage. Some redactions were also applied to the individual names and contact details of non-senior executive staff following longstanding practice as the release may be harmful to their wellbeing as a result of having their personal information disclosed in circumstances where they did not agree to the release of this information.

In relation to OPD No. 41 for Minister Bowen, I previously advised the Senate that additional time is needed to consider all documents that might be captured in this request. I wish to advise the Senate today that that remains the case. In addition, I wish to advise the Senate that I intend to express the claim to withhold the tabling of all documents on the basis that documents are submissions to cabinet and inform cabinet deliberation. The confidence of ministers in the confidentiality of the cabinet process now and into the future would be diminished if the details of cabinet deliberations were to be disclosed prior to the open-access period provided for in the Archives Act 1983.

Disclosure prior to the open-access period under the Archives Act 1983 risks harm through a weakening of adherence by current and future ministers to the formal process for confidentiality, policy proposals for consideration by cabinet, draft and final cabinet documents briefings and record keeping of the cabinet. Unless ministers can be assured of the confidentiality of cabinet meetings, they may not speak freely or honestly between themselves and may be more likely to suppress their views on present policies that may be unpopular or politically embarrassing. Any of these outcomes would ultimately impact negatively on Australia's national interest. The confidentiality of cabinet extends to reviews and reports and any related consideration or discussion of those reviews and reports for deliberation by cabinet.

The 2035 target is part of Australia's nationally determined contribution under the Paris agreement, which Australia signed up to in 2015 under the Abbott government, and, if I recall correctly, former energy minister Mr Taylor led the cabinet discussions in relation to that question. Accordingly, it's an international commitment to the over 190 parties of that agreement, and of significance for Australia's international relations, particularly within the Pacific and our broader region. We intend to set our 2035 target in September, which is consistent with the deadline set by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Under the requirements of the act, we need to consider independent advice from the Climate Change Authority, which is still being finalised. In December 2024, the chair of the authority, Mr Kean, indicated they would require additional time. (Time expired)

In respect of Minister Ayres's explanation relating to the order for the production of documents concerning the Housing Australia Future Fund, I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

The minister's explanation reveals two major problems this nation has: (1) it has a government which is engaging in maladministration when it comes to its housing programs, and (2) it has a government which is committed deeply to secrecy. This explanation is more evidence that the government will not provide the basic information that the Senate has requested through the orders for the production of documents in relation to the massive expenditure of taxpayer funds. But we should not be surprised, because this government, according to Centre for Public Integrity, has the worst record on transparency and secrecy since the Keating government by virtue of metering its compliance with orders of the Senate and by virtue of measuring its compliance with freedom-of-information requests. This week, we see the government wants to gut the freedom-of-information laws to ensure that Australians cannot get basic information about the functioning of the government that they pay for.

Malcolm Fraser was very clear when he introduced these laws that the government performs better if Australians are informed about the activities of the government. Basic transparency and accountability are not much to ask for when you are committing $10 billion of taxpayer funds which, over the last two years of operation, has built only a few houses. These orders for the production of documents—which go back to February this year—are about providing the information about the expenditure of taxpayer funds through round 1 of the Housing Australia Future Fund. Back in February we requested the information. In July we received a slew of documents—2,000 pages, many of which are blacked out. There are more blacked-out pages than there are pages with information.

The information germane to the taxpayer is who is getting the money? How much money are they receiving? I take the minister's explanation when he gives two principal points. He says, 'We can't tell you where the houses are,' and the problem with that is that the people who signed up to get access to public funds already said in their contracts that they were okay with the government disclosing the location. Do you know why? Every time you see Minister O'Neill talking about housing, she's on one of the sites, so the idea this has to be kept secret is ridiculous. It is offensive. Do you think we are all stupid?

Maybe.

I take the interjection—maybe we are, because the people who have signed these contracts to get taxpayer funds for public housing or social and affordable housing have already said that they're okay with the locations being known. This is not protecting people. Pretty soon, you will see ministers tripping over television cords on all these sites.

Secondly, the minister's justification for why the government won't say how much money has gone to these providers is unbelievable to me. The government are going to dish out taxpayer funds to private organisations and won't say how much they are getting in availability payments. I'm afraid that is not how our system works. If the government are spending taxpayer funds, they need to say how much money is going to these organisations. I'm afraid that we don't live in a country where these things are allowed to be secret. Everyone will need to find out.

I'll say it again. The country has two massive problems in this space. There is maladministration in the program's delivery. It's been going for two years. It's only built a handful of houses. Clearly the tender processes have been a disaster. Secondly, the secrecy is intolerable. Maybe this is all part of the plan, when you're proposing to never respond properly to Senate orders and every FOI is covered up in black ink—and now you're proposing to destroy the FOI Act. Maybe that's all okay, but it's not good enough for the Australian people. They expect their government to be honest and transparent.

We will never let up. I call on the crossbench to continue to hold the government to account. They think that they have unfettered power, but that is totally unreasonable in a democracy like this, which has the Senate— (Time expired)

I rise to support Senator Bragg, not just in relation to this OPD but also in relation to his advocacy in relation to the Housing Australia Future Fund. Whenever I hear someone say, 'This information is commercial; it will prejudice our future negotiations et cetera,' that is a licence for the executive to basically refuse to disclose any document that's got a number in it. That's the impact. I really do question whether or not the process that was undergone by the government in looking at these documents was a bona fide process to genuinely consider whether or not the commercial interests of the Commonwealth would be genuinely compromised by the disclosure of the documents in accordance with the order passed by this Senate.

A majority of the senators in this place from a majority of the states representing a majority of the Australian people have called for the production of these documents. Why? Because it's part of our obligation as a house of review, a house of scrutiny, to scrutinise and review the performance of the Housing Australia Future Fund. So I'm very concerned by Senator Ayres's response on behalf of the government, on behalf of the minister, to Senator Bragg's OPD. I'm always very concerned and somewhat sceptical when the 'Not for publication, for commercial reasons' card is played because invariably it is a card that's overplayed. It is a card that's overplayed and it's a card that's being played in circumstances where I believe the interests of the Senate in this case demand the production of these documents so we can scrutinise the performance of this future fund.

I commend Senator Bragg for his endeavours. I call upon the government to deeply reflect on whether or not this information is truly commercially sensitive to such an extent that it couldn't be disclosed to the Senate. Of course, no-one wants to receive personal information in relation to people in vulnerable situations. The opposition isn't calling for that. We're calling for the release of information which this place genuinely needs to properly discharge its functions as a house of scrutiny and a house of review.

I rise to take note of the minister's explanation in relation to housing. The minister's explanation is entirely unsatisfactory. Australia is in the grip of a housing crisis. Homeownership is slipping out of reach for too many, rents are sky-rocketing, and secure, affordable housing feels like a distant dream. The housing crisis is turbocharging inequality, and yet the government's housing strategy is timid. It is shrouded in secrecy and many of its elements lack parliamentary oversight.

Australians are being left in the dark about the detail of this government's housing policies and funding. Take the case of the Housing Australia Future Fund, the chosen vehicle for the government on affordable housing. The details are hidden. Australians deserve to know what is being built, how much is being spent and who is spending it. Australians deserve to know where their money is going. Who is profiting from these investments? That's not all. It gets worse. Labor is intentionally keeping Australia in the dark on its other minor housing interventions. What little reform they've made has been done through delegated legislation, most of which is not disallowable.

Take the Help to Buy scheme. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation was scathing when assessing the recent Help to Buy Program Directions 2025. Crucially, the directions set out significant elements of the regulatory framework for the Help to Buy program in delegated rather than primary legislation. That is, the parliament has no real say. It cannot scrutinise. This is of real concern. Not only that, but the committee, chaired by Labor, raised the following six issues with this regulation: its compliance with legislative requirements, severely wanting; the scope of its administrative powers; the adequacy of explanatory materials; its treatment of personal rights and liberties; the availability of independent review; and its inappropriate exemption from disallowance and from sunsetting. When Labor's own senators are questioning their over-reliance on delegated legislation, there is a very serious problem.

This absence of scrutiny is not just a procedural issue; it has real-world consequences. These changes are being shaped without democratic overview. Meanwhile, these policies are pushing prices up. The Home Guarantee Scheme is supposed to help first-home buyers but, by boosting demand without building enough homes or dampening down the tax fuelled demand, it just makes houses more expensive, more out of reach for first-home buyers. So, those first-home buyers end up paying more, borrowing more and sinking deeper into debt, and the rate of homeownership falls.

The scheme is stacking the deck against the very people it's meant to help, and no amount of social media cavorting can put lipstick on this pig. Instead of easing the burden, these policies are deepening the crisis, and Labor knows this, which is why they are running scared from basic scrutiny. This isn't just about numbers and policies; it's about trust. When decisions about public resources are made behind closed doors, when they are covered in black ink, as we have seen just now, resources are not allocated with proper oversight. Trust in our institutions begins to erode, and people see their housing hopes dashed while the rules benefit very wealthy property investors and developers.

That's why transparency isn't optional; it's essential. Australians deserve better. They deserve to know what is being built, how much money is being spent and who is benefiting from these investments. They deserve policies that address the root cause and size of the housing crisis, not just temporary, minor fixes with details that aren't made clear or transparent and solutions that too often perpetuate the problem—make it worse—rather than really face up to the solutions.

This government lacks ambition on housing, and it lacks transparency about what it's up to. Labor campaigned on integrity and transparency in parliament. Well, I'm yet to see it. They are denying the capacity of this parliament to decide on and judge their decisions. Their goal is clear: to avoid scrutiny from this parliament. Transparency was a very core promise, yet they treat public scrutiny like a threat. That's not leadership; that's cowardice. It's time for a housing strategy that is open, is honest and truly works for all Australians and is open to their scrutiny and examination, as it should be if it's going to work.

The housing crisis gripping Australia under this Labor government is nothing short of a national disgrace, a festering wound on the dreams of an entire generation. The minister's response is totally unacceptable for the government of transparency. Young Australians, the backbone of our future, are being crushed under the weight of housing markets spiralling into madness. The average price of a home has skyrocketed past $1 million, a figure that flies in the face of hardworking families and young people. Owning a home, once a mainstay of the Australian dream, is now a cruel mirage, receding further with every government failure. Labor's response? A master class in incompetence, a parade of excuses and a betrayal of the very people they claim to represent.

When they were pressed for answers on their so-called strategy to tackle this crisis, what did we get? No transparency, no accountability, but a smokescreen of excuses. We're getting no answers on the Housing Australia Future Fund, a supposed lifeline for affordable housing. Millions of dollars are being funnelled into this black hole, with billions more to spend. The result so far is 17 houses. That's it. When Australians demand transparency, when they ask where these availability payments are going, Labor slams the door shut. They have the audacity to claim that disclosing this information would be contrary to the public interest. Let's take that to the public, shall we? Let's ask the young couples scraping by in overpriced rentals, the single parents priced out of the market or the workers commuting for hours because they can't afford to live near their jobs. Ask them if they want to know where their tax dollars are going.

How about the people that the HAFF doesn't cover? The HAFF guarantees returns for developers of affordable housing, but guaranteed returns mean that these developers can afford to drag tradies out of the private housing market, inflating the price of building homes and extending build times for young families who are working themselves to death just to get a toe on the ladder. Don't you think it's in their interest to see how and where these HAFF houses are being built? The public interest is crystal clear—Australians deserve to know their government is failing them. Whatever happened to the government of transparency that Labor promised? Where is the openness, the accountability and the commitment to truth?

Just this week the government introduced a bill, the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025, to further shut down the public's access to freedom-of-information requests. This is the same government that is granting only 25 per cent of freedom-of-information requests in full, down from 59 per cent in 2012. The government of transparency is shutting out Australia. This government hides behind vague platitudes while the housing crisis deepens, leaving Australians to bear the cost of this government's own cowardice and incompetence.

Then there's the unbelievable revelation that Labor is in deep talks with India's commerce and industry minister to build one million homes in Australia, a project worth $500 billion. Half a trillion dollars—it sounds ambitious, doesn't it? But, when you peel back the layers, you see it for what it is: an outsourced $500 billion project funded by the UAE that would train foreign tradespeople up to Australian standards while Australian tradies, builders and labourers are left on the sidelines. This isn't a housing plan; it's an economic surrender, a slap in the face to every Australian worker struggling to make ends meet.

To make matters worse, India is right now rubbing shoulders with some of the world's most antagonistic regimes. They're currently in talks with Russia, China, Iran and North Korea to explore economic cooperation. Who's tagging along? None other than Labor's own Dan Andrews and Bob Carr, gleefully attending the party. This is the company Labor keeps—governments that clash with Australia's values and interests. Meanwhile, Mr Albanese can't even secure a meeting with Donald Trump, the leader of one of our closest and oldest allies. The United States, a partner we've relied on for decades, has lost faith in this government's leadership, and who can blame them? When Labor prioritises doing photo-ops with adversarial nations over strengthening ties with our allies, it's no wonder our international standing is crumbling.

This housing crisis isn't just a policy failure; it's a moral one. If the HAFF is producing the housing that Labor would have us believe it is, show us the proof. But Labor continues to hide. They hide behind excuses and dodge accountability—if only Labor were as transparent as the Prime Minister's glass jaw.

Question agreed to.

In respect of Minister Ayres's explanation relating to the order for the production of documents concerning Climate Change Authority advice of potential 2035 national greenhouse emissions targets, I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

There are two things that will harm the economy. The first is high energy prices, and the second is hubris from the government. What we had this afternoon is a classic example of hubris.

What the coalition is seeking is information—documents that are available and that we know are in the possession of the government—with regard to advice the government is receiving about the 2035 national greenhouse emissions target, which we know, because Senator Ayres revealed it, will be announced in September. My colleague Senator Bragg is in a very, very privileged position. He gets documents from the government, even if they are heavily redacted. I don't even get documents from the government. The order for the production of documents is one of the most significant powers available to the Senate. It is a power that is derived from the Constitution of our country itself, and that power says there are no documents that cannot be ordered by this Senate. And what does it take for a set of documents to be ordered by the Senate? It takes 39 senators to agree to the release of those documents. I thank the 39 senators who agreed to the release of those documents, and, over here, called 'government senators', are the people who opposed the release of these documents.

Senator Ayres, in his explanation, says that the government claims cabinet confidentiality over these documents. That is a claim they have made for the first time this afternoon. They didn't make that claim in any of their previous defences about why these documents should not be released. Hubris is the key character that is now taking shape in this government. The release of these documents goes to the core of whether or not Australian families and households can deal with rising energy costs.

It's been a bad week—a bad month—for the Albanese government when it comes to its emissions targets. Just this month, we had a report from the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner that confirmed that regional Australia is shouldering the burden of large-scale renewable projects, transmission lines and storage developments while Labor fails to provide a framework to deliver affordable, reliable energy to Australia's households and businesses.

More than that, this month we've also seen a report from the Australian Energy Regulator which shows that the wholesale 30-minute energy price exceeded $5,000 per megawatt hour on 66 occasions in just three months—66 occasions, which compares with just 11 times in the previous quarter and just 19 times in the same period last year. Added to that, we saw another report from the Australian Energy Regulator this month that highlighted the lack of adequacy of AEMO's explanations of key inputs and assumptions used to inform the content of what is known as the Inputs, assumptions and scenarios report, which is a key input—a key ingredient—when it comes to modelling and doing the cost-benefit analysis on what we call the integrated system plan, which goes to the core of whether or not energy prices in our country are affordable or unaffordable, whether it goes to the core of the issue about whether energy is reliable or unreliable.

This month, we'll find out exactly what the government's 2035 national greenhouse gas emissions target will be, but they will have turned their back on a fundamental issue, which is transparency in their decision-making about energy policy.

Sadly, once again, the government is refusing to disclose even the most basic of materials to the Senate. This is a very simple and straightforward request to provide documentation within a fairly narrow timeframe that relates to the 2035 climate targets. Labor is due to announce Australia's 2035 climate targets this month, but it is hiding the true impacts of climate change from the public by hiding the National climate risk assessment report, and they're now hiding documents that would show whether or not the Climate Change Authority and the minister are working together.

The Greens and Labor worked together to create the Climate Change Authority to be an independent climate adviser to government. The documents that this OPD and attendants are seeking to reveal could ascertain whether or not the climate minister is trying to direct or corral the Climate Change Authority, which would be a breach of its statutory functions. But once again the government has claimed public interest immunity, and it's difficult to escape the conclusion that the government is so full of hubris that it feels like they are a walking claim of public interest immunity from parliamentary oversight. It seems that the only people whose views this re-elected government cares about are coal and gas companies. What we need is a science based 2035 climate target to keep us all safe, to keep our communities safe and to keep nature protected. A low target, a target that is not based on science, will simply favour coal and gas profits—those same folks that donate to the government's re-election coffers.

It's pretty clear that this Labor government wants to roll out the red carpet to the fossil fuel industry, whether it is approving Woodside's mega gas plant within 16 days of taking office or failing to hold Santos to account for leaking toxic methane for 19 years, which three federal agencies knew about but nobody did anything to stop—and they kept giving them fresh approvals. But that's not all. Overnight, they've approved yet another thermal coalmine by a multinational tax avoider, Glencore. This is clearly not a government that takes the climate crisis seriously, and they are definitely not a government that takes parliamentary oversight seriously. If the government were serious about action on climate and the environment, it would stop approving coal and gas projects and, to boot, it would end the free public money—those fossil fuel subsidies—provided to those dirty, polluting, tax-dodging industries that are cooking the planet for all of us.

The stakes are very high. Ordinary Australians are already feeling the impacts of the climate crisis: algal blooms, insurance premiums going through the roof, bleached reefs in Ningaloo and the Great Barrier Reef. And all of that is just the beginning; it will only get worse from here if the government keeps on approving coal and gas projects and sets a low 2035 target. What with Woodside, what with turning a blind eye to Santos's gas leak and what with approving a thermal coalmine for multinational company Glencore overnight, it's pretty hard to escape the conclusion that Labor is addicted to coal and gas. It's sitting like a dark cloud on the parliament's climate ambition.

Approving coal or gas in this day and age is a climate crime, and yet, for Labor, propping up the coal and gas export industry seems to be business as usual. But you've got to stop gaslighting the public. Opening new coal and gas is the opposite of the climate action that people voted for at the most recent election and at the one before. Opening these new coal and gas projects simply locks Australia into providing the world with yet more coal and gas for decades to come and puts threatened wildlife, like our precious koala, further at risk. This is an extremely concerning trend. We are in the throes of the weeks and days before the 2035 climate target will be announced by this government, and we are seeing this government sneak through approvals for thermal coalmines, extending them out to 2045, extending Woodside's gas out to 2070 and refusing to release a report that warns about the massive damage from coal and gas. And now they're trying to hide the receipts about whether or not they have been pressuring the climate authority to lower the potential ambition for our climate targets. Stop letting coal and gas run this place and start letting science, nature and the public interest do that. (Time expired)

I rise to take note of Minister Ayres's comment. One of the most fundamental parts of a senator 's job is to review and scrutinise the government. That's why I support almost every single order for the production of documents, regardless of who moves it. Most importantly, scrutinising the government means scrutinising how the government is spending money—and, by the way, scrutinising the impacts of government policy on the national economy and on individual Australians is part of scrutiny of government.

To build back on the first point, scrutinising how the government is spending our money: the government forgets that what it spends isn't the government's money; it's taxpayer money. Minister Walsh recently couldn't utter the word 'taxpayers'. I asked her what government money was. She said it is about revenues and that the policy was fully costed. She twisted and turned and gave me several other answers, but she could not utter the words 'taxpayers' money'. There is no such thing as government money. It is all taxpayer money. As taxpayers, we all pay taxpayer money. It is Australians' money.

Last week I spoke in the Senate about Minister Bowen taking subsidies, completely away from parliamentary scrutiny. It was a cosy little deal worth billions of dollars. I mentioned a potential deal with a fund taken over by Julia Gillard, the former Labor prime minister. I made no imputations. I'm just saying we need to have a look at that data. The government is hiding, hiding, hiding and stopping scrutiny, stopping us from doing our jobs, which is a theme for this government. Too often the government is willing to waste hard-earned tax dollars. The minister has just been hauled in front of the Senate to explain because the government refused to answer where they're spending taxpayer money. This is the second—we've just had discussions about Housing Australia—and the government has refused again. This secretive Labor government refuses to tell Australians where it's spending its taxpayer money. Why the secrecy? Why the hiding? It's not your money. It's the Australians' money. It's because you don't want Australians to know that you don't treat taxpayer money with respect.

Now we come to the second motion that Labor is trying to keep secret, on climate targets. There's a backstory here that shows how incoherent the Liberals and the Nationals are. The motion is from the Liberal-National coalition asking the government to hand over documents in relation to the Climate Change Authority and their targets. Australians hear all the time that the Liberals and the Nationals want to ditch net zero, yet here's a motion that the Liberal-National coalition pursues that's criticising the government for not putting out information on net zero targets. This is insane. It's almost as insane as the net zero pipedream.

While the Liberals and the Nationals spin their wheels and try to figure out which way the wind is blowing, One Nation is clear. On this motion, One Nation says to the government, we're not bothered about you handing over your net zero targets. We say, don't bother pursuing net zero at all. All of these billions of dollars amounting to trillions of dollars and efforts to keep things secret are a waste of time and money. Every minute you spend making climate targets, bogging businesses down in green and blue tape and hamstringing our productive capacity harms the country. Give it up, government, and start putting Australians first.

Remember that the Liberals and the Nationals introduced every major climate and energy policy, including net zero. You did it. That Liberal prime minister Scott Morrison introduced net zero after breaking his election promise to not pursue net zero. What about the government spending trillions on net zero without a detailed project plan—no milestones, no measures of progress, just leading Australia towards an economic cliff blindfolded. Worse, net zero is taking Australia to energy ruin without any policy basis. The CSIRO have never specified—and I've asked them repeatedly in personal sessions and in Senate estimates—the specific, quantified effect of human carbon dioxide on the climate. Without that, you can't have a policy. Thus there's no basis for policy cutting human carbon dioxide. That's why there's no way of measuring the progress of implementing climate and energy policies. That's why you've got to keep it secret. That's why you've got to hide it. I'll continue my remarks on this topic in the future.

Question agreed to.

FARRELL (—) (): The government continues to reiterate its view that it cannot agree with the assertions made in this motion. We do, however, acknowledge the interest in the chamber in continuing to address the harms caused by gambling.

The Albanese government has undertaken the most significant gambling harm reduction measures in the past decade. Already we have banned the use of credit cards for online wagering, launched BetStop, which is the national self-exclusion register, forced online wagering companies to send their customers monthly activity statements outlining wins and losses, provided direct funding for specialist financial counselling to support people affected by problem gambling, introduced new minimum classifications for video games with gambling-like content, introduced new evidence based taglines in waging advertising, introduced nationally consistent staff training and established mandatory customer ID verification for online wagering.

In relation to the order being discussed, the government has previously outlined that we have claimed public interest immunity over the requested documents. Disclosure would contain commercially sensitive information and prejudice the government's ongoing ability to obtain relevant commercial information from stakeholders to inform the government's consideration of policy.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

I thank Minister Farrell for that explanation. This is isn't even about the documents any more. The government won't even provide a list of the documents that they are withholding. The list of the documents is apparently subject to a public interest immunity claim. So it's no surprise that this is the government that is the second-most secretive in the last 30 years. You would have thought that the numbers would be crunched and they'd see that and go, 'That's probably not where we as a government want to be.' But, no—they are continuing this trend. I don't know what number attendance this is in the first few weeks of the new parliament.

If the minister is claiming PII on the list, she needs to outline the harm to the public that would be caused by simply telling Australians what documents they are withholding. We're not even asking to see the documents at this stage. We want the list of documents. Look at these fully redacted pages. What on earth is this? What are these documents? How can the Senate make a decision whether or not to accept a public interest immunity claim if we don't even know what the documents are?

I will also remind the minister that to make a claim around commercial sensitivity, and I'll quote Odgers':

A resolution of 30 October 2003 declared that the Senate and its committees would not entertain claims of commercial confidentiality unless made by a minister and accompanied by a ministerial statement of the basis of the claim, including a statement of the commercial harm which might result from the disclosure of the information.

The Senate has received no such statement. So I say to Minister Wells: you can't just send this sort of thing back to the Senate, with no explanation and no details of what documents you are withholding. It does not cut it.

I wasn't here when the now Labor government were in opposition. If you do a bit of a search, they were scathing about this sort of behaviour then. I will quote Senator McAllister on transparency. She said:

This is a government that is allergic to transparency. It's a government that won't respond properly to questions in this chamber. It's a government that won't respond properly to freedom-of-information requests. It's a government that drags its heels on providing documents when they are ordered to be produced in this chamber.

Again, I'll remind the Senate that, when you actually crunch the numbers on the last parliament, the Albanese government was more secretive than the Morrison government. The Albanese government claimed PII more than the Morrison government did.

How about this one from Senator Chisholm in relation to an independent assessment from Sport Australia that the former government wouldn't provide? He said:

They're completely disregarding the will of the Senate over multiple orders for the production of documents and other things that would assist us in getting to the bottom of this. The government are treating that with contempt by providing redacted copies and not enabling us to identify who those community groups and who those people were who put in so much effort to be rejected by this government. We will continue to put the blowtorch on them, because the Australian people deserve better.

I tell you what the Australian people also deserve to know: what the minister's talking points were for a public event. How can you claim that that should be redacted? You're the minister representing Australians at a public event and somehow your talking points are redacted. This secrecy has to end.

More and more Australians are starting to realise what's happening, how we have seen such a turnaround in the tune of the Albanese government from opposition to government. We know what they did in the last term, and they're continuing that in this term of government, and I think more and more people are going to be very disappointed. Yes, you have a whopping majority in the House, but you do not have a majority in the Senate. I urge senators—and I thank them—to continue to push the government on transparency, to push the government to actually comply with orders of the Senate so that we can continue to do our work as senators representing our respective states and territories.

I rise in support of Senator Pocock. I wonder how they get printers that don't run out of toner when they print those pages that are covered with black ink, because that's what happens—

Ho, ho, ho!

It's some of my best material, Senator Gallagher. You get these documents back from the government, and they're just covered in black ink—redacted.

I'll take that interjection. What happened under the previous government—and I want to quote to you. This isn't pollie speak. This isn't from a politician. This is from the Centre for Public Integrity. This is what they say in relation to the performance of the existing Albanese government in relation to transparency. This is an NGO established by public interest experts, experts interested in transparency, advocates for transparency in government. This is from their media release of 24 July 2025:

The Albanese government is less transparent than its predecessor, according to analysis by the Centre for Public Integrity—

That's what they say. It continues:

Catherine Williams, Research Director at the Centre, stated Labor's actions suggest a "deliberate effort—

Sorry, Senator Gallagher; Catherine Williams, the researcher at the centre, didn't say, 'Look at the volumes.' She said it suggests a 'deliberate effort to avoid scrutiny'.

You may well disagree with it, Senator Gallagher. But the fact of the matter is that the Centre for Public Integrity is an outstanding NGO, one of whose purposes is public integrity in office, including transparency—and that's what they're saying.

The second point I want to make quickly, because I know colleagues wish to speak to this—I listened carefully to the minister's statement, and Senator Pocock is right. There was no validation, no justification with respect to the commercial-in-confidence claim. In fact, we heard a previous statement that was provided by Senator Ayres that at least provided some sort of justification for the commercial-in-confidence nature. So, at the very least, the minister should come back with an addendum or a further statement to explain why the information is commercial in confidence.

Well, another day, another attempt by this government to keep the public in the dark and keep their policies, their policy deliberations and their thoughts secret. This is just an appalling abuse of the cabinet-in-confidence process. Let's remember that this is a government who promised to implement reforms to gambling advertising, because we know, and the government have accepted themselves and the parliament across the board understands, that the advertising of a harmful product like gambling is dangerous and needs proper regulation. The government promised to move on this. They promised to move on this years ago. They promised to do something about this in the last term. Then, of course, someone—I don't know if it came from the Prime Minister or some of the government's sports mates or Peter V'landys or the former communications minister—made the decision that, rather than delivering on the promise to save Australian lives, to stop this harm that is being done to Australian families, they would bury any evidence that they were even thinking about it.

Senator Pocock's request is a reasonable one, asking for a list of documents, asking for some speaking notes, asking for the government to be upfront with the Australian people and this parliament about what is going on in relation to gambling advertising reform. We have every right to ask these questions. The government made a promise that they have broken, and now we have no idea what is going to happen. This could all be dealt with if the government just did what they said they would do. This chamber stands ready to pass gambling reform to ban advertising that is destroying families and making our kids addicted. We could do this tomorrow if we wanted to—if the government wanted to. But the government seem to have a pattern of behaviour: every time there is a topic or an issue that has become uncomfortable for them, that they don't really want to be upfront about, that donors aren't happy about or lobbyists aren't happy about—someone has gotten in the Prime Minister's ear—every time there is an issue that has become awkward for the government, they shut the doors, turn the lights off and hide all the documents under the couch. It's not good enough.

Remember when the Albanese government came to power and poked fun at the secret ministries of the Morrison days? They promised to be better when it came to transparency and government accountability, and yet it seems every single day the government are finding more and more excuses, weak excuses, to keep information out of public view and out of the hands of the Australian parliament.

We have a Westminster system in this country, and it serves us pretty well, but one of the main roles of this chamber is to hold government to account so that we don't have a prime minister drunk with power, so we don't have corruption, so we don't have communities promised one thing and delivered something else—or not delivered anything at all.

Gambling is destroying the lives of Australian families. We need to stop allowing the gambling companies to advertise this insidious, dangerous product. We need to ban it now. The government could do it. They could work with us to get it done.

Question agreed to.

I move:

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

In particular, I would like to address the issue of the report that appeared earlier today in the Australian that reported the government is in the process of considering assisting the repatriation of so-called ISIS brides. I listened very carefully to the answers from Senator Wong, representing the Prime Minister, on this issue, and they raised considerable questions in my mind as to whether or not something has already occurred in terms of the government facilitating the return of the so-called ISIS brides.

I want to quote from the article that appeared in the Australian today. It said:

Senior federal government officials are assisting the operation quietly in the background and intend to work with families of those in the camps and not-for-profit organisations to issue travel documents and obtain approvals from Kurdish-led authorities and neighbouring countries.

That quote is quite definitive in the sense of saying that there is something occurring in the background with respect to that cohort of Australian citizens who left Australia and went over to affiliate, to join with ISIS. I'm going to make a few remarks about ISIS in a moment.

The quote raises material questions in relation to whether something is occurring. And I noted, in my question, that the home affairs minister, or the spokesperson for the home affairs minister, said that the government is not providing assistance to this cohort. I also note that, as I understand it, the Prime Minister, in question time in the other place, said the report was not accurate. But I specifically asked Senator Wong whether any assistance, support or taxpayer funds had been used to assist the repatriation of the ISIS brides remaining in Syria, Iraq—the area with the control of Kurdish led authorities—since the last cohort came to Australia in October, I think it was, but certainly in 2022. The senator had to take that on notice, which begs the question, in my mind, as to whether something has actually occurred up to this point in time.

I think the Australian people have a right to know, because what we're talking about here is ISIS. And let me quote from the United Nations Human Rights Council document of 15 June 2016 in relation to ISIS:

ISIS has sought to erase the Yazidis through killings; sexual slavery, enslavement, torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and forcible transfer causing serious bodily and mental harm; the infliction of conditions of life that bring about a slow death …

And it goes on. So, we're talking about one of the most evil organisations that has ever been on the face of the earth, and we're talking about a cohort of people who left the safety of Australia, as Australian citizens, to join what was essentially a death cult. So, any proposal for people to come back to Australia, having wilfully abandoned Australia to go and join ISIS, is a question that needs to be raised in this place. I'll be very interested to hear what further information can be provided by Senator Wong in relation to what has happened between October 2022, when the last cohort arrived in Australia, and today's date.

Bear in mind that Australia has provided refuge to some of those Yazidis who came to Australia fleeing that sexual slavery, fleeing that trauma. We actually provided refuge to that wonderful community, many of whom are still dealing with the trauma they suffered and have lost loved ones. Some of them don't even know where their loved ones are. So, it would be despicable for people—adults—who knowingly left Australia, went overseas to join ISIS, to be provided with an opportunity to come back to Australia. I think we really need to know the answers in relation to this important question.

I'm going to address my remarks today to the question asked by Senator Ruston and the answers from Minister McAllister in relation to the aged-care debate and the delivery of home-care packages and the changes that are being brought it on 1 November 2025. But before we start with the government's reforms we need to go back to what we're dealing with here, which is one of the more complicated and difficult challenges that the Australian public are going to have to deal with in the coming decades. Our aged-care system is complex, and our population is ageing, and this makes for a real challenge.

We also know this is a government that's 100 per cent committed to ensuring the level of care delivered is up to standard, and we know it wasn't up to standard because of the royal commission into aged care. The interim report of that royal commission, in 2019, was titled Neglect; that was the aged-care system the Liberal government presided over and that is the aged-care system that now requires deep renovation and change, and the Albanese government is tackling that change. The final report of that royal commission was entitled Care, dignity and respect, and that is the approach this government is taking to this issue. The second thing we know is this is going to present a fiscal challenge over the long term to Australians in the context of an ageing population. The third thing we know is that the complexity of the system, the failure to plan long term and the ageing nature of the infrastructure mean there are going to be delivery challenges.

But what we saw from the opposition today here and in the other place was a political two-step—an attempt to disguise their failures by notionally supporting reforms and then to try and take little political points here and little political points in the other place to take attention away from the fact that theirs was a government that shirked the issue. Those little political games show that it's still an opposition that doesn't understand the significance of the challenge, and Minister McAllister's answers today showed that this is a government that not only understands the significance of the challenge but also understands how important it is to be rigorous in the way it approaches it. These are reforms that we need to get right and that need to stand for a long time.

While the opposition can't help but take political points, we are getting on with the business of trying to fix the aged-care system. What does that look like? It looks like whole-of-system reform. It involves resourcing aged-care providers properly. It involves providing them certainty of funding. Those two things are essential to ensure that they can plan and operate to the standards we expect in terms of the care of elderly Australians.

What is this government also committed to? It's committed to supporting the aged-care workforce. That includes delivering an additional $17.7 billion in wage increases promised by the Fair Work Commission. That supports carers, nurses and allied healthcare professionals. That's because the government understands that, when you have a stronger workforce, a workforce that is paid properly and is treated with dignity and respect, those changes flow through to the system overall and ensure that elderly Australians are paid better.

In terms of the packages that are being delivered, this government has fast-tracked 20,000 packages in the next eight weeks, and, when the new system comes in on 1 November, has guaranteed to deliver 63,000 packages to 30 June 2026. That's the underlying promise. In terms of the way that will be delivered, it will be delivered under the new reforms for a single assessment process. The current system requires multiple assessments by different providers and separate assessments as aged-care needs change. A single assessment process that is simpler to access, provides the right care levels and allows those care levels to change as needs change over time is not only going to be faster and drive down wait times but going to be more efficient. That's the other thing that's very important here because of the fiscal pressures many of these changes are going to put on our system.

What do we see overall? We see a government that is grasping the nettle and an opposition that shirked the issue for 10 years while they were in government and now tries to take little political points while supporting the overall reform. If we had a mature opposition they would be more constructive, but they can't help themselves. Instead we have the Albanese government forging a path with others in this place to try and reform the healthcare system and ensure that it serves older Australians in the long-term and provides them with the necessary care.

I also rise to take note of all answers to all coalition questions today. It's very interesting to listen to those opposite talk about political pointscoring and an opposition that is more interested in playing political games. I would say that, on this side of the chamber, all we are focused on is elderly Australians. They deserve this government to fulfil the election promise it made of home-care packages being released. And I think it's important to say that, again, under this Labor government, nearly 90,000 older Australians are currently waiting on the national priority system for a home-care place that they have been assessed as needing. There are another 121,000 older Australians waiting to be assessed for a home-care place. That's more than 200,000 older Australians waiting for access to home-care support under Labor.

It's also important to note that Labor have released zero new home-care places this financial year, and they only released 41,215 home-care places over their entire first term in government. There was the announcement today, after two days of sustained questioning in parliament, that the coalition has forced the Albanese Labor government to release thousands of home-care packages to older Australians who have been left to wait far too long. For some of these Australians, they have been waiting longer than 15 months. In fact, it is heartbreaking to say that, tragically, 5,000 older Australians have died in the past year while waiting for care. So after our Senate committee inquiry last week, where the sector confirmed that it had capacity to provide the services associated with the care packages, today Labor have recanted and have finally agreed to release 20,000 home-care packages immediately.

This is a small dent in the list of some 200,000 Australians that are waiting for their care packages, but it is a good start. And it is a start that we've got to by the crossbench working with the coalition to push Labor to do the right thing here for older Australians. Labor promised 83,000 new packages from 1 July 2025. That was the promise that they took to the Australian people, and they claimed all sorts of excuses—that the sector wasn't quite ready and all sorts of different reasons why it couldn't happen. The priority waitlist has blown out, with a more than 400 per cent increase in just the last two years, while wait times for care packages have tripled under this government. So today, when the coalition supported the amendments to the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 for the immediate release of 20,000 home-care packages, the government voted against it here. Let that sink in for those older Australians that this government claims to care about. They weren't even going to fulfil their election promise for the 83,000 packages.

We welcome that the government has announced today that it will release a further 20,000 home-care packages by the end of the year and a further 43,000 by the end of the financial year. This takes them to the full 83,000 packages originally promised to be released from 1 July. The coalition was proud to stand up today for older Australians across the country who this Albanese Labor government has abandoned. This situation should never have happened. The money was in the budget, and the capacity was there; it was only this Labor government that stood in the way. This is a black mark on the government as they were withholding support from hundreds of thousands of older Australians who desperately needed it. And, as I mentioned, 5,000 older Australians have died waiting for the support that they had been assessed as needing. This is a crisis of the government's own making. We are proud to have forced the government into providing the additional 83,000 packages for this financial year. (Time expired)

I rise to take note of answers to questions from the opposition and I'll start with the answers to questions from Senator Ruston on aged care. What we saw in question time today, in terms of aged care, could only be described as a little bit of a rewriting of history in this place by the opposition. What we know is that the opposition had a decade in government to do something about aged care and home-care packages, and what we saw under that government was hundreds of thousands of older Australians waiting—some dying—on a waiting list to get a home-care package delivered. Those opposite turned their backs on older Australians. The Liberals and the National Party had nine budgets to do something about aged care and home-care packages, and they did nothing. They took no action on the royal commission's initial report in 2019 and no action on the royal commission's report in 2021. It took a Labor government to get elected in 2022 to deliver real outcomes and real actions for the sector. So for Senator Ruston and the opposition to come into this place new converts to the need to take action on aged care having ignored the issue while they were in government is a bit cheeky, isn't it?

I'll now turn to home-care packages. Cheekiness aside, the government has been pleased to get on with the job of reforming aged care. It's what Australians expect of us, it's what Australians voted for and it's exactly what they will get—a government that will work, not whinge. We are pleased that this government has been able to reach agreement to ensure that the aged-care bill can pass the Senate. This bill is vital to delivering the new Aged Care Act and the Support at Home program. The new program will allow older Australians to live at home for longer with support. We know that's exactly what they want to do. I'm pleased that the government will fast-track 20,000 home-care packages over the next eight weeks for older Australians, and a further 63,000 packages will be allocated from 1 November. I'm pleased that we could achieve this with bipartisan support so these packages can flow to older Australians. It will deliver better support for older Australians to receive the care that they need to live a full and enjoyable life for longer at home, which is what we know they want.

Now I'll go to the energy transition raised by my good comrade from Queensland Senator Canavan. I'm always impressed by his ability to come into this place and maintain the rage against the energy transition. We saw Senator Canavan and his colleagues at the LNP convention in Queensland recently falling over themselves to vote against their party's own commitment on net zero and, in turn, they undermined the Leader of the Opposition and her position on net zero. But from what we heard from reports on the Midwinter Ball I don't think there's a whole lot of love lost in that relationship at the moment. What we heard from the Leader of the Opposition is that dealing with the National Party is a lot like dealing with fundamentalists.

Senator Scarr?

Acting Deputy President, I understand that there's a protocol not to disclose confidentiality with respect to jokes at the Midwinter Ball.

There's no point of order.

They were reported in the news.

Senator Mulholland, please continue.

I will. I will take that interjection. It was reported in the newspapers, so maybe take it up with the journalists.

What they have done now on net zero is break through to a new realm. Last time it was Senator Canavan in this place quoting the Australian Workers Union. Today, he was in here invoking former Greens leader Bob Brown. They have gone so far off the reservation that they are over in the same paddock as the Greens. We are in a post-truth world. I know this. But it's getting a bit weird now. It's getting a little bit weird. It's always very interesting to hear those contributions from my good Queensland colleague Senator Canavan.

I always love to touch on just exactly what we have been delivering here, which is 18 gigawatts of renewables, wind and solar, to the grid, 45 per cent additional capacity for wind and solar— (Time expired)

The motion that was moved by my good friend Senator Scarr was to take note of all the answers to coalition questions, and the first answer on which I wish to address some comments to the chamber was in relation to aged care; it was the question asked by Senator Ruston and responded to by Senator McAllister. Senator McAllister made mention that she enjoyed—I'm fairly sure the verb was 'enjoy', but she acknowledged, at least—the bipartisan approach to the aged-care legislation that has entered this chamber and been debated today. Can I also congratulate her on the excellent way she has led and navigated the passage of the bill.

I'm taking a slightly different approach to take note—raising the standard!

It reminds me, I was thinking, of one of my favourite poems, and Robert Frost is often quoted: 'The afternoon knows what the morning never suspected.' As to aged care, I always think that any society is judged by the way it looks after its elderly and those that are disabled. We have enormous challenges, with an ageing population, to ensure that they are looked after in the manner that they should be, and it is an excellent focus—that we are now funding as many people as we can to stay in their homes. For one, it releases the pressure on aged-care facilities, but also it allows them—if you ask any person who is elderly, the vast majority will say that they wish—to live their remaining years at home.

As a result of this political process, or the journey of the bill through the Senate, what we have achieved is: 83,000 home-care places have been delivered, which we'd been promised, including 40,000 of these places before the end of the year and 20,000 right now. So I also extend congratulations on her efforts and accomplishments to Senator Anne Ruston, my fellow senator from South Australia, who has prosecuted this bill and the sector unrelentingly.

I would like to address some comments to my other good friend Senator Richard Colbeck. I know that he came under intense scrutiny as a minister of the Morrison government, but he did set up the structures post the royal commission upon which the current government is building. His efforts in this sector should be acknowledged, and his legacy will be looked upon favourably as the years progress. He enhanced safety and accountability through initiatives. He had workforce initiatives. He grew the funding and the layers of accountability of the sector. And one of the happy consequences of that is that the current government can build upon those achievements.

In the remaining time available to me, I will turn my comments to the question from Senator Canavan to Senator Ayres. Now, I am one of those senators who are not fearful of targets; I also believe in the rollout of renewables, as long as they have social licence. I'd reflect on the exchange that occurred in the chamber between the questioner and the minister answering by saying that a new form of industrialisation is not going to be easy. There are going to be many trade-offs. But we can't live in denial that we have to seek out a renewable future, and it's going to involve a different set of policy settings, but also great understanding of the impact on communities.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to a question without notice I asked today relating to the Middle East.

In August alone, 185 people in Gaza starved to death. Trucks piled high with food and life-saving aid are parked mere kilometres away. Babies are withering away from Israel's man-made starvation. This is cruelty in its extreme form. It is Israel's deliberate and calculated plan to destroy Gaza and kill Palestinians.

Earlier this week, the International Association of Genocide Scholars confirmed that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. The head of the IAGS said:

This is a definitive statement from experts in the field of genocide studies that what is going on on the ground in Gaza is genocide. ...

There is no justification for the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide, not even self defence.

Countless human rights organisations have declared that Israel is committing genocide, yet neither the Prime Minister nor any of his ministers can even bring themselves to utter the G-word. Just say it—it's genocide. There! It's that easy.

Former human rights commissioner Chris Sidoti said yesterday:

What is the alternative to a functioning international legal system? The only alternative is that might is right. The law of the jungle.

The Genocide Convention requires signatories to take action when genocide is occurring and to prevent genocide from occurring, but, when I asked Minister Wong about actions the Labor government has taken to stop Israel's genocide, all I got was indignation and obfuscation. Labor is not upholding international law. You are letting tyranny prevail.

Israel has made their plan to take over the West Bank clear for all to see. They have not shied away from their plan to, in the words of Israel's own deputy speaker, 'wipe Gaza off the map of the earth'. This is genocide. This is ethnic cleansing. Yet it's still all words and useless speeches from the Labor government. There have been no sanctions, there is no arms embargo, and they keep attacking those who expose their inaction and hold them to account. Let me be very, very clear: no matter how much those in here attack me with their blatant and vitriolic lies, you are not going to stop me. Your smears will never, never stop me from showing up and speaking out for justice for Palestine, and they will not stop the hundreds of thousands of people who march every week on the streets of this country demanding action and demanding justice. You will not stop us.

I also rise to take note of Senator Wong's response to Senator Faruqi's question today. We know there is a genocide underway in Gaza. The International Association of Genocide Scholars—more than 300 of the top experts in this field—have now made that judgement. The International Court of Justice has found that what Israel is doing in Gaza has the characteristics of a genocide.

It is time for both major parties in this place to stop running cover for what Israel is doing, to cease their complicity in what Israel is doing. Call it out for what it is: it's a genocide and it is an ethnic cleansing. The euphemisms are despicable—conflict, hostilities, tragedies. Call it for what it is. People are being slaughtered in their droves. Starvation is being used as a weapon of war. War crimes are being committed on a daily basis. This is a genocide. This is an ethnic cleansing. It is time that everyone in this place called it for what it is, and it is beyond time for the Labor government to do the right thing.

Call it a genocide. End the two-way arms trade with Israel. Stop supplying weapons to Israel that are being used in the genocide. Stop supplying cover for the deliberate starvation and the slaughter of countless Palestinian people. Sanction Netanyahu and his war cabinet of war criminals. The hand-wringing is not enough. The platitudes are not enough. It is time for action, and it is time for what is happening in Gaza to be called what it is by the Australian government, and that is a genocide.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

To move—That—

(a) following the consideration of the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 and related bill or at 7.15 pm, whichever is later, business be interrupted to allow a minister to move a motion relating to the routine of business for Thursday, 4 September 2025;

(b) consideration of the motion have precedence over all other business till determined;

(c) divisions may take place after 6.30 pm until consideration of the motion has concluded; and

(d) the question for the adjournment be proposed following the consideration of the motion, or at 7.30 pm, whichever is later

Question agreed to.

I seek leave to move a motion relating the Australian flag, as circulated.

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 moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the Australian flag.

Senator Nampijinpa Price wore the flag in this chamber today, of all days. It is Australian National Flag Day. For 124 years since 1901, that flag has been flying. Yet, on this special day, it was denied by the Greens, who stood up and said that it should not be worn. It is not a prop. The Australian flag flies in our chamber.

Minister Gallagher, on a point of order?

On standing order 194 on relevance. As I understand it, this is a debate on the urgency for suspending standing orders. It's not to debate the substantive point that has been raised by the motion, and I would ask that you remind Senator Hanson of that.

That's correct. Senator Hanson, you sought leave, and leave was not allowed. Minister Gallagher has pointed out that you need to now talk about why you think the suspension is necessary. Further, I remind you of the ruling the Deputy President arrived at today, which I have upheld, which is that no flags are to be worn in the chamber until the matter has been resolved by the procedures committee. So I would ask you to take off the flag.

Senator Hanson, this is a ruling that the Deputy President has made. I upheld that order. I informed the chamber just before question time. I am giving you a direction. I'm asking you to remove the flag in line with the ruling the Deputy President made this morning and the ruling that I am now upholding.

Senator Roberts, it's not a debating point. I'm simply asking Senator Hanson to observe my ruling.

Senator Hanson, you are not normally a senator who doesn't follow directions in this place, and I thank you for following the direction. That direction stands until the procedure committee meets to make a decision. So thank you for following that direction.

I'm standing up and speaking out for the people of this nation.

Senator Hanson, as I reminded you—

Blah, blah, blah.

Senator Hanson-Young, that is very unhelpful. No, you are not in a debate with me. Senator Hanson, I explained to you that you are now speaking to the suspension, so you need to inform the Senate as to why this matter needs to be brought on now.

Senator Hanson, I am the President of the chamber. It is my job to make sure it's orderly and people follow standing orders. You're not in a debate with me. I'm simply trying to make sure that the Senate is orderly and this debate is orderly by drawing you back to the question. I have Senator Scarr on his feet, so, if you would take your seat, I will come back to you when I see Senator Scarr's matter.

In relation to relevance, I note from my observation over the last six years there has certainly been some latitude given in terms of establishing urgency in relation to contributions.

That latitude might have been given by others; it has never been given by me. I have been very clear that suspension motions are to be debated on the issue of why there should be a suspension. Latitude should not be given. The standing orders are very clear.

I just want the people to know what my notice motion is. Today, 3 September, is Australian National Flag Day. The Australian national flag is the enduring symbol of our nation, representing our history, values and unity—never a prop. The Australian national flag holds a special and significant place in our national life, distinct from and above all other flags or symbols, and the Australian national flag is already displayed in the Senate chamber.

Senator Hanson, please resume your seat. Senator Ayres.

I don't want to interrupt Senator Hanson unnecessarily, but my point of order is on relevance. It goes substantially to the same point that Senator Gallagher just made. The point of this debate is around why it is that the other business of the Senate should be interrupted in order for Senator Hanson to be able to make a contribution, and she should address her remarks to that procedural point.

I have made it clear to Senator Hanson that she needs to address why the matter is urgent. The senator, as I understood it, was explaining her motion. I was waiting until she finished that and then got back to explaining, using that motion, why the suspension is urgent.

The motion calls on the Senate to affirm the right of Australian senators to proudly wear the Australian flag in the Senate chamber. And it goes to the whole point of my notice of motion. Today is Australian National Flag Day, when people in this chamber wish to show pride in the nation, and the fact is that we are elected members of this chamber representing the people of this nation, who fly the Australian flag, and therefore I am asking for the right for us to actually wear the Australian flag.

Senator Hanson, I have a senator on a point of order. Could you sit down for a moment.

Senator Hanson seems to be incapable of making the argument about urgency, given that this exact matter which she is asking to be debated has been referred to the Procedure Committee.

That is a debating point. Senator Hanson, I would say, is within the rules around suspensions. The senator is explaining that it's National Flag Day. I will continue to listen carefully and make sure that the rest of her remarks are about the need for an urgent suspension and not about the issue itself.

That's what I was saying. Today is only one day. Very rarely on any occasion does any senator in this place wear the flag, but today, on this special day, it was not only me but also Senator Nampijinpa Price who wore it and had to take it off. This is one day. We don't do this every day. And I think, as Australian senators, when we have the flag that flies on the flagpole here and also in the chamber, the decision that was made to ban it in Senate procedure is not, during the day of National Flag Day—

Senator Hanson, you are straying back to the argument.

A point of order, again under standing order 194, on relevance: the debate should be not on the subject for which Senator Hanson is seeking to suspend standing orders but on the reasons why we should suspend to debate that motion, and I ask you again to bring her back to that.

Senator Scarr.

President, on relevance, I would have thought that actually making the point that today is Australian National Flag Day and that this is the day it occurred goes to the urgency of it. I can't see how it doesn't.

Honourable senators interjecting—

I would urge senators to listen to what I am saying about relevance and not argue across the chamber. I have drawn Senator Hanson back to the point about suspension. I did accept that it was National Flag Day, but then the senator continued to go to the substantive piece of the motion and not the reason for suspension. As I said, to your previous point, Senator Scarr, I don't allow leniency. Suspension debates are suspension debates, and that's how it should be ruled. Senator Hanson, I would again remind you that you need to talk about why this matter is urgent and why it merits a suspension of standing orders.

We've only got a few hours of this special day left, and I'm going to call on the Senate now to actually take a vote. I want this to go to the vote. I want the people of this chamber to prove to the Australian people how they feel about the Australian flag, that they support the Australian flag being worn in the chamber so that, later on today, for the next few hours this parliament is going, we can wear the Australian flag, and not wait for procedures to make a decision. I want to see—

Please resume your seat.

Senator Hanson, I've asked you to resume your seat. Senator McKim?

Yes, again, it's 194, on relevance. This is getting perilously close to wilfully disregarding a series of rulings that you've made. Senator Hanson has now just said that she wants a debate on a substantive motion in a debate that is supposed to be about whether or not standing orders should be suspended. She's clearly outside relevance.

Senator Ayres?

I'll listen carefully to what you say in response to Senator McKim's point of order and if I feel the need to jump up in 33 seconds or so I will.

Senator Hanson, you do need to confine your remarks to the reason for the suspension. You've put your motion. You sought leave to move your motion. Leave was denied. You then used your contingency to argue as to why this matter is so urgent that it needs to take precedence over other business. That's the point you need to make, not the substantive nature of the original motion. Please continue.

As I have said, time and again, because it just annoys people why I'm here explaining that this is Australian National Flag Day, this is where the importance is. We've been shut down here—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Senator Hanson, please resume your seat. Senator Roberts, on a point of order?

Yes, the unruly behaviour of the Greens.

Again, I would urge senators to listen. I called order about three times. So I think we should leave the management of the Senate to me as the President. Senator Hanson, please continue. Senator Hanson has the right to be heard in silence, and if you can't listen in silence please leave the chamber.

It is a symbol of our nation and it is what represents our history. I believe that the Australian flag has its values—

Why did you wait til four o'clock?

It's not a prop. It represents our nation.

Senator Hanson, please resume your seat. Once again you've strayed to the substantive nature of your original motion that you sought leave to move and for which leave was denied. You need to confine your remarks to why a suspension is necessary. Please continue.

A suspension is necessary so that we can discuss what I want to raise about the importance of our flag and the presence that it has in this chamber now. We fly it in this chamber. It has a presence here, and that's why it’s very important—

Senator Hanson, please resume your seat.

President, a point of order on relevance: Senator Hanson has an MPU about the flag, which will be debated shortly—

That is not a point of order.

so if she wishes to make a contribution she could surely do it then rather than make inadequate contributions here.

Senator Waters! When I indicate it's not a point of order, I expect you to resume your seat, not continue talking to me. That's not a point of order. I've made my ruling. End of discussion. Senator Hanson.

I've finished my remarks.

I move:

That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

The question is that the suspension motion, as moved by Senator Hanson, be agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to the following senators:

(a) Senator Paterson for today, 3 September 2025, for personal reasons; and

(b) Senator McDonald, for 3 and 4 September 2025, for parliamentary reasons.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, by no later than 5 pm on Friday, 12 September 2025:

(a) copies of all letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, meeting invitations, meeting notes, emails and text messages between the Attorney-General and/or her office and the Attorney-General's Department in relation to the allocation of funds and the justifications thereof under the National Access to Justice Partnership;

(b) a document listing the funds allocated under the National Access to Justice Partnership by state and territory in the 2025-26 financial year for:

(i) Legal Aid Commissions,

(ii) Community Legal Centres,

(iii) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services,

(iv) Family Violence Prevention and Legal Services, and

(v) Women's Legal Services; and

(c) a document listing the number of organisations that will receive or have received funding under the National Access to Justice Partnership by state and territory in the 2025-26 financial year.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by no later than 5 pm on Friday, 12 September 2025:

(a) copies of all letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, meeting invitations, meeting notes, emails and text messages between the Minister for Climate Change and Energy and/or his office and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation in relation to the allocation of funds under the Rewiring the Nation program to projects in Western Australia;

(b) a document listing the funds appropriated under the Rewiring the Nation program for each state and territory, the proportion of those funds that have been allocated to specific projects, the names of those projects and the amounts allocated to them; and

(c) a document listing the de-identified details of all applications for funding under the Rewiring the Nation program which have yet to be determined, including the date of application, the dollar value of the project and the state/territory of the project.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors, by no later than midday on 4 September 2025, any advice, submissions, emails, briefing notes, file notes, meeting notices, meeting agendas or minutes or other record of interaction, including SMS or other messaging applications, between the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing and the office of the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors regarding the preparation of answers to questions taken on notice by the department at the a hearing of the Senate Community Affairs References Committee on Friday, 29 August 2025.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

That—

(a) the Senate notes that order for the production of documents no. 83, agreed to on 26 August 2025, requiring the Minister for Industry and Innovation to provide, by no later than 9 am on 1 September 2025, any briefing documents and/or submissions provided by the Department of Industry, Science and Resources into the Strategic Examination of Research and Development, was not complied with; and

(b) there be laid on the table by 5 pm on Wednesday, 3 September 2025, any briefing documents and/or submissions provided by the Department of Industry, Science and Resources into the Strategic Examination of Research and Development.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Bragg, I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 154.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, by no later than 5 pm on Friday, 12 September 2025, copies of all letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, meeting invitations, meeting notes, emails and text messages between the Attorney-General and/or her office and the Attorney-General's Department and between the Attorney-General and/or her office and the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner in relation to:

(a) claims that vexatious requests under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 are being generated by artificial intelligence or other non-human actors;

(b) claims that vexatious requests under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 are being made by criminal gangs; and

(c) evidence the Government has to substantiate the claims described in paragraph (b).

Question agreed to.

I move:

That—

(a) the Senate notes that:

(i) order for the production of documents no. 57, relating to the National Climate Risk Assessment and National Adaptation Plan, has not been complied with, and

(ii) the Senate has rejected the public interest immunity claim made by the Government in relation to the order; and

(b) until the Senate resolves that the order has been satisfactorily complied with, the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy be required to attend the Senate at the start of proceedings on the first day of each sitting week to provide an explanation 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.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government will be opposing this motion. I will remind the Senate that it was this government that initiated the process of developing Australia's first-ever comprehensive assessment of the risk posed by climate change across the country and a plan for how we can adapt. The movers of this OPD know that the NCRA is being finalised and will shortly be released, but they are proceeding with political stunts. Continuing orders of the Senate are not a productive use of the Senate's time. The government has committed to the release of the NCRA and NAP in September.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors, by no later than midday on 4 September 2025, the question time brief and/or any other written material relied upon by the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors during question time in the House of Representatives on 1 and 2 September 2025.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Ruston, I move:

That—

(a) there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care, by no later than 10 am on Thursday, 4 September 2025, the number of Australians waiting for a Home Care Package on the National Priority System as at 31 July 2025;

(b) the Senate notes that:

(i) at Budget estimates on 6 June 2024, the First Assistant Secretary provided unverified waitlist data of 31 May 2024, and

(ii) at additional estimates on 26 February 2025, the First Assistant Secretary provided unverified waitlist data of 31 January 2025; and

(c) the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care attend the Senate on Thursday, 4 September 2025, at 11 am, to provide an explanation if this is not complied with.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Shoebridge, I move:

(1) That the Senate notes that:

(a) in accordance with Senate resolution 44, government responses to committee reports are required to be tabled within 3 months of a report being tabled;

(b) the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee tabled its report on the operation of Commonwealth freedom of information laws on 7 December 2023; and

(c) a government response has not been tabled even though it was due by 7 March 2024.

(2) That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney General, by no later than 9 am on 4 September 2025, the outstanding government response to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee report on the operation of Commonwealth freedom of information laws.

Question agreed to.

I move:

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

The development of a fair and independent staffing model for allocating personal staff that reflects the diversity of representation, as elected by the Australian people, and addresses staff wellbeing and sustainability of workload.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government will be opposing this motion. We've been through this before. The Independent Review of Resourcing in Parliamentarian Offices was an independent review, handled independently. The final report of this review was released on 1 August. The government has already agreed in principle to all 10 recommendations and will work with all parliamentarians on our response and reform. I know that the Special Minister of State is, as always, available to engage with those acting in good faith on this issue.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

We welcomed the Senate's support earlier today for my amendment that called on the government to work with all elected groups and individuals in the parliament to develop a fair and independent staffing model for allocating personal staff that reflects the diversity of representation as elected by the Australian people and addresses staff wellbeing and sustainability of workload. The right way to do that is not to send this matter to a Liberal-controlled Senate committee.

Politicians' pay and entitlements aren't decided by a Senate committee, and staffing levels and welfare shouldn't be either. The independent PWSS ran a review of staff resourcing and supports earlier this year, and 500 staff participated in that review. The review made 10 key recommendations, and I'm pleased that the government has committed to implementing those. The Greens will be focused on ensuring that that does in fact occur. I've written to the Special Minister of State asking for a timetable for implementing the Independent Review of Resourcing in Parliamentarian Offices and asking for PWSS to take note of our second reading amendment on staff wellbeing.

I seek leave to make a very short statement.

Honourable senators interjecting—

No, I'm supporting it, but I just want to answer one of the points.

Well, it's not a debating point, Senator Scarr. The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in the name of Senator Payman be agreed to.

I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 82 standing in my name, regarding the final report of the HMAS Darwin Man Overboard Board of Inquiry, due to an undertaking received by the minister to provide a copy of that report within two weeks, and I thank you for your support.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the President of the Senate, by no later than 5 pm on Friday, 12 September 2025, a document listing all current holders of sponsored Australian Parliament House access cards, including the name of the sponsor and the organisation the passholder represents, but not the name of the passholder.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

As a matter of principle, the government does not support orders for the production of documents being directed to the President. Unlike a minister or an agency of executive government, the President represents the whole Senate. In this instance, the document sought would be a matter of joint parliamentary administration shared with the Speaker of the House of Representatives. It is not appropriate for the Senate to order a production of material by the President over which the President does not have unilateral control and it is offensive to the principles of camaraderie between the houses to act in such a way. The matter raised by Senator Payman has been extensively canvassed in recent years, including in an inquiry by the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee, which reported just last year.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 149, standing in the name of Senator Payman, be agreed to.

I move:

1. That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, by no later than 9.30 am on 4 September 2025, the memorandum of understanding signed between the Australian and Nauruan governments, announced by the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Burke) on 29 August 2025.

2. That once received by the Clerk or the President, documents returned and any correspondence responding to the order shall be deemed to have been presented to the Senate and publication of the documents is authorised.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The coalition will not be supporting this motion because we do not want to jeopardise the government's arrangement with Nauru, which has been negotiated in good faith. We note Labor's hypocrisy in opposing this motion, given they teamed up with the Greens in 2017 to vote for the production of a similar agreement between Australia and the United States regarding the resettlement of refugees. This is just another double standard when it comes to Labor and government transparency.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 151 standing in the name of Senator Shoebridge be agreed to.

I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 157 standing in my name for today.

At the request of Senator Smith, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Leader of the Government in Senate (with any necessary assistance from relevant ministers), by no later than midday on Friday, 12 September 2025, a document setting out the disaggregated and itemised expenditure by the Government between 1 January 2025 and 31 August 2025 on:

(a) domestic and international travel expenses;

(b) domestic and international accommodation expenses;

(c) domestic and international hospitality expenses;

(d) internal or contracted advocacy; and

(e) advertising and other marketing expenses;

relating to Australia's bid to host COP31 (the 2026 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of the Parties).

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government does not support this motion moved by Senator Dean Smith. The motion requests information that is better sought through a question on notice not an order for the production of documents. The government respects the right of senators to move motions that order the production of documents; however, we do not consider it suitable for an order of this kind to seek the creation of a document that does not already exist.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 160, standing in the name of Senator Dean Smith and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.

I remind senators that yesterday evening two votes were deferred, as listed at item 16 on today's Order of Business, as well as a vote relating to the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill 2025. I understand it suits the convenience of the Senate to hold those votes now. I will deal first with the motion moved by Senator Hanson concerning the restoration of a bill to the Notice Paper and its reference to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

I will now deal with the deferred vote relating to a proposed reference to the Senate Economics References Committee moved by Senator Roberts. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

I will now deal with the deferred vote on the closure motion moved by Senator Ayres to the question that the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill 2025 proceed without formality. The question is that the question be put.

PRESIDENT (): The question now is that the bill may proceed without formalities.

I move:

That this bill be now read a first time.

The question is that the motion, as moved by the minister, be agreed to.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

HOME AFFAIRS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (2025 MEASURES NO. 1) BILL 2025

The Australian Government is committed to maintaining a migration system that is robust, effective and in the national interest.

Among other things, this means ensuring that where a person has no lawful basis to remain in Australia, our laws operate to facilitate their timely and lawful removal.

Procedural fairness

Procedural fairness is a fundamental principle in many areas of decision making. However, these provisions can and are being used by non- citizens to delay and frustrate their removal, at cost to the Commonwealth in circumstances where it is neither necessary nor appropriate for it to continue to apply.

The amendments in this Bill are largely' directed at non-citizens who have come to the end of any visa processes, and who are on a removal pathway.

This Bill makes targeted amendments of the Migration Act to expressly exclude procedural fairness from applying to the exercise of specific powers that deal with:

the taking of action in relation to third country reception arrangements;

the disclosure of information about removal pathway non-citizens or certain former removal pathway non-citizens to foreign governments; and

the issuing of removal pathway directions to removal pathway non- citizens to require them to take certain steps to facilitate their lawful removal from Australia.

These provisions are primarily directed to non-citizens who have exhausted all legitimate avenues to remain in Australia—and for whom removal is the only remaining outcome under Australian law.

In such cases, the purpose of the law should be clear: to give effect to removal as swiftly and effectively as possible.

Importantly, this Bill will make clear that any actions or things done in relation to third country reception arrangements are not conditioned on an obligation to afford procedural fairness to an affected person. The amendments in the Bill, and the associated validation provisions, reflect the law as it was declared by the Federal Court to be in TCXM v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 540—a case that the Government won.

In that case, the Federal Court held that entry into a third country reception arrangement and doing things for the purposes of that arrangement were not conditioned by the requirement to afford procedural fairness. The amendments in this Bill merely put that legal position beyond doubt, to reflect the intention when the third country reception arrangement provisions were introduced into the Migration Act in late 2024. These amendments will support the Government's efforts to resettle members of the NZYQ cohort.

Let me be clear-these amendments do not remove procedural fairness from the processes that support decisions whether to cancel or to refuse grant of a visa. Neither do they affect merits review.

These amendments are largely directed to the final steps in the removal process, where non-citizens who are on a removal pathway have had all claims to remain in Australia considered and rejected.

Validation of decisions

This Bill also responds to a recent decision of the Full Federal Court in AJN23 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs.

In AJN23, the Full Federal Court set aside a decision of the Minister to refuse the appellant's protection visa application, on the basis that the decision had been made on the understanding that refusal of the protection visa would result in the appellant remaining in detention indefinitely. That was the law as stated in AI-Kateb v Godwin, which the High Court overturned by its orders in NZYQ made on 8 November 2023.

Although the Minister's decision the subject of AJN23 was made before NZYQ, and reflected the law at the time the Minister's decision was made, the Court found that the Minister's decision was materially affected by an incorrect understanding of the law. This decision has created legal uncertainty for a range of decisions made by the Minister, the Minister's delegates and the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal, where the decision maker relied on the AI-Kateb understanding of the law.

The provisions in this Bill will validate relevant visa decisions so they are taken for all purposes to have always been valid—as if they had been made in accordance with the current law established by NZYQ.

These amendments do not seek to alter the current law on immigration detention, following the High Court's decision in NZYQ.

They ensure that past decisions—that is, relevant visa decisions made on or before 8 November 2023—are not invalidated on the narrow procedural ground identified in AJN23.

All individuals affected by these decisions will have already had full access to visa application processes, merits review, judicial review and ministerial intervention opportunities.

The Australian community rightly expects that our migration laws are upheld and that those with no legal right to remain in Australia will depart or be removed as soon as possible.

This Bill is an important step in ensuring that this expectation is met without unnecessary and avoidable delay.

I commend the Bill to the Chamber.

Debate adjourned.

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

The need for the Senate to take immediate action to make it an offence to wilfully burn or desecrate the Australian National Flag.

Is consideration of the proposal supported?

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

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

I move:

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

The need for the Senate to take immediate action to make it an offence to wilfully burn or desecrate the Australian National Flag.

I can't remember a more inspiring sight than the sea of Australian flags waving in Canberra on Sunday. I can't remember when I felt more pride in my country and its unique, wonderful people. Our flag means so much to so many. It tells a story of who we are: the Aboriginal people who have lived for thousands of years under the eternal Southern Cross; the arrival of the First Fleet and the establishment of the British colonies of convicts and free settlers seeking a new life on a new frontier; and the creation of a new nation and federation of states united in common cause.

Today it's National Flag Day. It was 124 years ago this very day when this flag was first flown. It followed a national competition to design the flag and a democratic vote to select it. This flag has represented our great nation since that day. It has been flown to represent us all over the world: on the battlefields of Gallipoli, Beersheba, the Western Front, the Kokoda Track, Tobruk, Long Tan and Kandahar; in the great cities and capitals of the world, flying over the sporting fields and at the Olympics where Australians have represented our nation with great distinction; on our iconic landmarks and in schools at our public institutions; in the front yards of countless patriots; and over the top of this very building, the seat of Australian democracy. It is the flag under which so many brave Australians fought and died in wars against tyranny, in defence of democracy and for our nation's survival. It is those sacrifices the Australian flag honours above all else.

Shamefully, there are people who know what the flag means to so many Australians, and that's why they despise it. They despise our people and our nation for their stupid, narrow hateful causes, and due to the symbolic value of our flag, they choose to desecrate it. They choose to burn it in our streets. They object to Australian senators wearing our flag in this chamber, while they proudly drape themselves in a keffiyeh, a global symbol of Islamic terrorists. This is unbelievable. Representatives of the Australian people are banned from wearing our flag in the Australian parliament because a Greens senator objects. Remember that—a Greens senator. What the hell is wrong with you?

Senator Hanson, I'll ask you to mind your language, please.

A petition created by One Nation to protect against this desecration has gained more than 50,000 signatures in just a few weeks. This petition gained a lot of momentum in the lead-up and immediate aftermath of Sunday's peaceful marches. It's time to protect this enduring symbol of our nation. It's time to outlaw for all time the wilful burning or desecration of the Australian flag—the only flag that has been endorsed and agreed upon by the Australian people. All senators in this chamber and in this parliament are on notice. If you don't support this motion, then you don't support Australia and its people and the flag which represents us all. You will directly insult the thousands of Australians who have served, fought and died under this flag and for this country. This is your opportunity to show the people you claim to represent that you love our country and its most potent and important symbol, the national flag. Australians will be watching, and they will remember what you do today. They will know where you stand, and I won't let them forget either.

One Nation stands for Australia and with its people. We stand for a united nation, under one flag: the Australian flag. It should be the only flag flying over our landmarks and institutions or in this chamber. It's the only flag the Australian people have ever voted for. No-one was ever given a vote on any other flags. This is the time to ensure the reverence our national flag deserves. We should bring back those assemblies in our schools where we all stood every morning while our flag was raised, and we must punish and penalise those who would desecrate our flag and disrespect our nation and the Australian people.

I just want to point out the comments today by Senator McKim. For him to say that he would wear the Palestinian flag on the floor of this parliament was so shameful and disgusting that I could not believe that he actually made that comment—that he would wear that. It shows exactly where his loyalties lie, and it's not with Australia or the Australian people, so I hope people never ever forget that.

A point of order. I just want to raise a point of order on the fact that we have a speakers list, agreed by the whips, and the coalition was due to speak next. I'm just wondering whether the clerk might be able to provide some advice in relation to the fact that the speakers list had determined that the call was to come to this side of the chamber.

The advice from the clerk is that the speakers list is a guide, and, if there is a dispute as to the call, it should go side to side. Minister, you have to call.

I seek leave to move an amendment to the motion.

Bring in the big guns!

Senator Hanson, I'm going to ask you to withdraw that. I am the President of the Senate.

I shall withdraw.

Is leave granted?

Leave not granted.

At the request of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and pursuant to contingent notice, I move:

That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving an amendment to the motion.

I move:

That the question be now put.

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

The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders be agreed to, to allow Senator Chisholm to move an amendment.

Question agreed to.

I move:

Omit all words after "the following is a matter of urgency", substitute:

The need for the Senate to recognise that Australia is a nation that welcomes different races, religions and views and today is home to the oldest continuous culture on the planet, and to people from more than 300 ancestries. The Australian National Flag, and the other national flags, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags, represent our shared values and our rich history and any actions to desecrate these flags should be condemned.

I rise, firstly, to commend Senator Hanson for bringing her MPI to the Senate and, secondly, to condemn the government for usurping, in the most undemocratic fashion, the senator's opportunity to debate her motion on an issue that is close to not only Senator Hanson 's heart but my own heart. The government had every opportunity at any time to deal with this particular issue. But, no, they have hijacked Senator Hanson's motion, a motion that seeks to make it illegal for any person in this country to burn our national flag, and instead provided a bunch of wishy-washy words that talk about the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags. This motion, this issue that's before us, is about the Australian flag. Again, you vilify a senator in this place. You vilify her. You've made her out to be a racist in this country. You do everything you can to pile on her like a bunch of bullies, and here you are again—

Senator Nampijinpa Price, withdraw please.

I withdraw. But I stand by my words that suggest that this government are completely and utterly disgraceful in their actions and their behaviours. They effectively just want to silence Senator Hanson and silence decent human beings who come here and want to see better for our country. I think it's utterly disgraceful that you've taken this opportunity.

Again, you stand with those who would stand here, as they have suggested, draped in a Palestinian flag, that support calls 'from the river to the sea', which is effectively an act of genocide against Jewish people. This government has failed to stand up against antisemitism. This government fails to stand up for everyday Australians who seek to ensure that our national flag is protected. Instead, you vilify them as racists. You take away the opportunity to have their voices heard right here where democracy is supposed to play out on the floor of the Senate.

What is it? You're afraid that Australians might cheer on Senator Hanson for standing up for our national flag—that the vast majority of Australians do not wish to see our national flag burnt, that they do wish to see it become illegal for that flag to be burnt? You can't come up with your own ideas? You couldn't come up with this idea before Senator Hanson brought this motion to the Senate? You had to go and co-opt it and turn it into your meaningless nonsense?

Seriously, this is posturing. There's no decency in this. There's no decency in shutting down a senator's opportunity to debate their urgency motion and hijacking it instead. Seriously, what are you afraid of? But it really is not surprising, is it, with this government and that the Labor Party, especially under Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who can't even stand up for Australians. Instead, you stand up and you say: 'Let's respect Indigenous Australians. Let's pay our respects'—and the Greens as well, with their pretend respect for Indigenous Australians. But no: they choose to shut down an Indigenous Australian in this Senate for wearing an Australian flag, and then they side with this weak government to shut down any sort of debate or any demonstration of pride in this country. They shut it down. Shame on you! Shame on the Albanese government!

The Australian flag is representative of who we are as Australians and of the strong values we uphold as a nation, and we must protect it. The Albanese government does not support the burning or desecration of the Australian flag, the Aboriginal flag or the Torres Strait Islander flag. As a nation, we deeply value an open and liberal democracy, which includes protecting the right of every Australian to express their political view. And there needs to be a balance between protecting this right and ensuring that those who go further and engage in criminal conduct are dealt with by the law.

Across the country, states and territories already have laws in place to capture this abhorrent conduct. Australian criminal laws are designed to provide a basis for action against people who abuse the flag in certain situations, such as where it involves a breach of the peace or where private property is destroyed. We are not able to support the motion as drafted by Senator Hanson, and we have moved an amendment to the motion to strike a balance and for it to be a motion that we could support. Our amendment asks the Senate to consider omitting all words after 'the following is a matter of urgency' and to substitute:

The need for the Senate to recognise that Australia is a nation that welcomes different races, religions and views and today is home to the oldest continuous culture on the planet, and to people from more than 300 ancestries. The Australian National Flag, and the other national flags, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags, represent our shared values and our rich history and any actions to desecrate these flags should be condemned.

The events of the past weekend make it clear: we don't need debates that promote fear and division. What we need is unity and respect, especially in the Senate.

I cannot believe what I have just witnessed. I thought this place was a place of debate, where different ideas could come together in a great melting pot. But what did we see today? We saw Labor and the Greens come together to steal from Senator Hanson an opportunity to have her views—to have my views—heard. It is incredible. I am so disappointed in what has happened that I, of all people, almost have no words to describe it. There is no democracy in this country—not with what we've seen today. When you take away my right to make a contribution to a debate and you completely change what it was about, what does that tell the Australian people? It tells them, 'Your vote does not count for diddly squat.' People voted to put me in this place. People voted to put Senator Hanson in this place. People voted to put all of us on this side of the chamber here in this place. And now we don't have an opportunity to speak, because of the collusion that we've seen between Labor and the Greens to take away Senator Hanson's voice.

In my opinion, it should be an offence to willingly burn the Australian flag. It is our national flag. It represents all of us. The fact that some people in here would rather come into this chamber wearing the national flag of another country is shameful.

Well, I'm flabbergasted. This is unbelievable. Senator Hanson's motion was to stop the burning of the Australian flag, our national flag. What the Labor Party has decided to do is to change it completely to something totally different.

Now, the Aboriginal flag was not adopted as a national flag, but was proclaimed as an official flag of Australia in 1995. It serves as an official symbol, alongside the Australian national flag and the Torres Strait Islander flag, representing the Aboriginal peoples of Australia. But it's not our national flag.

It should be against the law to burn something so sacred, that so many people have fought and died under. I heard Senator Wong earlier talk about her heritage, coming from Malaysia. Australian soldiers fought and died under that flag to save the people of Malaysia, possibly saving her family.

I just cannot comprehend that people would not support the non-burning of the Australian flag. We're not talking about any other flag. We're just talking about the Australian flag. No other flag should be brought into this debate.

I'm going to read the words that I had prepared for this, but I'm going to run out of time. The Australian flag is not just a symbol; it is the beating heart of our nation. It represents more than just our identity. It stands for our history, our values and our unity. It's a banner that tells the story of who we are—a story of perseverance, of freedom, of courage and of shared purpose. The flag reminds us of where we've come from, what we've overcome and the sacrifices that generations of Australians have made to build the nation we're privileged to live in today. It represents the principles we hold dear: democracy, mateship, resilience and the unwavering belief in a fair go.

Our service men and women carried that flag into battle; they fought beneath it and died underneath it. For those who gave their lives to protect our values and our way of life, the flag was draped over their coffins and now flies in their honour.

My own grandfather served under that flag in World War II. He, like countless others, left behind the comforts of home and the arms of family, not knowing if he would ever return. He didn't serve for recognition. He didn't serve for political gain. He served for Australia, for the ideas that our flag represents. But his story is not unique. It's the story of thousands upon thousands of brave Australians, men and women, who stepped forward in times of great need, who wore the uniform, bore the burden and stood for something greater than themselves.

That's why I will say this plainly and without apology: burning or desecrating the Australian flag is not an expression of free speech; it is an act of contempt. It is a direct insult to those who gave their lives for what this flag stands for. It is a betrayal of our national story, our shared values and the deep respect we owe those who served. It is offensive, not only to the memory of our fallen heroes, but to their families, their descendants and every Australian who takes pride in our country.

Yet here we are, in 2025, witnessing the Australian flag being burned on the streets of our own cities during recent protests. Our national symbol was torched, stomped on—treated with utter disdain. What does the Albanese Labor government do? There is nothing, silence, crickets. It tries to introduce a totally different motion. There's not a word of condemnation. There's no strong statement from the Prime Minister. There's no defence of the values we claim to uphold.

I ask every one of you to reflect honestly. If it were the Aboriginal flag being set on fire or if it were the rainbow pride flag being trampled on and burnt in public, would the reaction be the same? Of course not. The media would explode. Social media would erupt, and there would be wall-to-wall outrage, calls for arrests and politicians falling over each other to denounce it, and rightly so, because burning any flag in hatred is not an act of unity; it is an act of division. But when it's the flag that represents all Australians, regardless of race, gender, sexuality or background, when it's our national flag being desecrated, we get silence. We get inaction. This is not equality, this is not unity and it's certainly not leadership. Our flag should not be a political target.

We condemn all actions taken by any person to desecrate our nation's flag. That is exactly why police have the powers to apprehend anyone for such offensive violations. Arson is a crime, property offences are a crime and inciting violence is a crime. Given that these laws exist now, I think the motivations behind this motion are plain to see. Instead of being distracted by this motion, let's instead work to heal some of the division that has been created by the behaviours we saw on the weekend.

As fate would have it, today, 3 September, is Australian National Flag Day. The Australian flag was first flown on this day back in 1901, and 124 years later it is a symbol of our great democracy, our rich diversity and our Australian way of life. It was designed as a symbol of unity. The Southern Cross is a symbol of our shared place under the southern skies. The Commonwealth star is a literal symbol of unity amongst the states and territories. Even the Union Jack represents the unity we share through the social structures and legal systems that distinguish Australia as a modern multicultural democracy.

The flag belongs to all of us, not just to some of us. It flies proudly above this parliament as a symbol of unity, not as a symbol of division, and it is certainly not a symbol of hate. To those people who sought to take our flag and use it to spread messages of hate over the weekend, I say this to you: you don't own our flag; we do. The Australian flag belongs to all Australians, no matter where you were born, no matter what language you speak and no matter the colour of your skin. If you seek to use the flag to peddle hatred and fear, you are not defending Australian values; you are betraying them.

The Australian soldiers who have fought and died under our flag did it for a love of this country. They did it for hope of a better future for all Australians. I think it's important to remember that the Anzacs themselves came from all backgrounds. They were Italian migrants, Jews and Asians. Importantly, there were many Indigenous Australians who were diggers among the Anzacs. All of those are too often forgotten. They fought for the great Australian dream, which has always been about having a fair go for people who work hard and have a crack.

When I look around this chamber, I see a lot of immigrants now working here in the Senate to represent Australia and their fellow migrants, like Senator Roberts, from India, and Senator Babet, from Mauritius. It is interesting that the very people calling for immigration bans in this country are, themselves, migrants to this country. If someone could help me make sense of that, I'd be really grateful.

Senator Mulholland, just a moment. Senator Roberts has a point of order.

I have not called for an immigration ban; I've called for the banning of mass immigration.

Senator Roberts, that is a debating point. You know it is. Senator Mulholland, please continue.

The fact is that around only four per cent of Australia's population is Indigenous. That means 96 per cent of us are descendants of immigrants. We are all the descendants of people who came here to chase the great Australian dream of a fair go. So on this day, Australian National Flag Day, 3 September, I encourage you all to reflect on the true meaning of our flag. To me, it represents hope and an opportunity and a love of our great country. It does not represent hate. To those wishing to incite division, I remind you that our flag is a symbol of inclusion, not exclusion, because modern Australia will always be a proud multicultural nation.

Sunday changed Australia. It stirred the people. The people are waking because Australia is dying. We can feel it. It's dying at the hands of Labor and the Greens. Sunday terrified you—it absolutely terrified you—because the people woke up. Sunday changed the whole nation. What you have done now is change the whole motion. I will read Senator Hanson's motion:

The need for the Senate to take immediate action to make it an offence to wilfully burn or desecrate the Australian National Flag.

That has been changed under bastardry by the Labor and Greens parties to:

The need for the Senate to recognise that Australia is a nation that welcomes different races, religions and views and today is home to the oldest continuous culture on the planet—

we agree with that—

and to people from more than 300 ancestries. The Australian National Flag, and the other national flags, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags, represent our shared values and our rich history and any actions to desecrate these flags should be condemned.

Rubbish! We have one national flag. I will tell you what Google says about the Aboriginal flag—'It was proclaimed as an official flag of Australia but is not the primary national flag.' It is not a national flag. You don't even know that. That's disgraceful. You don't even know. You said 'the other national flags'. How is the Aboriginal flag a national flag when it doesn't cover the whole of the country, when it doesn't cover the Torres Strait Islands? How is the Torres Strait Islander flag—good people in the Torres Strait; Aboriginals are fine people—a national flag when the flag of the Torres Strait Islands does not cover the whole of the country? These are not national flags. I cannot support this Labor-Greens bastardisation of an amendment.

Senator Roberts, I would ask you to withdraw that.

I withdraw. Look at what they've done to Senator Pauline Hanson. They jailed her, they denigrated her, they infiltrated her party and destroyed it in 1988 and now they are gagging her and changing her motions. Why? For the simple sin of saying what she thinks and saying what the people think. She says what the people think, and you guys do not get that. You just don't get it. She has the spirit of Australia in her heart. She has the spirit of Australia right through every cell of her body. That is what the Australian flag is. It has the spirit of this country, and the spirit is the most important thing of any entity, whether it be a football club, a business, a church, or a country. The spirit is important, and you are killing the spirit of this country. Australia is dying. We need to restore Australia and, instead, of looking at the scarcity that you are inviting on everyone here and the fearmongering and the division, what we need to do is dwell on the abundance. It starts with the government.

Remember this one thing: the people are in the charge of our Constitution, not the government. The government serves the people; the people do not serve the government.

Question agreed to.

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

The Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner's 2024 Annual Report demonstrates that regional Australia is shouldering the burden of large-scale renewable projects, transmission lines and storage developments, while Labor fails to provide a framework to deliver affordable, reliable energy to Australian households and businesses.

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.

It is an honour to speak on this motion on behalf of Senator Dean Smith. I will read the matter that is before the Senate. It is:

The Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner's 2024 Annual Report demonstrates that regional Australia is shouldering the burden of large-scale renewable projects, transmission lines and storage developments, while Labor fails to provide a framework to deliver affordable, reliable energy to Australian households and businesses.

This one is fairly self-explanatory, and we're seeing it play out. We're seeing it play out on our television screens. We're seeing it play out in the anger of regional communities ignored by this government's renewables-at-any-cost approach. These communities feel that they are being bullied, coerced and ordered into taking a particular approach to our energy grid with no consultation. There has been no impact assessment as to how these massive renewable energy projects and the transmission lines that accompany them will impact on the economy of local communities, the agriculture in local communities and the environment in our regional communities.

As I have said in this place before—I have on many occasions, but those opposite choose to keep on ignoring this fact—the energy in large part is not supporting those regional communities. Almost all of the energy is being pumped into our capital cities. But who bears the burden of these large-scale energy projects, the destruction of the environment, the destruction of prime agricultural land and the inability of farmers to farm in the way they have been? It is of course those regional communities.

In a previous report it was suggested that between 10,000 and 20,000 kilometres of transmission lines were going to be required to meet Labor's renewable-at-any-cost approach to our energy grid. They're not putting 10,000 to 20,000 kilometres of transmission lines through inner cities. They're not putting 10,000 to 20,000 kilometres of transmission lines through outer suburbia. Those 10,000 to 20,000 kilometres of transmission lines are going through regional and rural Australia. They're going through people's farms. Is it any wonder given these communities haven't been consulted, haven't been included in the way these decisions are made and haven't been included in the way these projects are decided upon? Sometimes the actual energy project can be literally hundreds of kilometres away from the transmission lines that are destroying people's farms.

Transmission lines going through people's property is of course not a new thing. This has been going on for generations, and they have always been problematic. But what we are seeing now—what has changed—is that this Labor renewables-at-any-cost approach to our energy grid has put those transmission lines on steroids. It is 10,000 to 20,000 kilometres of new transmission lines in this country. Is it little wonder that we saw the protests in regional Victoria that we've seen in the last week? Is it little wonder that we've heard of property owners who do not understand their obligations and the legal risks that they face for now maintaining their agricultural pursuits under those transmission lines? They never asked for them. They never wanted them. They were never consulted about them. Now you see draconian Labor laws in the state of Victoria to enable the people putting up those transmission lines—entry to property with no restriction. They can go on when they like. They can do whatever they like. This is not the Australia I know and love.

I rise in reply to Senator Dean Smith's matter of public importance. Senator Smith cited some commentary about regional Australia being unfairly burdened by large-scale renewable energy projects, but I don't see it like that at all. What some may see as a challenge or a burden, I see as a once-in-a-generation opportunity, especially for communities in Tasmania and the state's mighty north-west. It's an opportunity for jobs, economic growth, diversification, community liveability and, most importantly, energy security.

Tasmania, and particularly its north-west region, is uniquely positioned to harness the benefits of the clean energy transition, but we also have the ability to power the Big Island with clean, renewable energy. The recently announced financial close of stage 1 of the Marinus Link project marks a historic milestone not just for Tasmania but for the entire nation. With $3.8 billion secured from the Commonwealth's Clean Energy Finance Corporation, and equity commitments from the Commonwealth, Tasmania and Victoria, this project is no longer just a vision; it's becoming a reality.

Marinus Link will deliver 750 megawatts of capacity—enough to power approximately 750,000 homes. It will strengthen grid reliability in Victoria and other mainland states while providing long-term certainty to major industrial users in Tasmania. By leveraging cheap solar energy from the mainland during the day and Tasmanian hydropower at night, we're creating a more resilient and sustainable energy system.

But, beyond the technical benefits, the real story lies in what this means for our communities and in the opportunities that it unlocks. Stage 1 of Marinus Link is expected to support around 1,400 additional jobs per year at peak construction, increasing to 1,600 jobs with stage 2. That's hundreds of families in Tasmania who will benefit from employment, new career pathways and the revitalisation of local industries. The economic stimulus is equally impressive. Stage 1 alone will inject over $1.4 billion into Tasmania's economy, rising to $2.1 billion with stage 2. The investment will ensure that our communities are not unfairly burdened but are in fact beneficiaries at the forefront of Australia's clean energy future. The Marinus Link and Burnie City Council community partnership program is an example of this.

Two school based initiatives have been awarded funding to inspire and prepare the next generation of workers. Burnie High School's Burnie awards program will receive $60,000 over three years to help students transition from school to local industry, showcasing the career opportunities available to them in the region. Similarly, the Greenpower Tasmania program by GreenSTEM Education will receive $60,000 over three years to encourage students to explore STEM focused careers through teamwork and science. These programs are more than just grants; they are investments in our youth, our future workforce and our community resilience. Additionally, the Marinus Link community grants and sponsorship programs are supporting grassroots initiatives in areas along the project alignment, including Burnie City, Latrobe City, South Gippsland and the Central Coast. These programs ensure that local voices are heard, that local needs are met and that local pride is strengthened.

The Albanese government is delivering what the opposition couldn't: a collaborative, people focused energy policy that puts regional communities at the heart of the transition. Marinus Link is not just a power cable; it's an opportunity for economic renewal, educational opportunity and community empowerment. People across the country, especially in regional areas, are embracing renewable energy, particularly solar, in huge numbers. They are backing in Labor's Cheaper Home Batteries Program. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy has said that over 40,000 Australians have taken up the opportunity to get a cheaper battery for their home or small business, which will quickly enable them to make additional savings on their energy expenses.

I want to make one last comment about the take note debate earlier this week. My colleague on the other side Senator Cadell referred to Tasmania as the Norway of Australia when it comes to renewable energy. It was a pretty good analogy because Tasmania is just about as regional as you can get and we are not burdened by renewables; we've been embracing them for many decades. (Time expired)

For anyone watching this debate here in Parliament House tonight, it's always instructive to look at a subject and break it up into two components: its policy and its politics. Of course, the two things are often interwoven.

The policy around the clean energy rollout around this nation, including critical transmission infrastructure, is an important one to get right, and there's no doubt at all that it's not perfect. There are a number of issues that need to be worked through on this policy, and the concerns of the community should be taken seriously. There needs to be consultation and an understanding that renewable energy projects can also have environmental impacts. So it's really important that we listen to regional Australia and that we get the policy right. We're not there yet, and the Greens will work with the government to make sure we do get there.

Let's look at the politics of this. Don't, anyone, for a second, think that this motion here tonight is not all about politics. Disappointingly from Senator Smith, who I consider to be an intelligent and caring person with the Liberal Party, as I do Senator Bragg and others who care about climate change, this is all about an attack on net zero. This is about the fact that, within the coalition, there are senators—especially in the National Party—who don't believe in climate change, who are flat-out climate deniers. Ever since I've been in this building, which is coming up to 14 years, I have witnessed the conservative side of politics not just undermine climate action but actively rip it up once we got it legislated in this building. And nothing has changed.

This motion here tonight is all about politics. We saw it start three or four weeks ago, when the Institute of Public Affairs—one of the many think tanks associated with the Atlas Network and other networks of international conservative think tanks—put out a report on net zero. Within days, Barnaby Joyce from the other place was out there campaigning against net zero, causing headaches for the coalition. And then we had the Bush Summit, sponsored, presumably, and paid for, by Gina Rinehart and the Murdoch press. Now, Gina Rinehart, a billionaire, who is on record as being a climate sceptic or climate denier, opens these summits with a video, and then the Murdoch press promotes them—they who have spent decades promoting climate disinformation. They are a cancer on climate action. And they've been going out to regional areas and whipping up regional communities into a frenzy.

The fact that our Prime Minister and ag minister supposedly got chased out of town by some tractors the other week is a really sad indictment on us—that we would be taking advantage of these regional communities so the LNP can campaign against climate action and against net zero. Let's help these people. Let's get it right, and cut out the politics. (Time expired)

I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution on this important topic, because the issue of net zero and emissions reduction generally are important ones for the Australian community. And it was the former coalition government that signed Australia up a few years ago when we were in government.

But, since the Labor Party won office in 2022, they have pursued a very aggressive approach to delivering this policy, which has not been technology-agnostic. They have prioritised the vast take-up of renewables at any cost. Now, renewable energy is very good and very desirable, and, in many cases, it can be very inexpensive. But, when you are managing a transition from a largely coal-fired-power based energy system to a fundamentally different system, and bearing in mind the impact that energy has on the overall economy, you must be very careful and very prudent. So our principal argument here is that the transition has been unreasonable. It has not been managed well. And it has been the regional communities that have largely had to pay the price.

I grew up in a regional community myself and have travelled widely across my state. If you look at the failure of this government to properly consult on the question of offshore wind and then the transmission infrastructure, these are material and serious issues for regional communities. For the government to pursue this policy at any cost, trample over regional communities and not give them a proper say—and I don't think that Minister Bowen has done his best work here, to be charitable. I think that then imperils the whole question of community support for getting to net zero, which is a very important objective for our economy.

Overall, the capital markets have made up their mind: this transition is on. And so Australia needs to be part of that important movement of capital. But it's got to be done in a way where the government isn't playing Frankenstein, and my judgement is that the government has tried to do that. Ultimately, the distortion of the market, through subsidies in particular, has been a problem. Renewable energy is the most competitive in many comparisons. I would say to you that, for those that really value getting to net zero as part of our economic agenda, getting community consent and working with regional communities is actually one of the most important aspects of that agenda.

The world has moved on in terms of the capital markets, but, if you look around the G20, it's a very similar scenario. Every G20 country bar one is part of this accord. Sure, different countries have different ways of doing it. The way that Labor have done it through legislating their targets and the like is not essential. It is not an essential way of getting to net zero. And so I would say that, if you look at different countries in the G20—the major emitters—some countries will get there in 2047. Others propose that it will be in 2053. Others have 2060 or 2070. Of course, the United States has left, but the United States's economy is so different from Australia's. We are so much more trade exposed than the US, so I think the comparisons there which are often made are erroneous.

The point is: if you want to do net zero, do it properly. You should be technology agnostic and you should be very careful in getting the consent of regional communities, which are essential to Australia getting to this key environmental and economic goal. As I say, growing up in a regional community myself, I know some of the best conservationists are farmers and regional people. I would say that most people who live in the regions want to see a cleaner, greener environment going forward, but they also want to see their property rights respected and they want to have a say on major developments which are occurring in their own region. We're always happy to have this debate, but we make the point here that net zero is an important objective that must be done properly. There are many different ways to do it, and the way Labor has done it has been horrendous.

Let me begin by saying say how much of a joke I think some of the language in this MPI is. Honestly—here we are in the Senate again with the LNP's opposition to sustainable renewable energy for the nation on show yet again, and there is division even with the contributions that we've seen here this evening. I'd say, despite the incoherence of what is put before us in this MPI, bring on the debate. Let's continue to undertake the proper education of the nation. Let's talk about it for as long as we need, because, as a Labor senator, I'm here in the chamber to talk about the policies that we're actually investing in to make a real and practical difference for Australians instead of the whinge-fest that's going on on the other side.

Those opposite seem determined to spend every moment in here trying to engage in yet another sideshow discussion. In the meantime, our government, the Labor Albanese government, is getting on with building the energy systems that Australians need. The opposition at this point of time, I'm sad to say, my fellow Australians, have not even figured out what they want from renewable energy, because clearly it's not lowering energy costs. We've had to do that in spite of them voting against every proposition to support Australians in the management of household finances with regard to energy. The LNP can't agree on more access to renewable forms of energy, so we had to go ahead and do that without them. One of those key policy items was Labor's Cheaper Home Batteries Program. They screamed black and blue they didn't want it to happen. Again, Labor has advanced in spite of the hysterical opposition and uncertainty into the energy market that is the consequence of the schizophrenic debate that we see in the LNP.

What's patently clear by the actions of the LNP, when it comes down to basic questions about the cheapest forms of energy available to us, is the divided and divisive LNP answers. The main one that they agree on is saying a resounding no. They scream, 'No, no, no,' and they join a 'no-alition' with whoever they can to prevent the progress of this nation with regard to energy. They spent their last term in opposition, instead of supporting renewable energy, proposing power plants and small modular reactors. There's not even one built in the world, yet that was their policy. No wonder they didn't want to speak about it on the booths on the Central Coast where I was handing out. It was an impossible end to the 22 failed propositions that they'd already considered.

We are facing energy challenges now, because, in their nine long, terrible years of government, the LNP dithered, debated, backstabbed and undermined, all while cycling through the 22 iterations of energy policy announcements. We won't call them energy policy enactments, because they were more hollow than that. They were full of sound and fury, barking at Australians with a new idea every few months and with no coherence or cohesion. After all of that chaos, the disingenuity and the failure—get your popcorn, people, because the signs are that the LNP are going to spend this term of parliament, again, relitigating their policy on net zero. They seem to have learned absolutely nothing, and I'd just say: 'Keep at it. That's fantastic, guys. Well done, Angus. Well done, Barnaby, and everyone else who's continuing the division in the Liberal and National parties. You can spend your weeknights on TV shows, talking to whoever you're talking to with regard to net zero, but, while you're doing that and continuing the chaos of your nine long years, this government is getting on with the job of doing the careful, considered nation-building work to secure our national energy needs, just like a real government should do.'

It's going to take years of continued effort to fix what the coalition broke when they were in government. And, even now, they can't come up with a stance that's united enough to argue anything of validity. We just had Senator Bragg talking about the capital markets—follow the money. 'They've made up their minds,' he said. 'They're investing in renewables.' The market's moved on. The LNP are stuck in the mired mess of their own past. Sometimes it feels to me that the coalition members and senators are more concerned about being contrarian than Australian. They care more about arguing with one another than creating effective reality based lower energy costs for Australian householders. That is why we will continue to serve the Australian people in energy policy. (Time expired)

Nothing illustrates the contempt Labor has for farmers and regional Australia better than its net zero obsession. I am appalled at laws pushed through by the arrogant Victorian Labor government last week. This legislation enables transmission-line builders to forcibly enter private property and allow for the arrest of any farmer who refuses access. Labor does not understand that we cannot eat turbines, high-voltage wires, solar panels or pylons. Labor does not care about our farmers, our regional communities or our capacity to feed people.

Labor has been fighting a war against farmers for years. The Albanese government has banned live sheep exports and has forced more water from irrigators, yet its agriculture minister actually claimed yesterday the government has backed them every step of the way. Why, then, did farmers roundly boo—yes, boo—the Prime Minister at the Bush Summit? And then he turns around and says, 'I won't tell you any BS.' Oh my God! That went down like a lead balloon too. What a load of BS that statement is.

Why are they protesting against Labor policy here in Canberra and in Melbourne, Western Australia, Queensland, New South Wales—actually, right across the whole country? Labor is lying. Labor doesn't care, because those transmission lines and wind towers will never appear in Labor electorates in the city. Can you imagine wind turbines towering over Sydney Harbour or on the banks of the Yarra or Brisbane rivers? Of course not. It is the regions which are being forced to bear the burden.

One Nation stands for property rights in Victoria and across the country. One Nation stands firmly against wind towers and transmission lines being forced onto productive farmland. One Nation stands against net zero and Labor's cult of climate change. One Nation stands for farmers and regional communities in Victoria and across Australia. (Time expired)

Listening to the tone-deaf senators tonight highlights why regional Australians have had enough, why they feel hopeless and abandoned by a prime minister who said he would govern for all—but, as it turns out, not if you are in the regions. They're furious because their ability to produce food and their land values, social cohesion and private property rights are being trashed by the Labor Party's pursuit of net zero. Even the Paris Agreement states that rural and regional communities and food production should be protected in any future transition, and yet who is assessing that impact here in Australia? The social, economic and environmental damage to communities that is being done right now is real, and the government knows it.

What happened in Ballarat this week should give every member of parliament pause—real pause. Farmers and regional communities, people who feed and clothe our nation, have been told that transmission towers, wind factories and solar farms will carve their way across their land whether they like it or not. Their property values, their property rights, their prime farmland, their close-knit communities are all at risk. They're all under threat in a vain attempt to shrink the nation's carbon footprint by imposing industrial-scale grids of steel and concrete across some of the most productive farmland in our country. And, somehow, apparently, they are wrong to be angry about that. Somehow, pollies in the Labor Party and the Greens think that they shouldn't be offended.

The Prime Minister rightfully got heckled in Ballarat. Of course he was embarrassed, but that tells you something about the mood in regional Australia. We're very polite people. The Prime Minister and his Labor MPs in this place have subsequently drawn quite extraordinary comparisons between that protest in Ballarat and extreme demonstrations in Melbourne invaded by Neo-Nazis. There's no equivalence—none. The Ballarat protest was spirited, passionate, at times angry, and rightfully so, but it was peaceful, and the Prime Minister knows it. It's okay to lock the gate against gas companies, but it's not okay to lock the gate against foreign owned industrial-scale renewables. Talk about hypocrisy.

Even the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, has grudgingly admitted that. He said::

The transmission rollout, the wind factories, the solar farms and the hundreds of kilometres of transmission lines are being opposed by communities.

No, Sherlock, Mr Bowen. They are vehemently opposed. Farmers, law-abiding citizens, are saying they will lock their gates. They're prepared to go to jail to protect their property rights and their children's future. And, your solution, Mr Bowen, to offer them cheaper power bills and compensation—well, I'm going to hold you to that. The National Party will hold you to that, because right now regional Australians see this for what it is: a top-down, big-end-of-town agenda imposed on people who feel they have no voice and no choice.

When the Prime Minister and his ministers start invoking Neo-Nazis, when they take one woman's rope prop at a town hall meeting and smear the entire farming community, they're not listening. It's the worst kind of deflection. It's also the worst kind of gaslighting. That rope was a warning, Prime Minister, of the despair that is real in regional communities that your policy is impacting. Just think about it for a moment. What if a government or a foreign owned company marched into your home, onto your property and started destroying it? The truth is, until farmers and communities are genuinely engaged with and their concerns addressed, these protests won't stop. Regional Australia will keep speaking out loudly and clearly, and those of us that have the great honour and privilege of representing them in this place will also continue to be their champions against a Labor Party supported by the Greens who want to see livestock production and food production in this country stopped and disappear under swathes of steel and concrete for an international obsession that has gone too far.

The time for the debate has expired.

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3416 revised together:

(1) Schedule 1, page 14 (after line 18), after item 54, insert:

54A At the end of section 91

Add:

(6) In making a determination under subsection (1) for the 2025-26 financial year, the Minister must ensure that the method makes available:

(a) a number of places equal to, or greater than, the guaranteed (tranche 1) number, for allocation to individuals for the service group home support by the end of 31 December 2025; and

(b) at least an additional 43,000 places, for allocation to individuals for the service group home support by the end of 30 June 2026.

Note: This guarantees at least 83,000 services (whether home care packages or home support places) for recipients.

(7) Nothing in subsection (6) limits the Minister's powers under any of paragraphs (1)(b) to (d) in respect of the places mentioned in that subsection.

(8) In this section:

guaranteed (tranche 1) number means the number worked out as follows:

(a) 40,000; less

(b) the following:

(i) if the difference between the number of home care packages immediately before the commencement of the Aged Care Act 2024 and the number of home care packages immediately before the transition time is greater than or equal to 40,000—40,000;

(ii) if the difference between the number of home care packages immediately before the commencement of the Aged Care Act 2024 and the number of home care packages immediately before the transition time is greater than zero but less than 40,000—that difference;

(iii) otherwise—zero.

number of home care packages, at a time, means the number of home care packages under the Australian Government framework known as the National Priority System that were available and released to recipients at that time in accordance with determinations under subsection 23B-1(1) of the Aged Care Act 1997.

transition time means the beginning of the day after the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2025 receives the Royal Assent.

(2) Schedule 1, page 15 (after line 9), after item 58, insert:

58A At the end of section 92

Add:

(5) The System Governor's power to allocate places to an individual under subsection (1) must be exercised in the 2025-26 financial year so that:

(a) a number of places equal to, or greater than, the guaranteed (tranche 1) number (within the meaning of section 91) are allocated to individuals for the service group home support by the end of 31 December 2025; and

(b) at least an additional 43,000 places are allocated to individuals for the service group home support by the end of 30 June 2026.

Note: This ensures the 83,000 services (whether home care packages or home support places) guaranteed by subsection 91(6) are released.

(6) If the System Governor fails to comply with paragraph (5)(a) or (b), the System Governor must give the Minister a written statement that sets out the reasons for the failure.

(7) The System Governor must do so within 14 days of:

(a) for a failure to comply with paragraph (5)(a)—31 December 2025; or

(b) for a failure to comply with paragraph (5)(b)—30 June 2026.

(8) The Minister must cause a copy of the statement to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the statement is given to the Minister

_____

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

Amendments (1) and (2)

Amendments (1) and (2) are framed as requests because they amend the bill provide for the release of a minimum number of home support places in accordance with the Commonwealth aged care system.

This will increase the amount of expenditure under the appropriation in section 598 of the Aged Care Act 2024.

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

Amendments (1) and (2)

If the effect of the amendments is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 598 of the Aged Care Act 2024 then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendments be moved as requests.

In moving these amendments, the opposition is seeking to make sure that the government holds true to its commitment that it made to older Australians during the election campaign that 83,000 packages will be released to provide care for older Australians that are currently waiting for the care they've been assessed as needing. We saw earlier this morning an amendment pass this chamber which has forced the government into releasing 20,000 home-care packages immediately. What these amendments seek to do now is force the government to commit to releasing an additional 20,000 Support at Home packages between 1 November and 31 December, and ensure that the remaining 43,000 packages that were promised by this government during the election campaign are released before 30 June 2026.

Before I seek for the question to be put, I am keen to ask the minister: when is the government intending to seek royal assent to these bills?

In response to your direct question, the standard process is six to 10 days. That is the intention of the government.

I take the opportunity, while I am on my feet, to indicate that the government will be supporting the amendments just moved by Senator Ruston. We've engaged in a positive, constructive discussion with the opposition, particularly Senator Ruston, over the sitting period. We are grateful for the genuine desire on behalf of the opposition and others in the chamber to help us build a better aged-care system. I have said previously but will repeat that this is a once-in-a-generation reform. It is designed to give older Australians choice, dignity and safe, high-quality care. We have consistently released more home-care packages in every year and every budget since 2023; we've continued to listen to older Australians, those who care for them and our aged-care providers; and we're stepping up to deliver more home-care support now and under the new Aged Care Act from 1 November. This is a responsible decision that will deliver more care faster to the older Australians who need it most while maintaining the medium-term fiscal save that was a key pillar of our aged-care reforms last year.

I take it from your answer that there is no intention to try and expedite royal assent to these bills. The reason I ask whether there is going to be any accelerated attempt by the government to seek for these bills to receive royal assent is the final rules are contingent on royal assent to these bills into legislation. I'm keen to understand when the final rules are anticipated to be registered in the parliament.

It will be after royal assent, Senator Ruston—although you will be aware, of course, that the government has circulated draft final rules so as to enable people in the sector and indeed members of parliament to engage with our proposed approach.

I'm just keen to understand what your intention is, because of course draft rules are one thing, but obviously the sector actually needs those rules and obviously the department of social services et cetera are requiring some of these rules in terms of some of the things they've got to do. So, I'm just keen to understand: you said royal assent in six to 10 days. How many days after royal assent is it the intention of the government to have the rules registered?

The advice I have is: as soon as practicable. I think the government is well aware of the significance of the final rules for the providers in particular in making their plans and arrangements and also of course for Services Australia. We intend to move as soon as we can.

Thank you, Minister. I suppose my concern around this stems from what we saw happen on 1 July. We had an absolutely categorical commitment from the then minister—not you—that everything would be in place in order for the Aged Care Act to come into effect on 1 July, and that commitment was given to us in November, despite I think some quite serious and genuine concerns being raised by the opposition where a transition program and timeframe and framework would assist in making sure that that was possible. The government refused to accept our recommendation, and we found that the government wasn't ready to enable the act to start on 1 July. We found out, during the committee hearing, that the government was aware, or certainly the department was aware, of this as early as January this year.

So, my concern stems from the fact that we are here today, on 3 September, and if you assume that we take 10 days, we're talking about 13 September, which is six weeks before the government is intending for this act to come into effect. So, I'm quite interested to understand, first of all: is the draft of the rules that have been provided to the sector sufficient for the sector to commence the legal requirements to transition?

The advice I have is that they have been progressed as far as they can be. As your question indicates, they do require royal assent before they can be registered. The government does not intend to delay registration.

Can I just clarify: I asked you whether the draft that they had is sufficient for the legal requirements of transition, which we know are quite significant, to be undertaken. Do I take it from your answer that you're saying that no, they actually need the finalised registered rules in order for the sector to commence the transition requirements?

The advice I have is that the rules are not likely to materially change. They are as final as they may become prior to registration, but, of course, they may not be registered until after royal assent. That is a function of the legislative process.

With the greatest amount of intention that the government may well have, when will the government provide the certainty the sector needs in order for the legal requirements of the transition to take place? When is that going to happen? On the basis of the answers that you've been given, is the government prepared to commit to the chamber that every requirement of the government or the department will be finalised and in place to provide sufficient, adequate and reasonable time for the sector to be able to do what it needs to do, after you've done what you need to do, in order for this act to come into effect on 1 November 2025?

Senator, I think your question contains multiple elements. I will answer it this way, and you may wish to seek further clarification. The government is keenly aware that passing this bill is important to allow the sector to commence the transition. We have done as much as we can to signal as clearly as we can what the nature of those requirements would be by publishing draft final rules. We have been very clear in our communications, and the Senate inquiry into the bill drew many of the same conclusions. It has been important for this bill to be passed as quickly as possible. That is why we've sought to progress it over this fortnight. But yes; we do need to register the final rules, and we acknowledge that.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 3417 together:

(1) Schedule 2, heading to Part 2, page 107 (line 2), omit "24 months", substitute "12 months".

(2) Schedule 2, item 30, page 107 (line 9), omit "24 months", substitute "12 months".

(3) Schedule 2, item 30, page 108 (line 2), omit "24 months", substitute "12 months".

(4) Schedule 2, item 30, page 108 (line 31), omit "24 months", substitute "12 months".

(5) Schedule 2, item 30, page 109 (line 3), omit "24 months", substitute "12 months".

The amendments that the opposition is proposing on this are to reduce the minister's rulemaking powers from 24 months to 12 months. First of all, when the government sought to give itself 24 months, it was before they decided to put this delay in place. The government's actually given itself additional time anyway. They've got an extra four months in which they can make sure that they have remedied some of the potential issues that have occurred in this legislation. We found out from the primary legislation that there have been 325 separate instances of where this amendment bill will have to come into play in order to affect changes because of mistakes, errors, inconsistencies or omissions in the original bill. We believe that the government doesn't need this heavy handed, Henry VIII power for 24 months. We believe 12 months should be adequate time to make sure that this bill, once it is enacted, is able to be remedied for any unexpected changes that need to be made to it.

The government should have more trust in its own legislation than thinking it requires 24 months to fix up its problems. The government should not be expecting the sector to constantly be responding to continued failures for a period of 24 months. We would suggest to the government, given you're very optimistic commitments about what your legislation is able to do when you're able to get it in place, that you should back yourself in and accept that 12 months is a perfectly adequate length of time to provide yourselves with the kind of power that these particular rulemaking powers give to the minister.

The government does not support this amendment. The 24-month period in which to make rules under this proposed modifying-rules-making power aligns with the maximum period during which a provider may retrospectively adjust a claim for a subsidy. It was intended that this 24-month period would provide sufficient time both for any unanticipated matters to arise and for appropriate action to be determined and taken should this occur. The 24-month period after which a rule made under the proposed modifying-rules-making power is intended to allow sufficient time for the necessary action to be taken to identify the cause of an issue, develop policy to address it and then allow the introduction and passage of a bill.

I simply rise to indicate that the Greens will be supporting this amendment.

The question is that amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 3417 be agreed to.

by leave—I move the requests for amendments on sheet 3414 together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:

(2) Page 171 (after line 30), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 4—Release of remaining home care packages

Aged Care Act 1997

1 After subsection 23B-1(5)

Insert:

(5A) The Secretary must, as soon as practicable after the commencement of this subsection, make such determinations under subsection (1) as are necessary to ensure all home care packages that were available but not released immediately before that commencement under the Australian Government framework known as the National Priority System are released to recipients.

_____

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

Amendments (1) and (2)

Amendments (1) and (2) are framed as requests because they amend the bill to provide for the release of home care packages in accordance with the Commonwealth aged care system.

This will likely increase the amount of expenditure under the appropriation in section 96-10 of the Aged Care Act 1997.

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

Amendments (1) and (2)

If the effect of the amendments is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 96-10 of the Aged Care Act 1997 then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendments be moved as requests.

What these amendments do is make sure that all new packages that are in the system are released immediately. We want to make sure that older Australians who have been assessed as needing care get these packages as soon as they are able to be delivered. So these amendments force the government's hand in making sure that any new home-care packages are released immediately upon royal assent.

The government does not support the amendment. All home-care packages are being released as soon as they become available. The government is not withholding any available home-care packages, and the amendment will have no effect on the release of home-care packages.

I'm interested as to, if there is no impact and you're releasing them immediately, why you would be opposing this amendment.

The government does not support amendments that are not necessary for the functioning of the reforms.

The question is that requests (1) and (2) on sheet 3414 be agreed to.

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 3394 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 23, page 8 (line 13), omit "rules; or", substitute "rules; and'.

(2) Schedule 1, item 23, page 8 (after line 13) at the end of paragraph 11A(3)(a), add:

(iii) if staff of the registered provider were scheduled to be involved in the delivery of the service—the staff were unable to be redirected, before the agreed time, to the delivery of another service despite the registered provider's best efforts; or

(3) Schedule 1, item 23, page 8 (after line 14), after subsection 11A(3), insert:

(3A) However, subsection (3) does not apply to the service if:

(a) the service was scheduled to be delivered by the registered provider to the individual on the day at an agreed time and place; and

(b) the reason that the service was not delivered was because the individual was admitted to hospital or was involved in an emergency.

(4) Schedule 1, item 23, page 8 (after line 27), after subsection 11A(5), insert:

(5A) If:

(a) a service is taken to have been delivered by a registered provider to an individual on a day (the deemed delivery day) because of the operation of subsection (2); and

(b) a service (whether or not the same service mentioned in paragraph (a)) is scheduled to be delivered by the registered provider to the individual on a later day;

the registered provider must before the end of 7 days after the deemed delivery day contact the individual to ask whether the delivery of the later service on the later day, including at any agreed time and place, is suitable.

(5B) If the registered provider fails to comply with subsection (5A), then subsection (2) does not apply in relation to the delivery of any service by the registered provider to the individual scheduled after the end of that 7-day period.

(5C) An individual may, within 7 days of the day a service is taken to have been delivered by a registered provider to the individual because of the operation of subsection (2), request the System Governor make an order that the subsection be taken to not apply, and to have never applied, in relation to the delivery of the service to the individual.

(5D) The request must be in an approved form.

(5E) The System Governor must, within 30 days of receiving the request, either:

(a) if the System Governor is satisfied there are extenuating circumstances justifying the making of the order—make the order; or

(b) otherwise—refuse to make the order.

(5F) Subsection (2) does not apply, and is taken to have never applied, in relation to the delivery of a service to an individual if the System Governor has made an order under subsection (5E) to that effect.

The purpose of these amendments is to make sure the cancellation policy is fairer for older people and, in particular, to ensure that an older person is not charged a cancellation fee for an aged-care service if the reason that it's not delivered is that they are admitted to hospital or are involved in a medical emergency.

Question negatived.

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3397 together:

(1) Schedule 1, page 23 (after line 29), after item 69, insert:

69A Subsection 179(3) (heading)

Omit "Serious", substitute "Civil penalty provisionserious".

69B After subsection 179(3)

Insert:

Strict liability offence serious failures

(3A) A registered provider commits an offence of strict liability if:

(a) the provider has a duty under subsection (1); and

(b) the provider engages in conduct that does not comply with the duty; and

(c) the conduct amounts to a serious failure by the provider to comply with the duty.

Penalty:

(a) in the case of an offence committed by a registered provider that is an individual—150 penalty units; or

(b) in the case of an offence committed by a registered provider other than an individual—1,000 penalty units.

69C Subsection 179(5) (heading)

Omit "Death", substitute "Civil penalty provisiondeath".

69D At the end of section 179

Add:

Strict liability offence death or serious injury or illness

(6) A registered provider commits an offence of strict liability if:

(a) the provider has a duty under subsection (1); and

(b) the provider engages in conduct; and

(c) the conduct amounts to a serious failure by the provider to comply with the duty; and

(d) the conduct results in the death of, or serious injury to, or illness of, an individual to whom the duty is owed.

Penalty:

(a) in the case of an offence committed by a registered provider that is an individual—500 penalty units; or

(b) in the case of an offence committed by a registered provider other than an individual—4,800 penalty units.

Fault-based offence death or serious injury or illness

(7) A registered provider commits an offence if:

(a) the provider has a duty under subsection (1); and

(b) the provider engages in conduct; and

(c) the conduct amounts to a serious failure by the provider to comply with the duty; and

(d) the conduct results in the death of, or serious injury to, or illness of, an individual to whom the duty is owed.

Penalty:

(a) in the case of an offence committed by a registered provider that is an individual—1,000 penalty units or 5 years imprisonment or both; or

(b) in the case of an offence committed by a registered provider other than an individual—9,500 penalty units.

General defence of reasonable excuse

(8) Subsection (3A), (6) or (7) does not apply if the registered provider has a reasonable excuse.

Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (8) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code).

69E Subsection 180(3)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(3) A person may be found liable to pay a civil penalty under this Act, or be convicted or found guilty of an offence against a provision of this Act, relating to a duty under this section whether or not the registered provider has been found liable to pay a civil penalty under section 179, or been convicted or found guilty of an offence against section 179.

69F Subsection 180(4) (heading)

Omit "Serious", substitute "Civil penalty provisionserious".

69G After subsection 180(4)

Insert:

Strict liability offence serious failures

(4A) A person commits an offence of strict liability if:

(a) the person has a duty under subsection (1); and

(b) the person engages in conduct that does not comply with the duty; and

(c) the conduct amounts to a serious failure by the provider to comply with the duty.

Penalty: 150 penalty units.

69H Subsection 189(6) (heading)

Omit "Death", substitute "Civil penalty provisiondeath".

69J At the end of section 180

Add:

Strict liability offence death or serious injury or illness

(7) A person commits an offence of strict liability if:

(a) the person has a duty under subsection (1); and

(b) the person engages in conduct; and

(c) the conduct amounts to a serious failure by the person to comply with the duty; and

(d) the conduct results in the death of, or serious injury to, or illness of, an individual to whom the duty in section 179 is owed by the registered provider.

Penalty: 500 penalty units.

Fault-based offence death or serious injury or illness

(8) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person has a duty under subsection (1); and

(b) the person engages in conduct; and

(c) the conduct amounts to a serious failure by the person to comply with the duty; and

(d) the conduct results in the death of, or serious injury to, or illness of, an individual to whom the duty in section 179 is owed by the registered provider.

Penalty: 1,000 penalty units or 5 years imprisonment or both.

General defence of reasonable excuse

(9) Subsection (4A), (7) or (8) does not apply if the person has a reasonable excuse.

Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (9) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code).

69K Paragraph 186(1)(a)

After "subsection 179(3) or (5)", insert "or is found guilty of an offence against subsection 179(3A), (6) or (7)".

(2) Schedule 1, page 75 (before line 1), before item 264, insert:

264A After subsection 551(2)

Insert:

(2A) In proceedings for a civil penalty order against an entity for a contravention of subsection (1):

(a) the person seeking the order bears the onus of adducing or pointing to evidence that suggests a reasonable possibility of the matters in paragraphs (1)(a) and (b); and

(b) if that onus is discharged—the entity bears the onus of proving that the claim is not made out.

264B After subsection 551(5)

Insert:

(5A) In proceedings for a civil penalty order against an entity for a contravention of subsection (3):

(a) the person seeking the order bears the onus of adducing or pointing to evidence that suggests a reasonable possibility of the matters in paragraphs (3)(a) and (b); and

(b) if that onus is discharged—the entity bears the onus of proving that the claim is not made out.

These amendments are to reinstate offences for breach of registered provider duties and the responsible person duties to make sure that older people actually have enforceable rights.

Question negatived.

I move amendment (1) on sheet 3396:

(1) Schedule 1, item 180, page 56 (lines 11 and 12), to be opposed.

The purpose of this amendment is to retain the requirement for higher everyday living agreements to be in writing.

The question is that item 180 of schedule 1 of the bill stand as printed.

Question agreed to.

I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 3399:

(1) Schedule 1, page 74 (after line 32), after item 263, insert:

263A Section 547 (after the heading)

Insert:

Internal disclosures

263B Section 547

Before "A disclosure", insert "(1)".

263C Paragraph 547(c)

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

(c) the discloser has reasonable grounds to suspect that the information:

(i) indicates that an entity may have contravened a provision of this Act; or

(ii) indicates that an entity may have engaged in conduct covered by subsection (2); or

(iii) if an entity is a body corporate—indicates that a related body corporate of the entity may have engaged in conduct covered by subsection (2); or

(iv) concerns misconduct, or an improper state of affairs or circumstances, in relation to an entity.

263D At the end of section 547

Add:

(2) This subsection covers the following conduct:

(a) conduct that constitutes an offence against a law of the Commonwealth that is punishable by imprisonment for a period of 12 months or more;

(b) conduct that represents a danger to the public or an individual who accesses the aged care system;

(c) conduct that is prescribed by the rules.

(3) A disclosure covered by subsection (1) is an internal disclosure.

(4) Subsection (1) does not apply to a disclosure of information to the extent the information disclosed concerns a personal work-related grievance of the discloser.

External disclosures

(5) A disclosure of information (an external disclosure) by an individual (the discloser) qualifies for protection under this section if:

(a) the discloser has previously made an internal disclosure of the information; and

(b) the person to whom the internal disclosure was made:

(i) took no action in relation to the internal disclosure; or

(ii) did not complete an investigation in relation to the internal disclosure before the end of the period of 90 days beginning on the day the internal disclosure was made; or

(iii) completed an investigation in relation to the internal disclosure that resulted in no further action being taken; and

(c) the external disclosure is made to one or more of the following:

(i) a member (however described) of the Parliament of the Commonwealth or a State, or of the legislature of a Territory;

(ii) a person who works in a professional capacity as a journalist; and

(d) the discloser reasonably believes that the external disclosure is in the public interest.

Disclosures to support persons

(6) A disclosure of information by an individual (the discloser) qualifies for protection under this section if:

(a) the disclosure is made to one or more of the following:

(i) an officer or employee of a trade union;

(ii) an independent aged care advocate;

(iii) a legal practitioner; and

(b) the disclosure is made for the purposes of seeking support or advice in relation to the information, or another disclosure relating to the information.

(7) A disclosure of information by an individual (the discloser) qualifies for protection under this section if:

(a) the disclosure is made to a medical practitioner or psychologist; and

(b) the disclosure is made for the purposes of seeking or obtaining medical or psychiatric care, treatment or counselling (including psychological counselling).

263E After section 548

Insert:

548A Claims for protection

(1) If, in civil or criminal proceedings (the primary proceedings) instituted against an individual in a court, the individual makes a claim (relevant to the proceedings) that, because of section 548, the individual is not subject to any civil, criminal or administrative liability for making a disclosure that qualifies for protection under section 547:

(a) the individual bears the onus of adducing or pointing to evidence that suggests a reasonable possibility that the claim is made out; and

(b) if the individual discharges that onus—the party instituting the primary proceedings against the individual bears the onus of proving that the claim is not made out; and

(c) the court must deal with the claim in separate proceedings; and

(d) the court must adjourn the primary proceedings until the claim has been dealt with; and

(e) none of the following:

(i) any admission made by the individual in the separate proceedings;

(ii) any information given by the individual in the separate proceedings;

(iii) any other evidence adduced by the individual in the separate proceedings;

is admissible in evidence against the individual except in proceedings in respect of the falsity of the admission, information or evidence; and

(f) if the individual or another person gives evidence in the separate proceedings in support of the claim—giving that evidence does not amount to a waiver of privilege for the purposes of the primary proceedings or any other proceedings.

(2) To avoid doubt, a right under section 126K of the Evidence Act 1995 not to be compelled to give evidence is a privilege for the purposes of paragraph (1)(f) of this section.

263F After section 549

Insert:

549A Certain recipients to take steps to protect disclosers

If:

(a) an individual makes a disclosure that qualifies for protection under section 547 to an entity (the recipient); and

(b) the recipient is:

(i) a registered provider; or

(ii) a responsible person of a registered provider;

the recipient must take such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances to protect the individual against any reprisals that have been, or may be, taken in relation to the disclosure.

263G Subparagraph 550(3)(a)(ii)

Omit "paragraph 547(c)", substitute "paragraph 547(1)(c)".

This amendment would ensure that there are adequate whistleblower protections.

Question negatived.

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3405 together:

(1) Schedule 1, page 68 (after line 12), after item 229, insert:

229AA Before subsection 323(7)

Insert:

Excluding certain redress amounts

(7AA) In working out an individual's total assessable income, disregard the following amounts:

(a) an amount paid to, or for the benefit of, the individual by way of compensation under a scheme established by a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory for providing redress to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander survivors of any form of abuse or wrongdoing, including redress to the Stolen Generations and redress in respect of stolen wages;

(b) an amount paid to, or for the benefit of, the individual by way of compensation pursuant to an order of a Commonwealth, State or Territory court in respect of any form of abuse or wrongdoing in relation to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander persons, including in respect of stolen wages.

(7AB) To avoid doubt, the amounts mentioned in subsection (7AA) are to also be disregarded in making determinations under subsection (1) or paragraph (2)(b), (3)(b), (4)(b) or (5)(b).

(2) Schedule 1, page 69 (after line 6), after item 236, insert:

236AA Before subsection 330(9)

Insert:

Excluding certain redress amounts

(9AA) In working out the value of an individual's assets, disregard the following amounts:

(a) an amount paid to, or for the benefit of, the individual by way of compensation under a scheme established by a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory for providing redress to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander survivors of any form of abuse or wrongdoing, including redress to the Stolen Generations and redress in respect of stolen wages;

(b) an amount paid to, or for the benefit of, the individual by way of compensation pursuant to an order of a Commonwealth, State or Territory court in respect of any form of abuse or wrongdoing in relation to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander persons, including in respect of stolen wages.

(9AB) To avoid doubt, the amounts mentioned in subsection (9AA) are to also be disregarded in making determinations under paragraph (2)(a) or (b) or (3)(a) or (b) or subsection (4).

These are very simple amendments. They ensure that compensation or redress payments to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, including for stolen gen, which we know the Labor government support—I can't understand why they would not support this—stolen wages and stolen gen payments are excluded from income and assets tests under aged-care legislation. I'm not sure if the Indigenous senators in this place actually read these bills or understand how these bills actually affect our people. Compensation is being stolen as part of the colonisation of this country and the violence that our people endure every day. Our old people who've received stolen gen payments will be affected—not only stolen gen but stolen wages. When our people were slaves in their own country—I know some people might find this absolutely hilarious. I'm surprised that Labor people are laughing while I'm speaking about this. It's very disrespectful to stolen gen and those that were slaves in our own country. This means that income and assets tests under the age-care legislation will affect these payments. In practice, this means that such payments will not reduce a person's eligibility and extent of aged-care support and protect survivors' redress from being effectively clawed back through the aged-care system. How does that make sense, Labor? I think you need to rethink this for stolen gen and stolen wages and make sure that they are not affected by this legislation. Don't you think our people have suffered enough at the hands of this violent system?

The opposition put on the record that we have great sympathy for the position that has been put by Senator Thorpe. As I responded to Senator Allman-Payne when she, this morning, also moved a similar amendment, I say we believe and accept the government's position that, if we were going to address redress payments as they were impacting on payments as part of the broader payment system of government, it should be done in a uniform way across all payment systems and not done in an ad hoc way, bill by bill. So, I just wanted to put on the record, Senator Thorpe, that we have great sympathy for the case that you've put forward, but we will be supporting the government in their intention to make sure this is a uniform application of this particular issue across the whole of government.

As noted in the previous contribution, the Greens did move an amendment earlier today seeking to exclude redress payments. We would urge the Senate, given that they have a second opportunity this evening, to right that wrong, to vote in favour of Senator Thorpe's amendment. If it's the case that the government thinks that redress payments should be excluded, this is a good place to start, and we would welcome other legislation coming before the Senate so we could expand it beyond the Aged Care Act.

The question is that requests (1) and (2) on sheet 3405 be agreed to.

I move the amendment circulated in my name on sheet 3393:

(1) Schedule 2, item 30, page 109 (after line 22), at the end of item 2, add:

Review by Senate Committee

(9) The Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, or such other committee constituted under a resolution of the Senate, may:

(a) begin a review of any rules made under subitem (1) within 3 months after the day the rules are tabled in the Senate; and

(b) report the Committee's findings to the Senate as soon as practicable after completing each review.

Do you wish me to put the amendment? Did you wish to speak to it, Senator Payman?

Yes, I can speak it to. It will be short. This amendment would amend part 4 of schedule 2 of this bill, which inserts a proposed schedule 6 into the Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2024. This schedule would allow the minister to modify the legislative framework of aged care by legislative instrument while the transition to the new Aged Care Act is underway. This is a consequential schedule that empowers the minister to legislate without reference to the parliament. While it is important that the transition to the new aged-care framework goes as smoothly as possible, it is also important that this power is scrutinised by parliament.

The amendment on sheet 3393 adds a clause to the proposed schedule 6 to allow the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee to review any rules made under schedule 6 without the need for the Senate to refer the matter to it first. This committee can do so within three months of a rule or rules made under the schedule being tabled in the Senate. In a previous draft of this amendment, the choice of the committee to review a rule or rules was instead an obligation. This would have meant, even if a rule was made that was as simple as fixing a drafting error or making a minor technical amendment, the committee would have been required to review it and report to the Senate. By substituting 'must' with 'may' this amendment allows the committee the freedom to decide whether a rule is worthy of inquiry.

For some senators, this may raise a concern that, by not forcing the committee to review every rule, the committee, which is a government controlled one, could choose to not review rules that, for example, the government or the minister do not wish them to review but that are consequential. If the word 'must' is used and the committee was presented with what, in its view, was an inconsequential rule, the committee could elect to report this finding without being required to consider the rule any further. If the word 'may' is used, the committee would be free to not consider a rule it deemed inconsequential without the need to produce a report of finding for each inconsequential rule that is made. In essence, the committee would in either situation retain the power to determine to what extent it wished to inquire into rules.

The use of 'may' rather than 'must' recognises that the committee's time and resources are limited and offers the committee flexibility in deciding which rules it wishes to report on. This amendment will increase the accountability of the minister in exercising his powers under this act, and I would urge my fellow senators to support it.

I would like to indicate that the opposition will be supporting Senator Payman's amendment because we believe this provides additional scrutiny to the minister's rule-making powers. We support this amendment.

I will just indicate that the government does not support the amendment. There is nothing to prevent the Senate from referring this or any other matter to the relevant committee should it choose to do so.

I wish to indicate that the Greens will be supporting this amendment.

Question agreed to.

Before we close the debate on this very important piece of legislation, I want to put on the record that today was a win for older Australians who desperately need the assistance that the passage of this bill is going to afford them. The decision to release today immediately on royal assent the 20,000 home-care packages is incredibly important for so many Australians, for those 20,000 Australians who now are going to get the support that they otherwise previously had been denied. It will also be a win over time for 83,000 older Australians, because the sector is now in a position to be able to gear itself up to be ready to deliver the packages that have been forced to be released over the coming nine months.

Basically today Labor was faced with a choice: listen to the coalition, the Greens and Senator David Pocock and release these packages early or stand in the way of vulnerable older Australians getting the care they desperately need. Today, I was very pleased to have been able to stand with the Greens and Senator Pocock against what I think has been a very arrogant stance by this Labor government in relation to its absolute preparedness to intentionally deny older Australians the care that they have been identified as needing, simply because the government was not prepared to put its hand in the pocket and issue these new packages.

I just want to be very clear. Today was not a deal. Today was a defeat of the Labor Party's arrogance on this matter. The Labor Party capitulated on the stance that they have taken now for some months simply because they realised that they were going to lose a vote in this place. But, as I said, the big winners today are the older Australians who will now be able to get access to the care that they have been assessed as needing.

This shouldn't have had to take until today. This should have happened months ago. The government should never have said that they were not going to release any new packages for a period of at least four months. As I said, the situation should never have happened. The sector was ready, the department was ready, and the money was already baked in the budget by this government. Labor was the only one standing in the way of the release of these packages for older Australians.

It is a black mark on this government that it has taken the collective effort and will of those of us in the Senate who put older Australians' needs first that we have had to drag the government kicking and screaming to this position. This is a crisis of the government's own making, and we are very proud to have stood with others in this place to force the government to release these additional 83,000 packages. But we also found out today, despite the government's trying to stop us from finding out, that the waitlist is now 108,924 people. We now know that even these 83,000 packages that are to be released over the next nine months are not going to be sufficient to deliver the care to those people that are on the waiting list.

The coalition will continue to fight for older Australians with one very clear goal in mind: no-one should have to be waiting for the care that they have been assessed as needing, and we will continue to fight to make sure that that isn't the case. Can I acknowledge the support of the Australian Greens, who have been steadfast in their pursuit of the same goal that we have—that is, that older Australians should get the care that they need. I will also give a shout-out to Senator Pocock, who has been very steadfast through all of the inquiries to make sure that we have been able to achieve what we have achieved today.

Can I also, on indulgence, thank my incredible staff. We on the side have got very limited staff, which means our staff have to work incredibly hard. Can I put on the record the incredible work of Holly Crothers, who has worked tirelessly now for 18 months to make sure that we're in the position to be able to see these packages released. She's been ably supported by my chief of staff, Lilli Balaam, whom I'm very sad to say will be leaving us on Friday. We wish her all the best. But most particularly we wish older Australians all the best. We will not stop fighting for you.

The Greens, too, welcome the demonstration of the power of the Senate today in being able to force the government to release home-care packages now. It shouldn't have taken this long to bring the government to this position, but we showed, through bringing the evidence from our inquiry on Friday and maintaining consistent pressure on the government, that pressure works. The Greens are proud of the pressure that we have applied over the last month to bring the government to this position, along with Senator Pocock and the coalition.

It's concerning just how big the waitlist for aged care is. I want to remind the government that the royal commission said that we needed to stop rationing aged care. We are so far away at this point in time from ceasing that rationing. Eighty-seven thousand packages for a waitlist of over 200,000 is not going to get us there. So the Greens will continue to work to put pressure on the government. We also have concerns about the inequity of the new Aged Care Act and the fact that some people are not going to be able to access care because it would be beyond their financial means. We also have serious concerns about the ending of the Commonwealth Home Support Program, which provides essential services like Meals on Wheels. So it is a win today for the Senate. It shows that pressure in the Senate works, but there is still much more to do, and the Greens are going to keep holding the government to account and keep the pressure on them until we stop rationing care for older Australians and we make sure that they get it at the time that they need it.

Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, as amended, agreed to, subject to requests; Aged Care (Accommodation Payment Security) Levy Amendment Bill 2025 agreed to.

Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 reported with amendments and requests; Aged Care (Accommodation Payment Security) Levy Amendment Bill 2025 reported without amendment; report adopted.

Because the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 has been agreed to subject to requests, that bill will not be read a third time. A message will be sent to the House requesting that the House make the amendments.

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move:

That on Thursday, 4 September 2025:

(a) the questions on all remaining stages of the following bills be put at 1 pm:

(i) Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill 2025,

(ii) Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2025,

(iii) Treasury Laws Amendment (Payments System Modernisation) Bill 2025, and

(iv) Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025;

(b) paragraph (a) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142; and

(c) divisions may take place between 1.30 pm and 2 pm until consideration of the bills has concluded.

I move:

That the motion be now put.

Question agreed to.

The question is that the motion, as moved by Minister Gallagher, be agreed to.

Senate adjourned at 20:14