If there is no objection, the meetings are authorised.

The committee is considering the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Triple Zero Custodian and Emergency Calling Powers) Bill 2025, as amended. The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 3458, a deferred division, be agreed to.

The question is that opposition amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3459 be agreed to.

I move amendment (1) on sheet 3460 revised as circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, page 19 (after line 9) at the end of the Schedule, add:

Part 4 — Civil penalties

Telecommunications Act 1997

18 After paragraph 570(3)(ac)

Insert:

(ad) in the case of a contravention of subsection 148(1) or (3) of the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999$40 million for each contravention; or

(ae) in the case of a contravention of subsection 151D(1) or (2) of the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999$40 million for each contravention; or

From the outset, I want to put on the record that, for nearly a month, the coalition has been trying to work with the Albanese Labor government to amend this bill. Last night, the government claimed they'd been working in good faith with us. Let's be clear—they have not. These amendments were moved in the other place three weeks ago, and, whilst they were supported by the coalition and the entire crossbench, the Albanese government voted against them.

On the same day they declined to support the amendments to this bill, the Minister for Communications said in question time:

I offer, in good faith, that, if that is a live issue for you, given this bill is before the House, we can continue to work on penalties where it is already tabled in the House.

The shadow minister for communications wrote to the minister and accepted this offer, stating, 'Considering the significance of this outage, the tragic loss of life and the significant lack of confidence and trust Australians now have in the triple 0 network, the coalition wishes to accept your offer to continue to work with the Albanese government on this matter.' And guess what the coalition have heard since then? Nothing, absolutely nothing. The coalition has heard nothing from the government. I don't know whether the phones aren't working in the minister's office. Maybe they aren't checking their emails again.

The coalition has been calling for a public register of triple 0 outages so Australians can have confidence in the system and be informed. Optus has now had two major and catastrophic outages in under two years, both under the Albanese government's watch, and both times the parliament had to step in through Senate inquiries and Senate estimates to drag information out of them. This is not right. It is not good enough. Australians expect and deserve more. It is pleasing that the government, however slowly, has finally agreed to make this happen, but it is a pity that the coalition has had to drag the government kicking and screaming to do it.

The other amendment the coalition was seeking was for the reporting mechanism created by this bill to be more frequent and for these reports to be made public, so it was really disappointing last night that the Greens political party have done a deal with the government to deny this transparency mechanism from happening. The Greens have come into this place wanting more transparency and accountability and higher penalties, yet they've sold out for lower penalties than they were seeking and absolutely no transparency, leaving Australians languishing.

The Greens crow about selling out to big corporations. Well, the Greens sold out the Australian people for a rubbish deal with this arrogant Labor government. The coalition asked for penalties of $20 million per year. The Greens asked for $100 million, but they settled for $30 million. The Greens didn't talk to the coalition; they talked to the Albanese Labor government instead. The Greens wanted higher penalties. In fact, Senator Hanson-Young said yesterday:

… I want to say right at the beginning that I still think it should be more. I still think these big companies deserve everything we can give them.

These aren't my words. They are the words of Senator Hanson-Young.

And I stand by it.

Well, the coalition has, Senator Hanson-Young. We have $40 million penalties right here on the table. You can agree to this now and quite literally put the corporations' money where your mouth is, or you can hide behind the secret deal that you've stitched up with Labor.

But the real issue here is the Albanese Labor government and their running away from transparency. Today this place will vote on a Senate inquiry into the September Optus outage, and we will examine all facets of not just this outage but the triple 0 network. The six-monthly reports required in this bill, if not made more frequent, at the very least should be published and tabled in parliament. Public safety and the accountability of telcos should not be sold out. Lives were lost. Our triple 0 network appears to be broken under this government, and the government doesn't seem to care. It's now over to the Greens. Will you cut another deal with the government, or will you support the stronger penalties that you wanted? The coalition will not stop until we have confidence the triple 0 network is safeguarded and we have full transparency and accountability in the system. Minister, last night you confirmed the government will require telcos to have a public register of triple 0 outages. On what website will this public register be?

I do want to address the question, but I also think it's important to set the record straight about what has happened in relation to this bill. The truth is that the coalition are a complete broken mess. It is really difficult to work with them in good faith in any way, shape or form because they can't even work in good faith with themselves at the moment. So of course the government worked with the Greens to accept an amendment moved by Senator Hanson-Young to triple penalties in relation to these contraventions. We have always said that there is a further bill with more reform in relation to the full suite of packages that we will be dealing with in the House this week and hopefully in the Senate soon where we will consider even more reform to the penalties regime.

If anyone listened to Holly Rankin's address through the Speaker's Lecture last night, it is clear that this is something that the public wants to see this chamber take action on, not have a debate about who is madder at Optus. Everybody is mad at Optus. It's not a competition about who is madder at Optus. What is important today is that we pass this bill and that we agree to these amendments to triple penalties, as proposed by the Greens. We are doing that because we want to see this bill passed. It is incredibly important that we see this action taken. That's what the public want to see from us today and that is what we are getting on with in spite of the efforts of the coalition to try to claim credit for this. It is really hard to claim credit when you haven't been part of the conversations or participated in any way in making sure that we can take this bill through to completion today.

The telco websites will hold the information. We want the telcos to take responsibility, to be accountable and to do the things that they are required to do by law. That is exactly what the direction from the minister will do. I want to thank senators around the chamber for supporting this legislation today. Let's get on with it. Let's pass this legislation so that we can ensure that triple 0 never fails again.

You've confirmed that the telcos will be the ones who will hold the records of outages on their own websites. If I am an Aldi mobile customer, which website will I go to?

Senator McGrath, not that I need to give you personal advice about how to engage with your telco, but your carrier would be the holder of this information. We want them to take accountability for this information. That's why we are, through a determination and a direction from the minister, demanding that this information be public and that the public can see when these outages occur. This is another way that we are keeping them accountable after the terrible and tragic outage that occurred earlier this year.

So I can confirm there will be no central website where Australians can see who has an outage and when?

I can confirm that the telco websites will hold the information, as directed by the minister. We are requiring them to take this step because we want them to be held accountable for the actions that they have taken, on top of all of the measures that this bill will bring about. The Triple Zero Custodian is designed to make sure that we have the powers not only to investigate outages but to take proactive steps to ensure that they do not occur again.

When will the registers be active?

Certainly, Senator McGrath, as you would understand, we need to pass this bill to ensure that the Triple Zero Custodian is established in law. The public register of network outages will build on the new requirement to publicly report outages and increase transparency and accountability around outages related to impacts on access to triple 0. That register will be set up once the bill is passed.

You can't give a timeframe, in that case. Will this be done within six months?

It's a priority for our government to have these registers established, and, of course, passing the bill will expedite that action today.

The register is being established through the standards and not through the bill. In terms of the register of outages that is going to be required of each telco, under the evidence that you've given, what is the timeframe before those registers will be made public?

I can seek to ensure that there is as much information as possible about that timeframe available to you. What I would say is that it is a priority for the government, and we will ensure that those registers are set up as soon as possible. Of course, it will be done through standards. It will be done through the Telecommunications (Customer Communications for Outages) Industry Standard. To give you that comfort, we will ensure that this will be done by the end of the year.

The minister wrote to ACMA yesterday, instructing them to update the Telecommunications (Customer Communications for Outages) Industry Standard to require that telcos make this information publicly available. In that letter, did the minister set out a timeframe for that information to be made publicly available?

I have given you that confirmation in the Senate that we will ensure that register is set up by the end of the year. We undertake to work with your shadow minister for communications to ensure that that register is set up by the end of the year.

My question was: did the minister, in the letter that she sent to the telcos, establish a timeframe for the outage information to be made publicly available?

I've confirmed to you that it's a priority for our government. We will work with the shadow minister for communications to ensure that it is done by the end of the year. There was a commitment in that letter to ensure that the department is working with the shadow minister for communications to ensure that it happens as soon as possible. I've given you that commitment now that it will be done by the end of the year.

So the letter had no timeframe in it, in terms of when this information is to be made publicly available. That's the evidence you have provided. Can you table a copy of the letter?

I can take some advice on that for you.

I'm sure those in the minister's office are watching this—unless they're checking their emails—and I'm sure they can get a copy of the letter brought down to the chamber so it can be tabled. This issue goes to transparency and accountability. We have been asking questions about whether there is a timeframe in the letter that the minister sent to ACMA yesterday. No timeframe has been forthcoming, in terms of the content of that particular letter. Is there a reason you are unable to table a copy of the letter?

That's a matter for the minister. I have said that I will raise that with her. I just do want to reiterate, though, that I have been very clear about what the direction was. I read that out last night in the Senate, and I have referred to it again today. I can repeat that for you, although I'm conscious that we should not be delaying this bill. I confirm that the direction is to amend the Telecommunications (Customer Communications for Outages) Industry Standard 2024 to mandate that telecommunications providers maintain a public register of their network outages. I have answered these questions for you a number of times. It is a priority for the government, and we will ensure that it is set up by the end of the year.

Minister, with respect, you are the minister. You are here representing the communications minister. In relation to the tabling of this letter, this is something that I think the Senate would like to see as part of its deliberations in relation to this bill. You have failed to give a timeframe as outlined in the letter. You have said that it is the intention of the government to have it completed by the end of the year. What is clear in the absence of the letter being provided to this chamber is that there is no timeframe within the letter that you've been able to speak to that sets out the requirements of the government concerning the publication of this register. While we're waiting for the minister's office to bring down a copy of this letter so it can be tabled, what penalties will the telcos face if they fail to publish real-time updates of network outages?

I can get that information for you, Senator. I've obviously sought to answer your questions as quickly as I can, taking into account that I'm not the Minister for Communications; I'm representing the minister today. I can get that information for you as soon as I can.

I suppose if we had a copy of the letter—this mysterious letter that the minister has sent to ACMA—it may set out the timeframe for the telcos to establish these registers. I suppose my question is: will there be penalties if the telcos fail to publish real-time updates on network outages?

The letter is not mysterious. There are no secret emails. It will be determined in consultation with regard to penalties. We are seeking to pass this bill so that we can get on with establishing the Triple Zero Custodian into law, hopefully today, to ensure that we can take proactive steps about outages before they happen. Of course, a register of outages after the fact is something the minister has directed telcos to do, but the powers in this bill will allow proactive measures to be taken, and they're incredibly important.

So you can confirm that there will be penalties if the telcos fail to publish real-time updates of network outages?

To be clear—I'm sure you don't have a real-time Hansard in front of you—I said that that will be determined in consultation as the register is developed. What we have done today is agreed to the tripling of penalties to ensure that it is clear that the conduct of telcos with regard to triple 0 is very serious, and the public expects them to comply with the laws they are already required to comply with and any new directions that the custodian or ACMA deliver under these new laws.

Did the letter that the minister sent to ACMA—I just want to understand this fully—explicitly instruct ACMA to consult on the issue of penalties?

As I said many times in this chamber last night and today, through ACMA, the telcos will be put on notice. They will be issued a direction. The minister will be issuing a direction to mandate that telecommunications providers maintain a public register of their network outages.

How many telcos are there?

There are three mobile network operators.

So there will be three registers of triple 0 outages?

Yes.

Can you define the parameters of real-time reporting?

I've said to you that that will be determined through consultation.

So we have a government who have said this is of the utmost importance and they want to punish those telcos who fail to provide the service that Australians expect, but what we've heard today is that there are no penalties; that's going to be consulted on. What we've heard today is we don't have a definition of real-time reporting, and that's going to be consulted on. We've got a government who are good at consulting! They've said this is of the utmost importance and must be passed today, but there are some key issues here. In terms of the penalties and in terms of the definition of real-time reporting, the government is unable to give Australians an answer. So are you able to advise the chamber about how ACMA will monitor and investigate compliance with these new rules?

I'll have to get you to repeat the last part of the question, and then I'll respond to the other comments, which are a complete fabrication of what's actually happening today.

Through your knowledge of the letter that the minister has sent to ACMA, are you able to advise the chamber on how ACMA will monitor and investigate compliance with the rules that are being set out by the letter?

Let me be clear about what the key issues in this legislation are. What the coalition seems to be focused on is a register of outages that we've mandated telcos to maintain after the outages happen. What the substantive powers of the bill do is set up a triple 0 custodian that has broad powers and functions to direct ACMA to not only investigate but make directions about actions to be taken, procedures and consultation before an outage happens. And there will be civil penalty provisions provided, based on those directions and the failure to comply with them. So it is not true to say that this bill does not contain those powers. It is not true to say that this bill does not keep telcos to account. And it is not true to say that I have not been clear about the register that we are proposing today and that it will not increase transparency and accountability. What I have said is that we will determine, in consultation, what the parameters are, and I invite the coalition to be part of that discussion. I invite you, Senator McGrath, to be part of that discussion. I invite the shadow communications minister to be part of that discussion. You've said today that you acted in good faith. I think you should act in good faith on the consultation around the development of that register, and I think you should act in good faith by passing this bill today.

Minister, we have acted in good faith. For almost a month, the coalition has tried to engage with the government in relation to these issues. The reason we're raising these specific issues is we specifically tried to build these proposals into the proposed bill that is before the chamber, but we've seen from the government a dislike of transparency, a dislike of accountability, and, with respect, a dislike of dealing with the opposition in relation to this particular issue. Your answers have reflected that today in terms of whether it is the refusal of the government to table the letter that the minister has sent to ACMA.

A point of order: I haven't refused to table them; I've taken it on notice. You can withdraw that.

I'm happy to withdraw it for the smooth running of the chamber,but I'd point out that the minister is doing everything in their power to not table the letter. I will be very, very surprised if this letter does end up getting tabled.

Standby, Senator McGrath.

 Oh, no—it's a burn! What we have seen, sadly, with this government is that they're not telling Australians what the penalties will be. They can't even confirm whether there will be penalties. They're saying they will go for consultation on penalties. That doesn't say that there will be penalties. They can't give a definition of what is meant by real-time reporting, so effectively they're handballing everything back to the telcos. We have said consistently on this side of the chamber that the government should be holding the register and that it should be the telcos who are mandated to provide the government with the information concerning outages of the triple 0 network so that it is easier for Australians to hold the telcos to account but also to hold the government to account.

Section 151Q of the bill requires ACMA to provide a written report to the minister within three months after the end of each six-month period. Why will you not support the coalition's amendment or Senator Payman's amendment to have these reports made publicly available?

I did address this amendment last night on the issue of reporting. There are substantial reporting provisions drafted in the bill. We believe they are sufficient and ensure accountability to the minister. There are, of course, accountability measures in the broader Telecommunications Act that we will rely on.

This government is the least transparent and the least accountable government since the Labor government of the 1990s. Further evidence has come out today in relation to this government's failure to answer questions on notice and to comply with orders for production of documents, and we see with the bills before this chamber that the government does not want there to be a report that is tabled here in parliament. So we'll have a secret report that ACMA will send to the minister in relation to certain issues. On this side of the chamber, we're saying that this secret report should be made available to all Australians, to those who are so interested to read, but also available for this parliament, which is entrusted through the Constitution in this chamber to hold the government to account. It is disappointing that the Labor government is continuing with their tradition of refusing to accept accountability and transparency. I would encourage this chamber to support the amendment that I've moved, and I would encourage the government to table the letter that the minister sent to ACMA yesterday.

The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 3460 revised, as moved by Senator McGrath, be agreed to.

I now table a copy of the letter as requested. Thank you, Senator McGrath, for your constructive approach to this bill.

I move the amendment on sheet 3445:

(1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 16 (after line 24), at the end of section 151Q, add:

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within the earlier of:

(a) 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report; or

(b) 30 days after the Minister receives the report.

The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 3445 be agreed to.

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

The deferred vote is to be taken on the second reading amendment moved by Senator Roberts yesterday.

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

No amendments to the bills have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I shall call the minister to move the third reading.

I move:

That these bills be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a third time.

Last night, I was in full swing, analysing this government's failures when it comes to legislating to improve environmental protections in this country but also to do it in a way that actually addresses the failings of this government when it comes to productivity measures and ways to provide investor certainty. Just to recap, for those who weren't tuned in last night, it is an appalling set of events when, after three years of failed attempts, the government is only now trying to bring on something that has been desperately needed for so long.

In the last term, we saw Minister Plibersek with her closed door meetings. Participants in the stakeholder process were being forced to sign non-disclosure agreements, NDAs, because, despite the environment being a public good—something we all depend upon, some derive a living from and we all enjoy the beauty of—the fact that we legislate to manage it, to protect it and to improve it is something that we don't want the public to know about! So this government took the approach of seeking to do all of its negotiations behind closed doors, away from the prying eyes of the public—because we don't need them to have any input, any insight or any say over how this country's environment is managed!—and, certainly, insofar as it relates to how business operates when it comes to its interface with the environment.

I will be very interested to see, over time, what productivity measures and what investor certainty is provided out of the broader package of measures. This legislation before us here today is but a very small part of the large suite of reforms required to fix this broken system, and it is, obviously, something that we will support because it's important we do get that ongoing certainty for the boards of management of the parks that I've already mentioned in my contributions. But that is not the answer to the problems we face here, and the government's track record does not bode well for the future. When it comes to exactly how we think this government will be able to do what it needs to do in our country's interests in terms of ensuring, for those who want to make a decision about whether to invest here and create jobs here in a sustainable way, to world's best practice and world's best standard, that they can do it in a way that is not overly burdensome or cumbersome, that strangles investment opportunities with red tape and therefore sends those jobs offshore, preventing the economic activity from occurring here.

Additionally, as I said before too, tinkering around the edges with this legislation today—legislation which is important and necessary—does not fix the problem that we have. The three years of wasted time on environmental law reform, which went nowhere under this government, have meant that those businesses that could operate here, under strict conditions, in a way that respects the environment, have taken the decision to offshore their investment. People who could mine for a certain commodity here—again, to world's best standard—have made the decision to go elsewhere because of the uncertainty around the regulatory regime.

You only have to look at the McPhillamys goldmine. Someone reminded me of it this morning. It was a mining proposition that would have injected billions of dollars of economic opportunity and activity into our country—in your home state of New South Wales, Acting Deputy President Sharma. It went through the full state and federal environmental and planning approvals, and, having secured all of those very, very high-bar approvals, it was then knocked on the head at the very last minute, which again points to a broken system, because the environmental approval laws in this country are not interfacing in any way with Indigenous heritage protection laws. This project would have meant billions of dollars of economic activity, as I said, but it's now gone and will not be done here. Goodness knows what that company is going to do, but, again, this government put its head in the sand and didn't think it was an issue worth dealing with.

We'll wait and see what happens with the full suite of legislation, but, in the meantime, these reforms are sensible and should be supported.

I also rise to speak in support of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Board of Management Functions) Bill 2025. The bill is brief, but its impact is significant. It protects the continuity, partnership and integrity of joint management of our most iconic national parks: Kakadu, Uluru-Kata Tjuta and Booderee. At its heart, the bill safeguards two things that Australians deeply value: good governance and respect for country. It ensures that boards of management can continue to make lawful, practical decisions, even when a management plan expires, which is a small but crucial legislative fix to prevent disruption.

Under the current EPBC Act, each management plan expires after 10 years. When one does, the board of management immediately loses its power to act. The management plans for the Booderee and Kakadu national parks are due to expire in November this year and January 2026 respectively. So, without this bill, both boards would be, in effect, legally paralysed, unable to approve fire management, visitor safety or cultural access work. This was never the intention of parliament. The Director of National Parks would be forced to act alone, therefore breaking the spirit of joint management and interrupting the vital involvement of traditional owners, who do guide the stewardship of their country. That is the governance gap that this bill closures.

The bill strengthens Indigenous decision-making. Each board has a majority Indigenous membership, nominated by traditional owners under section 377 of the EPBC Act. Their knowledge and cultural authority guide the work of rangers and park managers every day. In fact, the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water has said the bill supports 'the effective participation of Indigenous people in decision-making about the management of jointly managed Commonwealth reserves' and that it allows continuity of governance arrangements for Commonwealth reserve management. The bill ensures that responsibilities around fire management, the protection of cultural sites and visitation can continue lawfully and respectfully until new management plans take effect.

Traditional owners bring to their work thousands of years of knowledge around caring for country. Their understanding of land, water, fire and seasons is not an adjunct to science; it's actually its foundation. Across Australia, Indigenous led management delivers stronger environmental outcomes, from savanna burning in the north to the landscape restoration in the south. Of course, in my home state of Tasmania we recognise the Palawa and Pakana peoples as the traditional owners and custodians of Lutruwita. Their enduring connection to country and role in protecting Tasmania's national parks and cultural heritage enrich how we understand conservation. National parks are living cultural landscapes, and, when traditional owners have a genuine say in their care, our entire nation benefits.

Consultation with the boards of management, Northern Land Council, Central Land Council and Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council has confirmed strong support for this bill. The Law Council of Australia says the bill is 'a practical solution to a practical problem'. The Australian Airports Association acknowledged the bill's intent to 'provide continuity of decision-making' and 'avoid governance gaps'.

The consequence of not acting should be considered as well. If parliament fails to pass this bill before management plans expire, the consequences would be immediate and damaging. The boards would lose authority, traditional owners would be excluded from decisions affecting their land, and the Commonwealth could face significant legal uncertainty if decisions are made without clear statutory power. Beyond the legal risk lies the practical reality. Vital environmental management—fire control, weed management, visitor safety and cultural site protection—could all be delayed, so there is a real, practical consequence to this bill. Delaying such things as fire control or weed management is an unacceptable risk for communities who rely on these parks for their livelihood, heritage and identity. Failing to act would also undermine confidence in the government's broader environmental law reforms and the commitment to reconciliation. It would contradict the recommendations of the Samuel review, which urged greater empowerment of Indigenous partners in managing Commonwealth reserves.

The bill is both principled and practical. It keeps national parks well-governed, ensures Indigenous partners remain central to management and strengthens the link between cultural knowledge and environmental care. In doing so, it honours the traditional owners of Kakadu, Uluru and Booderee and the Palawa and Pakana people of my home state of Tasmania, whose custodianship reminds us that caring for country is both an environmental and a moral duty. I commend this bill to the Senate.

Yesterday the Senate marked 40 years since the return of Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park to the Anangu people. The joint management of the park since then has strengthened custodianship and recognised the Anangu people's relationship with the land. It has embedded cultural knowledge in decisions, it's enabled an end to the destructive climb that ignored cultural values, and it's helped First Nations led tourism to thrive. It demonstrates how traditional owners managing land and sea country leads to better outcomes for culture, community and the environment, which brings me to this bill, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Board of Management Functions) Bill.

This bill fixes a technical issue that would have interrupted First Nations management. Without this amendment, the board of management of a jointly managed national park would lose decision-making powers when a management plan expires. Decisions would revert to the Director of National Parks until a new plan is in place. The management plans for Kakadu National Park and Booderee National Park will expire in the next few months. New management plans are being developed, but they won't be ready before the current plans expire. The Greens support the changes enacted by this bill to allow the boards of Kakadu and Booderee to continue their management roles while the plans are finalised.

Several submitters to the inquiry into the bill were concerned that extending the operation of an expired management plan could mean that decisions did not reflect the best environment or climate science or Indigenous knowledge. It is important that management decisions are informed by the best available information, and I acknowledge the legitimate concerns of those submitters but note that the bill confirms that the board and the director must try to ensure that there is a current plan at all times.

The success of Indigenous protected areas across Australia shows how traditional owners and Indigenous rangers understand and respond to the needs of country. However, developing rigorous and culturally appropriate management strategies takes time, and implementing them takes money. This will only be achieved if the government dedicates sufficient, long-term funding to enable management plans to be developed, implemented and reviewed and for training and support for rangers.

Beyond this bill, much more must be done to enable First Nations custodianship of land and sea country. The shameful destruction of Juukan Gorge by Rio Tinto in 2020 made clear that Australia's laws are failing to protect Aboriginal cultural heritage, and they're not supporting the self-determination of traditional owners. That destruction was all the more shocking because it was entirely legal, and it wasn't an isolated event. First Nations cultural heritage is being destroyed, damaged, degraded and displaced every day across this country. Across the country many sacred First Nations sites are currently under threat, including sacred rock art at Murujuga and in Darwin, sacred forests in the Pilliga, caves along the Great Australian Bight and burial grounds and songlines in the Tiwi Islands. Rio Tinto was widely condemned after it was legally allowed to blow up the 46,000-year-old caves at Juukan Gorge under WA's outdated Aboriginal Heritage Act. The Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura peoples were left devastated while Rio Tinto tried to save face by overhauling its executive team and admitting that it breached traditional owners' trust.

The inquiry that followed on from that incident set out a pathway for a way forward. That inquiry report called on the government to legislate new national cultural heritage laws with proper protection and a process of co-design with First Nations people. It called for minimum legislative standards and approaches to negotiation that are based on principles of self-determination and importantly of free, prior and informed consent. Australia is unceded Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land, and traditional owners must be able to decide what happens on country without interference and with access to the best available information. Australia has yet to ratify the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, but that must not stop us from adopting free, prior and informed consent. First Nations people must be able to withhold consent to the destruction of their cultural heritage and to determine how their land is managed. But it's not happening.

This morning I joined a delegation of First Nations and Pasifika delegates sharing their experiences of how the climate crisis is impacting their countries and their heartbreak at decisions being made to approve fossil fuel projects against their wishes. Most of the recommendations of the Juukan Gorge report have not been implemented. There's been no progress on new cultural heritage laws to protect tangible and intangible heritage. The government has retreated from its earlier support of a makarrata commission and resumed that money. The national environmental standards promised for First Nations consultation and engagement will not be released before the EPBC reforms are introduced. It's just not good enough. I'm moving a second reading amendment to this bill to acknowledge that.

This bill is a welcome step to address a technical issue and to allow uninterrupted First Nations management of Commonwealth reserves, but, if this government is actually committed to managing land, sea and cultural heritage in partnership with First Nations people, it must implement all the recommendations of the Juukan Gorge inquiry report. It must urgently progress cultural heritage laws. It must include robust First Nations engagement and decision-making processes into the EPBC Act consistent with the principles of free, prior and informed consent. It must support First Nations led co-design for all management plans, and it must provide adequate long-term funding for ranger programs and Indigenous protected areas.

As the Minister for Indigenous Australians said yesterday, the formal return of Uluru Kata Tjuta came after more than a century of disposition and four decades of campaigning by the Anangu. Across Australia, First Nations communities continue to fight for country. Let's not make them wait any longer. I move:

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

(a) the importance of Traditional Owner participation in, and control over, management of land and sea Country; and

(b) that the Albanese Government has not progressed cultural heritage legislation or many recommendations set out in A Way Forward: the final report of the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia's inquiry into the destruction of Indigenous heritage sites at Juukan Gorge, including implementing principles of free, prior and informed consent".

For more than 65,000 years Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have cared for land, country, sea and sky. Our knowledge systems have sustained the world's oldest continuing cultures and remarkable biodiversity on this continent. I'm a proud Noongar Yamatji woman, and I know that when we talk about protecting country, we're not talking about land in an abstract way. We're talking about family. We're talking about spirit. We're talking about connection and whose country we are on. For tens of thousands of years First Nations people have cared for this country, shaping and renewing this continent, and protecting its waters, its animals, its plants and its stories. That care was never incidental. It was deliberate. It was guided by law, culture and a responsibility that was passed on from generation to generation.

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Board of Management Functions) Bill 2025 honours the principles that country is cared for by the people who it's always belonged to and that keeps traditional owners leading the way, guiding our national parks that are managed, protected and also shared. Just last week we celebrated 40 years since the Commonwealth returned the Uluru Kata Tjuta area to the Anangu people, a moment when justice, partnership and a shared love of country came together at the heart of our nation. The act of handback was more than a ceremony; it was a statement of principle and that the people who have cared for country for millennia should continue to do that with the respect and authority that comes from ownership and stewardship.

It was also a moment of extraordinary generosity. The Anangu people chose not to close Uluru to others but to share it and to invite all Australians and the world to learn about their culture, their law and their enduring relationship with that sacred place.

Debate interrupted.

A year ago, Queenslanders voted for change. A year ago, Queenslanders voted for David Crisafulli and the Liberal-National government. They voted for a government who were going to fix the crime crisis, the housing crisis, the health crisis and the cost-of-living crisis. After a year, Queenslanders can see that change is happening in Queensland. They also know that, while the government has done lots, there is lots more to do, because the government came to power with a vision—a vision to get the state back on track and a plan to make sure that Queenslanders felt safe, that they could go to hospitals and not be ramped up in ambulances, that they could have a quality of life and that they could just enjoy all that there is to enjoy about Queensland.

And what that government did in that first year is deliver on its commitments. It strengthened community safety with stricter youth crime laws and more police on the beat—adult crime, adult time. It restored frontline health services and improved transparency in the healthcare system by having real-time data available to Queenslanders to see exactly what is going on. It's moved to help housing affordability by abolishing stamp duty for first home buyers. It's unlocking new land for homes and it's scrapped the CFMEU tax, which was costing Queenslanders billions of dollars. This is a government that gets things done not by shouting, not by virtue signalling but by governing with purpose and discipline. This government is focused on delivering. It is focused on making sure Queensland returns to its place as the best state in Australia.

This week, senators and MPs will have the chance to read speeches from young people across the country as part of the Raise Your Voice campaign, and I have the absolute pleasure to read a speech by Ruilin, a 14-year-old Queenslander. I may be biased, but I reckon it's one of the best speeches out there. This is what Ruilin had to say.

Good morning, everyone,

The future is not something we passively inherit—it is something we actively build.

When we ask, "What steps should the government take for a better tomorrow for young Australians?" we are really asking: 'what vision of Australia do we want to create together?'

First, education. Opportunity must never depend on a student's background or location.

The government should guarantee fair funding for every school and equip teachers to nurture creativity as well as knowledge. A nation that invests in its young minds invests in its future.

Second, mental health.

Barriers of cost, waiting times and stigma stop too many from seeking help.

Government must expand access to affordable, timely and confidential mental health care.

Supporting wellbeing strengthens resilience, and resilient young people strengthen their communities.

Third, cost of living.

Security should not be out of reach for the next generation.

Government action is needed to deliver affordable housing and fair wages, giving young Australians the confidence to plan for tomorrow.

Finally, fairness.

A truly inclusive nation leaves no one behind. Equal opportunity for all must be the foundation of our shared future.

If we act with courage today, young Australians will not only inherit the future—we will shape it, alongside you.

Thank you, Ruilin, for your wonderful speech. It sounds very similar to some of the speeches I've given in this place, but it's your generation that our government is working for. Good luck in the future, and keep fighting for the best state in Australia, Queensland.

I too am proud to be taking part in Raise Our Voice Australia to amplify young people's voices here in parliament. I'm giving this speech on behalf of Olivia, a 16-year-old from my home state of Queensland. Olivia says:

I hope to pursue a career in politics, yet I'm often told, "you'll need tougher skin," or, "you've got to toughen up." But I believe that sensitivity and empathy are not a weaknesses, rather strengths.

I believe that to understand another's pain, to listen without judgement, and to walk in someone else's shoes is the foundation of good leadership, and it's something that we desperately need to see from both current and emerging political leaders.

Compassion breeds action. It drives us to tackle homelessness not with blame, but with housing. To address mental health not with stigma, but with support. To respond to inequality not with indifference, but with justice.

The measure of a society is not how it treats the powerful, but how it treats its vulnerable.

And the measure of a Parliament is not how loudly words are spoken, but how deeply ears listen. Yet too often, politics is driven by self-interest and theatrics, and what's missing is the courage to treat opponents with respect.

Let us build a politics that is less about political slander and more about serving the community. Less about point-scoring and photo ops and more about standing with the vulnerable and creating a space for diversity and difference.

Because compassionate leadership is the key to restoring hope in politics and making a real difference in the world.

That's what 16-year-old Olivia believes, and it really speaks to me as well. The recent UN Australia Youth representative report 2025 shows that only 31 per cent of young Australians feel represented in politics. We need more young women in this place, especially ones with Olivia's compassion, and I look forward to seeing her in the Senate one day.

Recent Senate budget estimates have confirmed what Western Australians already knew, and that is that the Albanese and Cook Labor governments are mismanaging our state's infrastructure projects. Whether it's the huge cost blowouts in the METRONET or the constant delays in getting the flyover bridge built at Nicholson Road in Canning Vale, Western Australians are stuck in traffic because Labor can't manage even the simplest of infrastructure projects.

Take the Garden Island Highway. This is the route that has been gazetted in the Perth Metropolitan Region Scheme in 1975. Despite the first AUKUS rotation commencing in 2027, all Labor's managed to do so far is a $2 million traffic feasibility study that still hasn't even seen the light of day. Then there's the Kwinana Freeway fiasco. It was announced with great fanfare before the state election, but most of the funding isn't due until the end of the decade. Amusingly, the federal minister for infrastructure recently announced the expression of interest, the EOI, for the project and optimistically reiterated that construction is expected to begin in early 2027—subject, of course, to regulatory approvals. The year 2027 looks to be a blockbuster one for road construction. By then, it's hoped, the Nicholson Road/Garden Street flyover bridge will finally have been commenced after years and years of delay. This project was first announced by the coalition government in 2022. Since then, there have been a few gas relocations and a few photo ops for Labor MPs, but there's been no progress. Canning Vale locals still battle this dangerous intersection every single day.

Labor talks a big game when it comes to infrastructure, but, in reality, they just keep reannouncing the same projects while racking up delay after delay after delay. Western Australians want to see these projects delivered on budget and on time.

I'm also rising today to share a speech as part of the Raise Our Voice campaign, and I'm delighted to do so on behalf of Sophie. Sophie is 10 years old and lives in the best state of Australia—South Australia, of course—and I am so pleased to share her words with you today:

To help build a better future for tomorrow, we need to build affordable homes. When we move out of home, we will find it hard to save up enough money to buy a home. Houses have gotten so expensive, meaning lots of people can't afford anything.

We need to have something to help us buy land and build a house, such as a government rebate to discount the land and house build.

Thank you for listening to our voice.

I want to say thank you, Sophie, for sharing your speech with us on an issue that is of such great importance to so many people in our state of South Australia, and I want to assure you that we are working very hard as a government to build more homes, to help more young Australians to buy a home and to ease pressures on renters. Thank you, Sophie, for sharing your ideas. I have no doubt this won't be the last time that your words and ideas influence the work of federal parliament.

It's been an amazing thing to see the members of the Labor government be shocked or feign shock that the criminal mafia elements of their own organisation, the union movement, the CFMEU, have been doing bad things. We have discovered, again, this week through extensive media reporting that these criminal mafia elements are inflating building costs by up to 30 per cent. Now in some cases in Queensland you're seeing a 30 per cent premium being applied to new apartment builds in that state where the CFMEU is onsite with all their fake RDOs, fake allowances, dodgy practices, mafia linkages and bikies threatening people and trying to kill people. It's fantastic stuff.

Welcome to Australia 2025 in the Labor Party, where you pretend that you're not friends with criminal mafia elements but, actually, you are. These are the same people who fund your campaigns and give you millions and millions of dollars, and they run a super fund on the side. This is the most extraordinary thing. After punishing the country with a housing policy that builds bugger-all houses or virtually no houses—after wasting billions of dollars on that—and then opening up this five per cent deposit scheme to anyone without any means testing, then we have the 30 per cent apartment tax brought to you by the CFMEU. That is an unbelievable occurrence. It seems to cycle around and around every few months. We see more and more newspaper articles, but nothing ever happens.

I thought these guys were supposed to be in administration. The Prime Minister assured the Australian people that the CFMEU would be out of business. He was going to chase them out of town. But, no, they're back onsite. In New South Wales, they're terrorising people in Newcastle, they're terrorising people in Western Sydney and they're costing people access to the great Australian dream.

I rise today to talk about some of the amazing schools we have in our regional areas across South Australia. I am lucky enough to get the opportunity to go out, mostly, to announce and open programs based on the Capital Grants Program, and I give a shout-out to the Block Grant Authority for doing such a great job on it. But, most recently, I went to two schools—one in Kadina, Harvest Christian College, and one in Port Pirie, Mid North Christian College. What struck me about both of these schools is the amazing and innovative programs that they have in those schools that aren't just open to their students but to all of the students in the local area. One has specific programs in agriculture, and the other has specific programs in aviation—both really, really critical industry areas for our regions.

In Kadina, the Block Grant Authority has just run the process, and we've updated their library and provided additional learning spaces for those students, which makes it an excellent place once they've finished dealing with all their agricultural training which will help them into the future, given there are so many farms and agricultural businesses in that region. The other one, Mid North Christian College, has flight training and engineering training. They also do drone construction and drone operation, and they have an amazing flight simulator. Some of those students are going to go on and work in some of the most important areas, including one student who's heading off to the Royal Flying Doctor Service. I give a shout-out to those schools for the amazing work that they do for our regions.

We've seen a lot of the Australian flag recently. We've seen politicians wrapping themselves in it in this very chamber while spouting hatred and division. We've seen actual fascists and Nazis waving them at far-right rallies right around the country. We've seen right-wing media outlets pumping out manufactured outrage and culture war speaking points with the Australian flag in the background. Well, do you know what? They say patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, and these people are scoundrels—each and every one of them.

They pretend to love this country, while, at the same time, they are trashing it and destroying it. They're cutting down our forests. They're poisoning our rivers. They're driving species to extinction. They're propping up coal and gas corporations, while the climate crisis turns the future of our country into ash. And, while they do it, they're calling themselves patriots and they dare to claim this country's flag as their shield. Of course we need a new flag for this country, but, for now, the one we've got should represent each and every one of us.

These people are succeeding because the major parties in this place have abandoned people. They've refused to fix housing. They've refused to tax obscene wealth. They've refused to tackle corporate price gouging. They've let wages flatline and costs explode. They've created a stagnant pond and, in that pond, the toxic bacteria of fascism are thriving. These people tell Australians to blame their neighbours, but this country doesn't belong to them. It belongs to everyone who loves this place and wants to see it flourish. The people who fight for multiculturalism, for nature, for forests and for species—they are true patriots.

We regard ourselves as a compassionate country. In no field is this more evident than in disability support. I want to thank the thousands of Aussies out there who work every day to improve the lives of our most vulnerable. When it comes to our disability support workers, they really do demonstrate the best aspects of Australia. Unfortunately, the government has not demonstrated the sort of selflessness that these workers have.

I'd like to read a few passages from a report by Professionals Australia on attitudes towards the NDIS:

Speech pathologists described clients with complex swallowing disorders left with three hours of therapy per quarter, 'We're watching people deteriorate because we can't give them the hours they need.'

For these workers, what they do isn't just a job; it's a labour of love. The report states:

'We're not here to make a quick buck,' one clinician said. 'We're here because we love the people we work with.'

Running an allied health business under the NDIS is no longer viable for many. Owners described mortgaging homes, selling property, or taking out personal loans just to keep their doors open. Some have not paid themselves a wage in over a year.

A big part of why these workers are struggling is the lack of certainty surrounding the scheme. The report continues:

'Every time there's a government announcement, we panic,' said a therapist. 'Will this be a change that kills our business?'

For participants, this uncertainty can be difficult to understand and distressing. These professionals and their clients must be able to rely on the NDIS. Underpinning that reliability must be a foundation of policy certainty. Without that, the NDIS will not be able to do what it was established to do: meet the needs of disabled Australians in a way that truly supports them to live with choice and dignity.

October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and the simple fact is early detection saves lives. More than 21,000 people are diagnosed with breast cancer every year in Australia—that's 58 people every day. And one in seven women will be diagnosed in their lifetime. Those numbers are more than statistics. They're mothers. They're sisters. They're daughters. They're friends. That's why breast cancer screening is an absolute must on every woman's to-do list. That's why we must talk openly and regularly about the importance of screening. Book your appointment, have the conversation and encourage your friends and loved ones to do the same. These are simple tests, but they could, quite frankly, save your life. We know that early detection and treatment will provide the best chance of successfully combating this insidious cancer.

It has been my honour in this role to meet many, many courageous women who have been fighting breast cancer. I've also met many incredible people, whether they be advocates, nurses, carers or others in the medical profession, who advocate on behalf of people with breast cancer. They constantly advocate to make sure that we have better rates of early detection and better treatment regimes. And, to that end, I want to reaffirm my commitment to protecting Australians, particularly those at risk of genetic breast cancer, from discrimination in life insurance. The government failed to address this in the last parliament, despite promising to do so, but the coalition will keep fighting to ensure no Australian woman is discouraged from seeking genetic testing that could save her life. I call on the government not to break this promise again in this term in parliament. Please, deliver your promise to Australian women.

On 19 October, we saw proud, patriotic Australians take to the streets again to stand against Labor's out-of-control mass immigration. I would like to applaud the behaviour of all those involved in the main marches, who were, without exception, peaceful. The only violence came from the issue driven left, as described by Wayne Cheeseman of Victoria Police. Victorian police were pelted with rocks, rotten fruit and bottles full of glass shards. I would like to thank Commander Cheeseman for giving Australia the truth on who instigated the violence at the rally. I would like to thank the brave police, who put themselves in harm's way to keep the peace.

Last month, the US listed antifa as a terrorist organisation, recognising that attacking police and peaceful protestors is in fact terror activity. Is it time that Australia did the same? Terror has no place in Australia. ASIO has Australia at a 'probable' likelihood of a terror attack. ASIO defines 'probable' as a greater than 50 per cent chance of an onshore attack or attack planning in the next 12 months—it's no wonder when Labor is actively importing centuries-old conflicts from overseas.

Australians have had enough. We are a nation of peace. That is why so many people from all around the world want to come here and build a new life. To come to Australia is to leave your conflicts behind. But Labor is intent on bringing in tens of thousands of immigrants that refuse to leave war and violence behind them—just look at the streets of Melbourne.

When I asked the government about the ISIS brides in September, I was told that no assistance was being provided to them. Of course, a month later, we found out they're back in the country. These women chose to join the most heinous terrorist organisation in the world. Labor is risking the safety of Australians by providing assistance and bringing terror to our shores.

Today I'm going to use my time to read Flynn's speech. Flynn is a young person whose speech reached me through the Raise Our Voice Australia campaign. These are Flynn's words:

Imagine being 17, juggling school, two part-time jobs, and still falling short on rent. That's the reality for thousands of Australian teens today.

Our minimum wage, while better than some countries, is no longer enough to meet the rising cost of living. Rent, groceries, transport, it all adds up.

Young people are burning out before they even get a chance to build their future.

We need to abolish the junior pay rates by making wages equal for people under 21. This isn't just about dollars, it's about dignity.

Abolishing junior pay rates would ensure that no teenager working part-time is forced into financial survival mode. It would reflect real costs, not outdated assumptions.

With fair pay, teens could focus on education, contribute meaningfully to the workforce, avoid the trap of chronic stress and poverty, and be able to enjoy young adulthood in the way that previous generations before them did.

Australia prides itself on giving everyone a fair go. But right now, we're failing our youngest workers. Let's change that. Let's invest in their potential, not exploit their desperation.

Abolishing junior pay rates is not radical, it's responsible.

It's how we build a stronger, smarter, more welcoming Australia. Because no one should need three jobs just to sleep under a roof!

(Time expired)

Chapter 1 of the Book of Genesis states:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was a formless and desolate emptiness, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters. Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.

That's where it all began, with light piercing the darkness. Today we find ourselves once again surrounded by darkness—a spiritual darkness that has crept into every corner of our civilisation. Our society—once strong, confident and God fearing—is crumbling. Instead of virtue, we've got vanity. Instead of truth, we've got 'my truth'. Instead of God, we've got government—a false idol, demanding obedience but offering no redemption.

We ask, 'How did it come to this?' as though the answer isn't staring us right in the face. It happened because we turned our backs on the foundation that built the West: the Christian faith. We have rejected the truth that there is one God, one moral law and one path to salvation. For centuries, Christianity gave us purpose and moral strength. Now, we worship false idols. Without Christianity, the West is rich in luxury but starving in spirit.

The time for being timid is over. Wear your cross. Go to mass. Speak truth without fear. Rebuilding the West doesn't start in parliament, in universities or in the media; it starts in the heart. God separated the light from the darkness once before, and he can do it again—if we have the courage to stand on his side.

I joined the Labor Party to deliver—for health, for aged care, for our community services and for Western Australia. After a decade of neglect from those opposite, Australia has lost the care from aged care. Older Australians did the hard yards to build this country, and they deserve to have better access to a system that puts quality, care and safety first. They deserve to have a greater say about the care and services they receive. They deserve the support to stay at home for longer, if that's what they want to do. And the dedicated workers who provide care for our mums and our dads, our aunts and our uncles, our nanas and our pops, deserve to be paid more for the important work that they do.

That is what the Albanese Labor government believes in—investing in our care services and investing in our older Australians—and that is exactly what we are delivering. The fourth increase to aged-care worker award wages and historic investments into aged care, no matter what your postcode is.

I was with the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors, Sam Rae, at the Pam Corker House in Waroona, in WA's Peel region, to announce almost $30 million in investment across 12 projects in WA. This is part of a $300 million investment through the Aged Care Capital Assistance Program. This is on top of the $651 million already invested into aged care by the Albanese Labor government. We are rolling out 80,000 new home-care places by 1 November across this country because older Western Australians, from Kojonup to Fitzroy Crossing and from Narrogin to Warburton, deserve a government that listen, support and deliver. That is exactly what the Albanese Labor government does—it delivers.

Australians cherish their democratic institutions and the opportunity to go to a regular election. This weekend ASEAN leaders met in Malaysia. We have to admit and we have to now recognise as a country that the unresolved conflict in Burma is now a regional security threat and risk.

In late December there will be sham elections in Burma. The Australian government must stand by and commit itself to the preservation of democratic processes and the respect for human rights in Myanmar by not endorsing and by actively working to make sure that those sham elections, to be held in Burma in late December, are not legitimised—not by Australia and not by ASEAN nations.

The Myanmar conflict, as some call it, or Burma conflict, must be kept top of mind for this Australian government and for this parliament. Nothing should happen in the name of Australians to legitimise these sham elections in Burma in late December.

Last Thursday I had the pleasure of joining social and community services sector workers in Victoria as part of a rally across all of the country to protect the very important campaign that they won in 2012 around equal pay. I was very proud to stand with them and support the ongoing campaign.

Thank you, Senator Darmanin. We'll move to question time.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Ayres. Under coalition pressure, the Albanese government has finally released volume 1 of the incoming government brief from the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. One redacted section notes: 'The DMO points to a further significant increase in retail electricity prices next financial year.' Minister, will you be honest with Australians about how much power prices will continue to skyrocket and further impact Australian households and businesses?

Until almost the end, Senator Smith, I was about to say, 'It's good to finally see a moderate question about the energy challenges that Australia faces.' You couldn't resist a final little 'skyrocket'. What Australia needs in electricity policy and energy policy is a sense of national purpose coming from this parliament—confidence, certainty and stability. That is what this government has provided over the course of the last three years. We have acted in both substantial and structural terms as we seek to modernise Australia's electricity system. We have sought to act to deal with some of the short-term questions, which is why we had price caps and why we had support for households.

Senator Smith, are you up on a point of order?

President, my question was very succinct: will the minister be honest with Australians about how much power prices will continue to skyrocket and further impact households and businesses?

Thank you, Senator Smith. I do believe the minister is being relevant to the question, although it was a bit hard to hear because there was quite a bit of noise. I will listen for the next 35 seconds and, if he's not relevant, I will draw him to the question.

He said, 'My question was very succinct.' That's like me saying, 'I am very thin.' Honestly! There is serious work to do and a national challenge in making sure that we build a modern electricity system. Senator Smith, I don't know who it was in your team who sought the incoming government brief. They have been provided it. It's been appropriately redacted. That's the way the system works.

Senator Smith, a first supplementary?

Another redacted section of the brief advises that emissions reductions need to accelerate rapidly to meet the 2030 target, with a strong push needed to finalise your net zero plan. Minister, is this confirmation that Labor's renewables-only policy is failing?

It is, indeed, a misrepresentation to describe the policy proposition adopted by this government, in contrast to the rabble beforehand, as 'renewables only'. Renewables are, of course, the cheapest form of power—plus batteries, hydro and gas. If you can't conceive of what the policy proposition is, it's very difficult—very difficult indeed—to adequately respond to such a misconceived question.

What is absolutely true is that we need additional capacity, generation and transmission, into the system. There is a challenge there to build it. This government is meeting that challenge. And it would be good if some of the odder characters in your show got out of the way of transmission and generation projects. (Time expired)

Senator Smith, second supplementary?

Minister, 97 per cent of pages in the brief have been redacted at least partially, with nearly half of the pages totally redacted. The Department of Home Affairs incoming government brief, which objectively covers more sensitive information, was released with 76 per cent of pages unredacted. What in this brief is so alarming to the Albanese government that you feel the need to hide it? (Time expired)

Ninety-seven per cent is a stark figure indeed, Senator Smith. That is the number that is attached to the proportion of Australia's trading partners who have their own net zero targets. We are getting on with the job of modernising the electricity system. That is what we are doing.

Senator Smith?

My question was very succinct: what in this brief is so alarming to the Albanese government that they feel the need to hide it?

Thank you, Senator Smith. You also talked about percentages and a number of pages which were redacted, and the minister is being relevant to the question.

I'm delighted to support making sure we get absolutely relevant. Ninety-seven per cent is right. What this government has embarked upon stands in stark contrast to what happened before: disinvestment; degeneration of our capacity, in industrial terms and electricity terms; four gigawatts out of the electricity system; only one gigawatt over the nine miserable years of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison experiment. We've seen what happens— (Time expired)

I am delighted to inform the parliament we have two delegations here. The first delegation is the parliamentary delegation for the France-Australia Friendship Group of the French National Assembly. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and, in particular, to the Senate.

Our second delegation is from the European Parliament, led by the chair, Mr Sean Kelly. Once again, 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 Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. The Albanese Labor government's first term saw the government work to undo the reputational damage of a decade of neglect in our region. What is the government doing to deepen the relationships with countries in our region?

Thank you, Senator Whiteaker, and, if I may, I'll preface my remarks by welcoming our international guests from the European Parliament and from the National Assembly. Bienvenu.

To the members of the ADF who are present here: Thank you for your service. Australia is very proud and honoured to have such women and men in the ADF serving our country, so thank you.

Senator, as you know, Australia's prosperity and security lie in our region, which is why I've visited every Pacific Islands Forum member, and all countries of ASEAN other than Myanmar, in my first year as Foreign Minister. After a decade of neglect under those opposite, we were determined to show up, to listen and to build trust. This is why the Prime Minister's visit to Malaysia for ASEAN meetings this week is so important. It is an opportunity to further strengthen Australia's relationships and to advocate for a peaceful, stable region, for the creation of jobs and economic growth here at home.

Yesterday, the government announced two new milestone investments, as part of our South-East Asia economic strategy to 2040, taking advantage of being part of the fastest-growing region in the world, bringing together Australian businesses and investors, to expand our presence and seize the opportunities of the historic growth underway in the Indo-Pacific.

We announced the government will invest $175 million into IFM Investors' Asia-Pacific Debt Fund and US$50 million into a new South-East Asian public private partnership investment fund established by the Australian Infrastructure Specialist Plenary. This adds to the work we have already done to deliver almost a billion dollars of new Australian investment under our South-East Asian economic strategy. Two-way trade has increased by $6 billion between 2023 and 2024. Together, the economies of ASEAN are Australia's second-largest trading partner. This delivers jobs for Australia. (Time expired)

Senator Whiteaker, a first supplementary?

On 6 October the Prime Minister signed the Papua New Guinea-Australia Mutual Defence Treaty, and last week the government hosted the 31st annual Australia-Papua New Guinea ministerial forum here in Canberra. How is the Albanese Labor government working to navigate uncertain international conditions and make Australia more secure by partnering with countries in our region to promote prosperity and stability?

As I said in my first answer, our stability, our security and our prosperity lie in our region. This is an historic time in the story of Australia and Papua New Guinea. Papua New Guinea and Australia are old friends, close neighbours and now we are allies. Last month, we saw Prime Minister Albanese stand with Prime Minister Marape to celebrate 50 years of PNG's independence. On 6 October, our two leaders signed the landmark Pukpuk Treaty, a treaty that elevates our relationship to an alliance—PNG's first and Australia's first in more than 70 years. As you mentioned, I had the privilege last week of co-chairing the first-ever Australia-PNG ministerial forum as allies. Twenty ministers from two nations came together to demonstrate our unprecedented level of strategic trust. A stronger, safer PNG is good for PNG, good for Australia and it is good for our region.

Senator Whiteaker, a second supplementary?

Clearly the Albanese Labor government is working hard with allies and partners in our region to advance our national interests both economically and strategically. How will the government continue to deliver in Australia's national interest in the Pacific?

Australia will continue to be a partner the region can count on to build a strong Pacific family. Those opposite lectured the Pacific, those opposite mocked their priorities and—importantly—they failed to show up when it mattered. Their disastrous performance meant we lost a decade as a nation we are never getting back. And I will be upfront: we do face a permanent state of contest in the Pacific. While the coalition miserably talks Australia down, our government has had transformational breakthroughs like the Pukpuk Treaty, the Pacific Policing Initiative, the Falepili Union with Tuvalu and the Nauru-Australia Treaty. This is what Australia has been delivering under the Albanese government. This is what Labor governments are delivering whilst those opposite, the coalition, are more concerned about outflanking each other. You see, they haven't realised you can't be credible in the Pacific if you continue to deny the science of climate change.

My question—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! I'm sorry, please resume your seat. Order on my right. Senator Canavan has the right to ask his question in silence. Please start again.

Thank you, Madam President. I'm glad I inspire such a reaction. My question is to the Minister for Industry and Innovation, Senator Ayres. There were reports this morning that the Tomago aluminium smelter, which supports around a thousand jobs in your home state of New South Wales, is looking at potential closure. Tomago CEO, Jerome Dozol, laid the blame on energy costs, saying, 'Unfortunately all market proposals received so far show future energy prices are not commercially viable …' The government says that renewable energy is cheaper and it says that it is building lots of renewables for the future. If that is the case, why can't Tomago get an energy price in the future that is affordable?

I can confirm that, this morning, management at the Tomago facility began a process of consulting with around 1,400 workers at that facility about the potential for that facility to close in 2028. Having had some experience with these kinds of events, I can tell you that this is a very difficult day, indeed, and there are going to be challenging days, weeks and months—

Are you going to take any responsibility for that?

What I wouldn't do, Senator Ruston, is disrespect workers who are having a tough day in Tomago with the sort of hyperpartisanship that your show are engaged in. If you—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order! I sat Senator Canavan down and gave him the privilege of starting his question again because there was too much noise on the right. I demanded that his question be heard in silence. The same applies to those of you on the left. The minister is responding to the question, and I ask for silence.

Of course, as you would imagine, this government has been engaged in discussions with the government of New South Wales, the owners of that facility and the trade unions engaged in that facility over the future of that facility for some time. We will continue that over the coming weeks and months as we work with that facility.

It's also the case that, more broadly across the aluminium sector in Queensland and Tasmania, facilities owned by Rio Tinto, a part owner of the Tomago facility, are working through their future power-purchasing agreements. In Queensland, the Gladstone facility has been successfully engaged in investment and underwriting solar and wind projects. I'm grateful for the assistance of the government of Queensland in supporting that work. There is competition— (Time expired)

Senator Canavan, a first supplementary?

Minister, last week the CEO of Jamestrong, who are a metals manufacturing place in Taree, also in my home state, said:

The annual power price for our factory has almost doubled in four years.

He said:

We are decommissioning our baseload power of coal and gas, we are going to renewables and the cost is spiking.

That is what he said. This is a business owner. He's on the front line. Minister, if renewable energy is cheaper, why is it causing the cost of energy to spike for New South Wales manufacturing businesses? (Time expired)

Senator Canavan, you moved off the situation at Tomago pretty quickly, because the facts at that facility don't support your argument. I would have thought that he would give it a few minutes for workers to adjust to this. But he's like a koala returning to his favourite tree.

Senator Canavan, you don't need to call out. I did notice you are standing, and I will come to you.

It's a point of order on relevance. Both questions have been about, if renewable energy is cheaper, why the cost of energy is going up. The minister is not going anywhere near dealing with that question. That's the crucial question.

It's happening everywhere. Jobs are being lost everywhere and you're playing politics.

Senator McKenzie, come to order! I will draw the minister back to the first supplementary.

On that part of the question you referred to, Rio and the owners have been very clear in their public statements that there is neither the coal-fired nor renewable electricity that they are seeking in the market at the moment. That has been their statement. There is a competition for green energy in the future from these companies. That is what is— (Time expired)

Senator Canavan, a second supplementary?

Minister, if you can't guarantee lower energy prices for Australian factories, how are we going to help deliver the critical minerals and rare earths to secure industrial supply chains in the free world?

The evidence is very clear. There are two trajectories—

Opposition senators interjecting—

If you don't want to listen, Senator Canavan—spark up, Sparky! It's impossible to engage seriously with this kind of behaviour, this kind of hyperpartisanship and this kind of imported ideology. It's impossible to engage with it. The truth is there are two trajectories. There is an orderly process of modernising our electricity system, and that requires work, policy consistency and policy certainty. There's a disorderly approach, authored by your colleague Mr Taylor, that banked on industry being forced offshore. Your nuclear plan banked on forcing industry offshore. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education. Minister, last night's chilling Four Corners episode revealed that paedophiles are using the dark web to share detailed manuals on how to infiltrate childrens centres, abuse children and avoid detection. It identified almost 150 educators who have been convicted, charged or accused of sexual abuse or other inappropriate conduct in centres between 2021 and 2024. And it found that the abuse overwhelmingly occurs in for-profit centres, where cost cutting, high staff turnover and weak supervision combine to create a 'perfect storm'. Given the severity of these revelations and the fact that children's safety is directly at stake, why did you not, as the relevant minister, appear on Four Corners to answer questions about these crises in our childcare system?

Thank you, Senator. The reports last night and over the last couple of days have been absolutely horrific and absolutely confronting. They really have been every parent's worst nightmare. What is important of course is that we put in place a strong and comprehensive package of measures to help keep children safe in early childhood education, and that is exactly what we have done.

In answer to your specific question, Senator, I have appeared on the ABC five times on this topic, talking about this strong and comprehensive package of reforms that we are delivering. One of the aspects of the reports last night and over the last couple of days was the scale of the issues that we are facing, which are significant and horrific. Of course our job in the early childhood education and care portfolio is to make sure that we can support those educators and providers who are doing the right thing and shut the door on those educators and providers who are out there seeking to do harm. We stood shoulder to shoulder with our state and territory counterparts back in August and delivered a strong and comprehensive package of reform, including the first-ever nationwide register of early childhood educators and mandatory training for early childhood educators.

Senator Hodgins-May, first supplementary?

Minister, you keep saying your focus is on quality, but the ABC has repeatedly exposed for-profit providers where profit comes before safety and where cost cutting and high staff turnover are putting children at risk. Non-profit centres regularly exceed quality standards because they invest in educators, not shareholders. When will you start listening to educators, parents and the evidence and stop putting the profits of private equity ahead of our children's safety?

You talked, in your question there, about for-profit providers. We have been clear that our message to providers who put profit ahead of child safety is that they need to lift their game or leave the sector. That's why, as a parliament, we passed strong legislation to make sure we can withdraw Commonwealth childcare subsidies from those providers who do put profit ahead of safety. But I would also draw your attention to some of the reporting from Ms Ferguson this week, who pointed out that not all 'for-profit centres are bad and all non-profit centres are good, or smaller providers are necessarily better than those owned by larger corporations'. Our priority is to keep children safe wherever they are in early learning.

Senator Hodgins-May, a second supplementary?

Minister, the New South Wales and ACT branch of the Independent Education Union of Australia says the ECEC workforce is in crisis and overwhelmed by low pay, burnout and staff shortages. We know the Fair Work Commission's expert panel has already issued a provisional decision recommending pay rises of up to 28.4 per cent. Given the current educator retention payment ends in November 2026, will you commit to funding the Fair Work Commission's decision, including full wage parity to retain experienced staff, stem the exodus of educators and safeguard children's care? (Time expired.)

We know that early childhood educators are absolutely the best asset that we have in keeping children safe and delivering quality early childhood education. That is why we are the government who have delivered a historic 15 per cent pay rise to this incredibly hardworking workforce. These are the people, 99.9 per cent of them, who are going in every day to do the best job they can to keep Australian children safe, to care for them and to educate them. Under those opposite, they were undervalued for 10 long years. They were underpaid for 10 long years. We are the government who have provided a 15 per cent pay rise, and it is paying dividends not just for the educators themselves, who can now afford to stay in jobs that they love, but also for the children in their care, by providing them with a stable, long-term, quality workforce. It is our government who has delivered that.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing and Minister for Disability and the National Disability Insurance Scheme, Senator McAllister. In its first term, the Albanese Labor government delivered 87 Medicare urgent care clinics to make it easier for Australians to get urgent treatment they need completely free of charge. Minister, how is the government delivering Medicare urgent care clinics across Australia, and how are they helping Australians to access the health care that they need?

I thank Senator Dowling for his question. In May, the Australian people voted for a government that would strengthen Medicare. The Albanese government is doing that through our program to roll out Medicare urgent care clinics right across Australia. When we came to government, we promised 50 urgent care clinics that would deliver bulk-billed care for urgent but non-life-threatening conditions. How many urgent care clinics has the government delivered so far? Colleagues, the answer is 90. It's 90 clinics, and I can inform this chamber that Australians have made more than two million visits to Labor's free Medicare urgent care clinics. The average number of visits to Medicare urgent care clinics has also risen to almost 26,000 per week nationally. We expect this number to grow. We expect it to grow as more clinics open.

Urgent care clinics are a game changer for families. One-third of patients are under the age of 15, and people don't pay a dollar to access these urgent care clinics. All they need is their Medicare card, not their credit card. These clinics are changing the way that people access health care. The Albanese government is expanding the availability of free, urgent health care by opening another 47 Medicare urgent care clinics. That is 14 new clinics in New South Wales, nine in Victoria, 10 in Queensland, six in Western Australia, three in South Australia, one in the Northern Territory, one in the ACT and three more in Tasmania, Senator Dowling. Once we open the full range of urgent care clinics, four out of five Australians will live within a 20-minute drive of an urgent care clinic. That is us delivering health care for Australians.

Senator Dowling, first supplementary?

Thank you, Minister, for that uplifting update on our urgent care clinics. Can the minister outline how our local health services are benefiting from the government's model of urgent care, and how are Medicare urgent care clinics being integrated with existing health and hospital services, especially hospital emergency departments?

We now know that nearly half of all patients who attended a Medicare urgent care clinic would have used a hospital emergency department if no clinic were available. Two weeks ago, Tasmania's five Medicare urgent care clinics treated 1,586 patients. This is more than the Royal Hobart Hospital emergency department and nearly double Launceston General Hospital. Urgent care clinics don't just provide relief for public hospitals; they take pressure off general practice right across the country too because their extended opening hours provide services when regular GP practices are closed. Nearly 30 per cent of visits to Medicare urgent care clinics have taken place on weekends, and 25 per cent of patients have attended after 5 pm on weekdays. These clinics are filling a gap in our healthcare system, and they are giving our hospitals and GPs the support they need.

Senator Dowling, second supplementary?

Minister, could you advise how our Medicare urgent care clinics complement other actions that the Albanese Labor government is taking to strengthen Medicare and also improve Australia's primary healthcare system. Why has the government chosen this approach?

The Albanese Labor government is delivering the largest-ever investment in the history of Medicare. There is $8½ billion to expand bulk-billing and create an additional new incentive payment for practices that bulk-bill every patient, and it begins to roll out from Saturday 1 November. It means that nine out of 10 GP visits will be bulk-billed by 2030 and fully bulk-billed practices will grow to around 4,800 nationally—triple the current number. The government has already heard from hundreds of practices who've told us that this week they're charging a gap fee and next week they'll be moving to a fully bulk-billed service. This investment is the cornerstone of our plan to rebuild bulk-billing after a decade of coalition neglect which saw billions of dollars ripped out of Medicare, because we believe— (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Minister Wong. Israel continues to starve Gaza by blocking food, water and humanitarian aid. Fewer than a hundred aid trucks have been entering daily since the so-called ceasefire, far short of the 600 required by the supposed peace plan. The International Court of Justice has ordered Israel to allow unimpeded access, yet this has been ignored. In order to try and break Israel's illegal blockade, brave Australian humanitarians were part of the Global Sumud Flotilla to deliver life-saving food, medical supplies and baby formula to Gaza. They were illegally abducted by Israel in international waters and imprisoned. Abubakir Rafiq, Juliet Lamont, Hamish Paterson, Bianca Webb-Pullman and Surya McEwan have publicly spoken about the physical and psychological abuse they were subjected to. What have you done to hold Israel to account for its treatment of Australians?

Firstly, in relation to the Gaza flotilla, I would actually say to the senator that people from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade worked very hard to support the Australians who were detained in Israel. We had diplomats travel to Ketziot multiple times, conducting in-person visits and welfare checks. Our officials did as we requested, which was to advocate to the Israeli authorities on behalf of Australians and provide updates to detainee families. Officials also worked with Israeli authorities to ensure the release and deportation of Australians, and they continued to provide consular assistance.

In relation to the flotilla, we do understand that people want to help deliver aid to those suffering in Gaza. We also want to see critical aid delivered. However, the government has warned against attempts to breach the naval blockade because of the risks to the safety of Australians. In relation to the humanitarian crisis, as you would know, Australia has committed more than $130 million in humanitarian assistance to civilians in Gaza and Lebanon since 7 October 2023. I am aware there have been allegations of mistreatment. We have made clear to Israel our expectation that detainees will receive humane treatment in line with international norms. We have raised the welfare and treatment of Australians who are detained with Israel, both in Tel Aviv and in Canberra. Obviously and as you would know—I think you asked me this question in estimates, Senator, where I suspect I gave you the same answer—we are always constrained in relation to specific individuals because of our privacy obligations.

Senator Faruqi, first supplementary?

2024 was the deadliest year on record for aid workers, with Gaza remaining the most dangerous place in the world and Israeli attacks killing hundreds of aid workers. Australian aid worker Zomi Frankcom's killers continue to walk free, and not a single person or entity has been sanctioned for her killing. You've signed on to the Declaration of the Protection of Humanitarian Personnel, Minister, but words without accountability protect no-one. Minister, do you support comprehensive sanctions against states that attack and kill humanitarian workers?

Senator, we didn't just sign on to the declaration; we drove it. We drove it. Australia drove a multilateral declaration because we wanted to make sure that we could respond to the fact that 2024 was the deadliest year for humanitarian workers the world has seen and because we were also committed to the memory of Zomi Frankcom, who was killed in an IDF strike. And I made clear to her family and to the Australian people that we would not only ensure that we had Mr Binskin, a former CDF, engage with the IDF and provide a report to us, which I announce, but also make sure we do what we can to ensure that this doesn't happen to another aid worker. We drove a multilateral declaration, and you may dismiss it, Senator, but 104 countries signed on the first day. That is diplomacy.

Senator Faruqi, second supplementary?

Minister, your answers make it clear that your Declaration for the Protection of Humanitarian Personal amounts to nothing—nothing more than empty words from a government pretending to uphold human rights while doing nothing to hold the abusers to account. Minister, when will you stop pretending to care about human rights and actually hold Israel accountable instead of issuing press releases as people starve and die?

Senator Watt, are you rising on a point of order?

You may be addressing this, President, but I was going to point there was an imputation there, and it should be withdrawn.

There was an imputation there, Senator Faruqi, and I'm going to ask you to withdraw and to reframe the question.

Minister, when will your government stop pretending to care about human rights and actually hold Israel accountable instead of issuing press releases while people starve and die?

Senator Faruqi, I did ask you to withdraw. You withdrew, and then you continued with the framing of the question which offended the Senate. I'm asking you to reframe the question without causing offence. Thank you.

I will withdraw, but it seems like everything that comes out of my mouth seems to offend this Senate, but I—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order across the chamber! No, Senator Whish-Wilson, I will come to you. Senator Faruqi, when I ask senators to withdraw, I expect them to simply withdraw, not to add any other comment. You are no different to any other senator in this place. I will now go to Senator Whish-Wilson.

Just a clarification of a point of order. You used the frame 'offend the Senate'. Are you saying that what Senator Faruqi said was unparliamentary? Can you explain—

Senator Whish-Wilson, you are on a debating point with me.

No, I'm asking for a very important clarification.

Thank you, Senator Whish-Wilson. I think I was fairly clear that the—

An honourable senator interjecting—

Order! You are not arguing with me. I will remind all senators in this place of the motion we passed yesterday which talked about respect for one another. If there's an imputation—there was, and Senator Faruqi withdrew, and I gave her the privilege of repeating the question—I don't expect it to continue along a similar vein.

An honourable senator interjecting—

You are not in a debate with me. If you wish to make a comment later in the day, avail yourself of your free time. Right now you are not in a debate. No, Senator Whish-Wilson, I'm not entertaining any more points of order; please resume your seat. I remind you, if you need to, to reread the motion this Senate passed yesterday about respect. Senator Faruqi, I ask you to simply ask the question of the government.

President, this is a complete farce. I'm not reframing my question.

Fine. Thank you, Senator Faruqi. That is your point of view. You are free to hold that. I will ask the minister to answer the question.

Here we are with the Australian Greens political party essentially reflecting Scott Morrison's policy that they don't like multilateralism. We are proud multilateralists because we understand that working with other countries—

Excuse me, I'm on my feet. Working with other countries is one of the ways in which we can support international humanitarian law, protect human rights and protect the system that protects us. While we are doing multilateralism, what are the Greens doing? They are using this crisis to seek donations. I was surprised to read that on 7 October, on the second anniversary of the attacks, they sent out an email calling for donations—not for charity but for the Greens political party.

A point of order, President. Talk about imputations! Senator Wong just made a very direct imputation about the Greens. What is different with that one about the Australian Greens versus the imputation that Senator Faruqi made? Could you pull her up on that, please, and ask her to withdraw?

Senator Whish-Wilson, resume your seat. I will take advice on that. I don't think it was an imputation. I am advised it was a statement of a political party taking an action. I will listen. I remind you all—

Order, Senator Shoebridge! You are being very disrespectful.

You're being biased.

Senator Shoebridge, withdraw that comment.

I withdraw.

Thank you. I'm now going to move on. Three times I've reminded the Senate of the motion that was passed in here yesterday about the need for respect, and all I'm hearing now is a lot of disrespect.

My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Resources, Minister Ayres. First off, congratulations on inking this huge $8.5 billion critical minerals deal with the United States. The Minerals Council claims that these deals could add $170 billion in GDP. What mechanism is the government putting in place to ensure that Australians get a fair cut of this potential new boom industry exploiting Australian resources that we own, and how will you make sure that we don't squander the opportunity like we've done with the exporting of gas?

Thank you, Senator Pocock, for that question and that set of ideas about how Australia ought to make sure that Australia's natural assets are used to the benefit of Australia in our national interest but also that we are not just exporting ore overseas. That we are processing rare earths and critical minerals here for the benefit of our partners who invest in these projects is absolutely what has framed not just this partnership with the United States and our critical minerals approach more broadly but also our broader Future Made in Australia approach.

It is absolutely about making sure that Australia uses the unique advantages that we have. Almost all of these minerals are required as the world shifts its industrial processes, its communications technology, its computational capability and its defence technologies into technologies that require critical minerals and rare earths. Australia is in a unique position. All of the minerals that you'd want to have underneath the ground, enormous amounts of space and enormous wind and solar reserves that mean that, for almost all of the economies who are seeking clean and green production methods—we can deliver them here in Australia. That is what this partnership's about. We are delighted to see that it came with a series of practical investments in real projects.

Senator David Pocock, first supplementary?

Minister, it's unclear from your answer how much Australians will actually get from exploiting our resources. Last time Labor was in power, you signed export gas agreements—multibillion, multidecadal agreements—which have really seen us not benefit that much at all from offshore LNG. Petroleum resource rent tax is set to decline. Japan is making over $1 billion onselling our gas. One in seven Australians now live in poverty. What is the plan for critical minerals to actually ensure that Australians benefit from Australian resources?

The first thing that we want to do is make sure, as you say, that this is not just about extraction of resources. This is about onshore processing and production here in Australia. That means real things in real outer suburban and regional communities that need good jobs and need investment. On the tax front—we see these questions more broadly than just the tax questions, of course. We see them in national interest terms, national security and economic resilience terms, and employment and industry capability terms, but the resources sector does make a very significant contribution in tax terms—$48.5 billion in company tax in 2023-24.

Senator David Pocock, second supplementary?

We've heard the same argument with gas—jobs, jobs, jobs—and yet what I hear from people is that they can't actually find workers to fill jobs. When it comes to offshore LNG, Treasury tells us that we haven't had a single cent of petroleum resource rent tax. We've now got critical minerals. We look at Norway, with trillions of dollars in a sovereign wealth fund, and it sounds like the Albanese government doesn't actually have a plan to effectively tax critical minerals, despite you saying this is a huge part of our economic prosperity.

As I said, there was $48.5 billion in company tax in 2023-24. The four companies that paid the most company tax in Australia in 2023-24 were resources companies. Seven of the 10 top corporate taxpayers were from the resources sector. Labor's focus when it comes to tax has included changing the petroleum resource rent tax so that companies pay tax sooner. But our approach on gas is that gas is going to be absolutely central for Australian industry. That's why I think everybody who is engaged in the gas market at the moment, whether it's industry or onshore manufacturing, wants to see change in the gas market settings, and that's the process that this government has embarked upon. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Minister Ayres. What percentage of annual global CO2 emissions is Australia responsible for? I'll give you a hint. It's one per cent.

Thank you, Senator Whitten. I think the whole point of question time is that you ask the questions and the minister answers them. But I'll call Minister Ayres.

Well, Senator, I haven't quite reached the point in this place where I'm asking and answering my own questions.

I'm not sure that that's a really helpful way of characterising what is important to Australia's national interest here. It is true that our onshore scope 1 and 2 emissions are—I think it's a larger number than the one that you quote—somewhere between one and two per cent. Australia is a very high per capita emitter. So, per person, even though that is a small amount in global terms, in individual terms we do have a responsibility here. But it's also true that it is in Australia's national interest for the world to move on these questions. That is why we are engaged in the international framework agreements—to use our contribution to make sure that we're an effective participant as the world moves. So that is one rationale.

Secondly, Australia, more than any other country on Earth, other than perhaps our friends in our near region, in the Pacific, has more to lose and more to gain from failure on climate and energy policy—our farmers, our coastal communities, our outer suburbs, where lifts in temperature create terrible conditions for working people to live in. But it is absolutely in our interest—

Thank you, Minister Ayres. Senator Whitten, first supplementary?

Thank you, Minister. That was a long answer, when I gave you the answer. What percentage of man-made emissions are attributable to the three biggest CO2 emitters—China, USA and India—and have their total emissions increased or decreased over the past five years?

(—) (): Senator, you did say it was a long answer; it was the regulation two minutes. That's what we do here. You did then go on to talk about the top two emitters and you named three, but we'll work within the sort of framework you're trying to give me. That's why it's in Australia's interest to drive international cooperation and legally binding frameworks. That's why it is that we as a middle-sized economy rely upon international cooperation to drive that kind of change. We are seeing progress. And, as I said, it's in our interest to see that progress. As our competitors' and our partner economies' industries change, Australia cannot afford to be left— (Time expired)

Senator Whitten, second supplementary?

A recent study has shown that China produces Australia's yearly emissions every 12 days, while they increase their CO2 emissions each year. Even if this climate apocalypse you preach is really coming, Australia couldn't stop it, and the three biggest polluters don't care. Why then would we cripple our economy and decimate our industry on the cusp of what Labor describes as a climate disaster?

There is an emerging convergence here, I notice, between One Nation and the Greens political party in dismissing the importance of international frameworks. That is true. It's sort of interesting. But I think most Australians want to see credible action on climate change. They want to see international progress, because they accept the science. I know you and your colleagues don't accept the science. I know that most of these characters over here don't accept the science, but science is a real thing. I know you say it's not. I say to you: it is an incontrovertible fact that increased carbon emissions in the atmosphere are causing temperatures to rise. That is a real question that hard-headed people must engage with in an adult kind of way. That means that our industries are up for the challenge— (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator McCarthy. The Albanese Labor government is focused on closing the gap so that all Australians have the same opportunities in life—no-one is held back, and no-one is left behind. At supplementary budget estimates earlier this month, for the first time, Closing the Gap outcomes were featured in programs across all committees throughout the week. How did this change affect the way that Closing the Gap was discussed at estimates?

I thank the senator for the question. When the Senate voted to agree to the schedule change for the recent estimates hearing, it was more than a minor programming change. It was a structural change to the way First Nations issues are scrutinised by the Senate. Previously, Closing the Gap and First Nations issues were confined to a separate day and treated separately at the end of the week. That meant that departmental secretaries and ministers across government didn't need to answer questions on Closing the Gap. But, at these recent estimates hearings, that all changed.

All 17 Closing the Gap outcomes were clearly outlined in the program for the very first time across the six Senate committees. The time dedicated to First Nations issues more than tripled, and, at estimates, we saw just how successful that change to the program was for scrutiny of Closing the Gap. I'm delighted to report that, when combined, we saw 11 hours of actual questions asked and answers delivered scrutinising First Nations issues and Closing the Gap at estimates. That's 5½ hours of questions and answers in committees on top of the time dedicated for NIAA and Indigenous portfolio bodies. Senators were able to ask questions of the right portfolios, reflecting that Closing the Gap is a whole-of-government commitment. This was an enormous achievement for accountability on Closing the Gap. I congratulate my colleagues, and I congratulate the Senate.

Senator Stewart, first supplementary?

Thank you, Minister, for that answer. What did these changes mean in practice at estimates? How did that increase in the amount of time devoted to Closing the Gap play out in the way that questions were asked across committees throughout the week?

President, I thank the senator for this really important question because, in short, it worked. It absolutely worked. Through the week, departmental secretaries faced those questions. For example, it meant Senator Cox asking the Attorney-General's Department about justice reinvestment; Senator Ananda-Rajah asking the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing questions about First Nations suicide prevention; Senator Mulholland asking the Department of Education about First Nations and the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement; Senator Waters asking about perimenopause and First Nations women; Senator Thorpe asking about youth justice; and Senator Liddle—yes, I'm coming to you—asking about income management. Thank you, Senator Liddle! But more than that, because First Nations issues weren't relegated to Friday, it meant questions were even asked when Closing the Gap wasn't on the program—like Senator Dolega asking about Central Australia infrastructure, Senator Hodgins-May asking about Indigenous— (Time expired)

Senator Stewart, second supplementary?

I'm sure our Labor colleagues would have appreciated that extra time. How will these changes to the estimates schedule contribute to the Albanese Labor government's work to drive efforts across government to close the gap?

These changes are what delivering on priority reform 3 of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap means, and this is the Senate making structural changes to how government considers First Nations issues. That's what this is about. In terms of the Senate's responsibility, we are walking the walk. Meanwhile, those opposite may be talking, they may be baulking but they're not walking! So let's not forget—

Thanks, Senator Ruston! Let's not forget that, when the Senate voted for these changes, we had Senator Cash and Senator Duniam, who's been quite silent over there, carrying on about how the sky would fall in if we moved to this. Well, let me tell you, senators, it worked very well, thank you.

I ask that further questions be placed on notice.

The Senate transcript was published up to 15:02. The remainder of the transcript will be published progressively as it is completed.