If there is no objection, the meeting is authorised.

I rise to speak to the Housing Australia Amendment (Accountability) Bill 2025. The purpose of this bill is to enact a system where there is going to be democratic accountability over the Housing Australia legislation, because, as it stands, the minister is able to make material changes to Housing Australia programs, including the Home Guarantee Scheme, without any reference to this parliament.

We have a major problem in this country with the delegation of authority to ministers. In too many cases, ministers make the law without there being any reference to the elected assembly otherwise known as the Parliament of Australia. In this particular case, the Home Guarantee Scheme has been materially changed—I would say completely debased—and those material changes to this scheme were made by a minister after a secret consultation, without any ability for the parliament to consider them and without any ability for the parliament to disallow them.

In this particular case, we see a targeted scheme for government mortgage insurance going from a product which was available to lower income earners now being made available to any prospective first home owner—no income cap, no cap on places. The result we've seen since 1 October, when these changes were made operative, is a big upshot in entry-level house prices.

Let's assume that we have a government that is trying its best for the people. Let's assume that they are well intentioned. They are trying to help prospective first home owners because they share the dream of homeownership. Let's assume that. The problem is that, by uncapping the places and removing all means testing, people who do not need government assistance are participating in the scheme, and that is flooding entry-level housing at a point in time which is driving an uptick in prices, and what we're seeing is the biggest growth, the sharpest uptick, in entry-level first-home dwellings in Australia in living memory. What does that mean for people? It means it's harder to buy their first house—even harder with a 95 per cent mortgage.

I make these points for context because I believe that, if these changes had been subject to some form of parliamentary oversight or committee or were subject to the potential for disallowance, then the government would have moderated them. The government would not have proceeded with a reckless scheme like this—no means testing, no place caps. In fact, it's quite clear to me that those changes made by an instrument of the Minister for Housing would have been disallowed—they would have been—by this chamber by virtue of reference to the statements made by the coalition, statements made by the Independent crossbench and statements made by the Australian Greens. Those changes that were made by the minister would have been disallowed. But they won't be disallowed, because the government has made the changes in accordance with legislation, and they are not to be disallowed. They cannot be disallowed.

This is a real example, here in Australia in October 2025, of the risk of overdelegation and destruction of democratic oversight from the legislative process. It was a very bad idea to have created this bill as it was then, as a former coalition government did. It was a big mistake, and the former coalition government should not have put through legislation which gave the minister unlimited, godlike powers. That was a big mistake. I make the point as a coalition member that legislation should not give a minister unfettered and unchecked power.

This government has a record of its own. Only a few weeks ago, they wanted to give the Reserve Bank unlimited, unchecked, unfettered power over payments. Now, payments policy might not sound particularly sexy, but I would say to you that it's going to be one of the biggest levers of public policy in the future. A payments idea or a payments concept could disrupt your supermarkets. It could disrupt your retail environment overnight. It could come from any other jurisdiction, and this government wanted to vest that power in the central bank, without any capacity for democratic oversight or review. Who voted for the RBA? No-one. What happens if the RBA makes a bad instrument? Do you walk down to Martin Place, burst through their renovation that's taken a hundred years and cost billions of dollars and say, 'I want to see the governor'? I don't think so.

This is not the way that we would have done payments reform. We would have vested those powers in the Treasurer because, no matter how bad the minister of the day is, they've got to take representations in some form. They've got to at least engage with their department. This government was happy to give the RBA unfettered power. In this case, the coalition worked with the Australian Greens and the crossbench to ensure that, when the RBA does make payments rules, they will be subject to disallowance. That is a very good thing, and do you know what that is going to do? It's going to make the RBA think very carefully, and it might do some more consultation. It might think very carefully about how it might deploy the surcharging proposal that is so heavily favoured by the Prime Minister.

That would have been the case with the Home Guarantee Scheme changes. If there had been disallowance capacity, the government would have moderated the proposal. They would have retained some form of means testing, and they may have maintained some sort of place cap. Instead, we have this free for all, which is pushing up prices. I make the point that it's not just the coalition, the Greens and the Independents in this place that are making a point about the loss of parliamentary oversight and how damaging that can be for the legislative process. It's also the Australian Law Reform Commission, the parliamentary committee on delegated legislation and the Centre for Public Integrity. It was also the position of the Prime Minister, who said in 2019:

We don't need a culture of secrecy. We need a culture of disclosure … Reform freedom of information laws so that they can't be flouted as they have been by this government.

That is germane to these points.

The government that is obsessed with creating legislation where there is no parliamentary oversight or review is the same government that wants to gut the FOI laws. After having presided over the worst compliance record of freedom of information rules since the Keating government and after having flouted the Senate orders for production of documents, they now want to gut FOI rules. How low can you go? You want to be less transparent than a government where the Prime Minister had secret ministries. How low can you go? It is unbelievable to me the depths that this government can sink to.

I say to the government, as it cries a river of tears about the extension of question time because it wants to have more dorothy dixers from its backbench to ask stupid questions that they already know the answer to, that the government doesn't control the Senate. They can go away and threaten the coalition members of the House of Representatives with committee positions—

All six of them.

I take the interjection. The government can go away and use its bullyboy union tactics and threaten members of the House with committee positions and their own salaries, but you know what? We are not in the business of standing up or placing vested interests or our own individual interests above that of the communities that we serve. That is not the way we roll here, and the reality is that this government has governed the country for 3½ years to the advantage of vested interests only. That is the problem the Australian people have now. The government isn't interested in fashioning economic policies to solve the economic problems of the day. They are only interested in feathering the nests of vested interests and the people who run their campaigns and give them donations. That is why I've said for a long time that this is the government for vested interests. It is not the government for Australians.

We look forward, frankly, to the government issuing and executing its threats against members of the coalition who dared to vote with the crossbench to ensure that they were production of documents.

Who dared!

Who dared—I take the interjection. Here we go; we're back to the union tactics again. It's always about the threats. I say that it is one of the greatest outrages that the same government which won't comply with freedom of information rules, which won't produce orders of the Senate, which will not provide democratic accountability on legislation, is now crying a river of tears about the extension of question time. I'd say to the government: get used to it because you don't control this Senate and you never will.

There will be a further extension of these arrangements until such time as the government complies with the orders of the Senate, because, otherwise, what's the point of coming here? The government assumes that the Australian people are stupid—that they're going to pay for us to fly down here, waste all of this money to sit in this parliament and then not get any answers. The job of the non-government members, in particular, is to hold the executive to account, to make sure that taxpayers are getting value for money and to make sure that programs aren't maladministered. Frankly, when I was a member of the government in the Senate, I did the same thing. You can't just go along with the executive and be a rubber stamp. That's my advice through you, Deputy President, to the members of the government, particularly the backbenchers. Don't be used by the executive. You should actually represent the people who sent you here, rather than just be a plaything of the executive government and the unions.

I commend this bill to the Senate because we need more accountability in this country. We shouldn't have massive delegation of authority and parliamentary power to a minister without any checks and balances. We do not live in medieval England. We live in 2025 Australia. These godlike powers the government wants to issue itself across the board are an absolute disgrace. The Australian people would expect that we would be reviewing major decisions of government. The Australian people would expect that the parliament would have a say on how laws are made. The Australian people would expect that the people they pay to come to Canberra get to vote and have input on laws which affect them, and, right now, housing would be amongst the biggest issues in Australia. If you're an entry-level first home buyer and you want to know why house prices are going up, then you can ask this government. The answer is: because of the Home Guarantee Scheme, which was debased by this government.

Wow. Thank you, Senator Bragg, for that performance. I think, when Senator Bragg started his speech today on the second reading of this bill, he talked about assumption. The Labor government are not here to run on assumption. We are here to provide certainty, and our housing policy does exactly that. We're going to give the Australian people the certainty that the coalition did not give while they had nine years of government. I think it's pretty rich to be lectured by the opposition. Shockingly, Senator Bragg, during his contribution this morning, had time to make niggling nips at his former colleagues from when they were in the previous government. He talked about how they thought there's integrity in giving the minister all this unfettered power. Wow. It's amazing that Senator Bragg can sit here and say that about his colleagues—because that is exactly what they're continuing to do. They're continuing to focus on themselves. They're continuing to focus on each other, instead of worrying about the Australian people. That little display of, 'We're worried about the people,' wasn't actually real because he spent more time talking about his colleagues, when they were in government. They should never have made those changes to those bills.

The Australian people don't have a short memory. They do not have a short memory about who was blocking housing in this chamber. It was the teals and the 'no-alition' who ganged up together.

You voted that way!

You voted against it!

Order!

Yes, I had one vote—exactly! I'll take your interjection. I came over to this party to deliver because of that. You're on the money, both of you. Thank you, Senator Henderson and Senator Cadell. I'm over here to deliver now. You belled the cat.

Order! Interjections are always disorderly. Responding to interjections tends to create more interjections, so let's continue with the second reading speech, Senator Cox.

Sometimes the truth hurts, Deputy President, and it cuts very deep in this chamber, does it not, especially when it's true. It's like trying to sneak your new romance in the back door, because your base is going to find out you all stood together in '28. Well, we can't wait for that to happen, because your sneaky little new squeeze in the 'noalition' is continuing. Senator Bragg's contribution also went to all the other things this chamber is working on. FOI—you know why? Because they didn't even have a housing minister in nine years of government.

Let's get to the bill, because that's actually what I'm on my feet for. I don't want to spend too much time giving rise to Senator Bragg. This bill is cynical. It's dangerous. It's utterly self-serving. The bill would absolutely make it harder for first home buyers to get into the market, harder for working families to find secure housing and harder for our nation to build the homes that we desperately need. I want to be really clear that what Senator Bragg and those opposite are really up to is not about accountability. It's not about transparency, and it's certainly not about oversight. This is about grubby politics—pure, opportunistic, obstructive politics.

As I've said, Senator Henderson—

Thank you for those interjections. I'm sure the Deputy President will—

Order! Senator Cox, can I ask you to sit down? Senator Henderson, interjections are always disorderly. Senator Cox, please do not respond to those opposite. All remarks go through the chair. Senator Cox, you have the call.

Thank you, Deputy President. Now—

Order!

If she's going to keep continuing, I might as well give her the call.

Senator Henderson! Senator Cox, you have the call.

Thank you, Deputy President. As I said earlier in my contribution, the coalition that wrecked the housing policy for nearly a decade in this place now want to wreck it again. They want to take a massive sledgehammer to it. Once again, they're showing Australians that they've learned nothing from the 2025 election. They lost an election because people were tired. They are tired, sick and tired, of delay and destruction. And here they are again, blocking and bulldozing a housing policy that's going to help everyday Australians across Australia, particularly in my home state of Western Australia. I know, Deputy President, you're also a proud Western Australian.

People are doing it tough. They're working hard. They're doing everything right, and they still can't find a place to call home. Young people are lining up around the block for rental inspections. Families with kids, families who would have owned a home a generation ago, can't get a foothold in the market. Parents are watching their adult children move back home because moving just absolutely seems out of reach for them. These aren't statistics. These are real people. These are teachers and nurses and tradies and retail workers who keep our community going. They are the backbone of our suburbs. They are the people in our towns and our regions, and they deserve better than what the coalition is trying to dish up for them today. In almost 10 years, they tapped out of the housing national challenge—absolutely tapped out.

But you voted against it, Senator Cox, when you were a Green.

Order!

Thank you, Deputy President. There was no national leadership—and I know that they don't want to hear this; that's why they keep interrupting—no plan and no investment to improve supply for almost nine years in office. They, again, didn't have a housing minister, and that tells you everything that you need to know about their politics—the politics that the coalition are willing to gamble and play with, with people's lives. It's almost a decade, and what do they have to show for it?

Senator Henderson!

Very little—373 social and affordable housing. Let me say that again just for Senator Henderson—373 in a nation of 26 million people. Oh my God—that you could come in this place with 373 homes that you built during your time! That's a contrast with what Labor are doing and Labor's commitment to deliver 55,000 social and affordable homes, the boldest housing program since the post-war reconstruction. And, yet, despite this dismal record, the coalition now pretends to care about accountability. That's exactly what Senator Bragg came in here and talked about.

Order, Senator Henderson!

You might as well be in a debate with her, Deputy President.

You're holding an event with Drew Hutton, come on!

Order!

Is that right?

He's a very sensible man.

Wow!

No. Order, Senator Henderson and Senator Mulholland! Having conversations across the chamber is not good Senate practice.

You need to pull her up.

Senator Henderson!

Deputy President, ask her to leave if she can't be quiet.

Senator Henderson! Senator Cox, you have the call.

Yet, despite that dismal record, the coalition now pretend to care about accountability. The same mob of sports rorts and secret ministers suddenly developed a passion for transparency. Give me a break! Give us all a break.

Now let's talk about Senator Bragg's so-called accountability bill and what it actually does. Under the Housing Australia Act 2018, the government issued investment mandate directions. These directions guided how programs like the Home Guarantee Scheme and the Housing Australia Future Fund facility operated. They provide flexibility and certainty, the kind of certainty that investors, builders and homebuyers rely on. The bill that Senator Bragg brought to the Senate would make those directions disallowable—he talked in great length to us about those—and allow either chamber of the parliament to rip them up at any time. That would expose the five per cent home guarantee scheme, which has already helped more than 185,000 Australians to get their first home. What a great figure, 185,000. That would endanger the upcoming Help to Buy program, which will help another 40,000 families. It would threaten the HAFF, the Housing Australia Future Fund, a cornerstone of our $43 billion housing agenda.

That's not oversight. That's sabotage. That's taking a sledgehammer to all of that. What would that mean for real people? It would mean tens of thousands of Australians who have been saving for their first home would have their dreams snatched away from them. I know that that would also mean that first home buyers would need bigger deposits and would be waiting longer and paying more, each of them forced to fork out an extra $23,000 on average on lenders and mortgage insurance. This would also mean that social and affordable housing projects that are under construction right now would also be delayed. Without Commonwealth support, community housing providers would have to stop work on their new builds altogether. This is a real-world impact of this bill—fewer homes, less certainty and absolutely higher costs.

We've seen this behaviour before. We feel like we're having deja vu. For months, as I said, they blocked the build to rent program, and they tried to scrap it. For months they blocked the HAFF, and then they promised to abolish it. That was your election promise. Even then, they were opposed to the Help to Buy program before it even began. If the opposition gets a final say on our five per cent deposit scheme, we all know what they'll do. They've told us time and time again. They'll just tear it up.

Australians know they can't trust the coalition when it comes to housing. While the coalition play politics, Labor is delivering a plan—a serious, fully funded, long-term plan. We have an ambitious $43 billion housing agenda that is already making a difference across the country. We've already taken the Commonwealth from being a negligent bystander under the coalition to being the boldest and most ambitious government on housing since the postwar period. Under our prime minister, Anthony Albanese, we are tackling the housing crisis from every angle. We are backing homebuyers. We are making it easier to buy a home of your own. We took a bold plan to the election, five per cent deposits for all first home buyers, and we delivered on that plan months ahead of schedule, launching it on 1 October.

Thanks to Labor's five per cent deposits, first home buyers are cutting years off the time it takes to save for their home deposit. Instead of spending 10 or 11 years trying to save enough to buy a first home, it now only takes a few years. This is life changing. Soon the Help to Buy program will help low- and middle-income earners into homes with smaller deposits and smaller mortgages. We are partnering with states and territories to build 100,000 new homes reserved for first home buyers—homes that can't be snapped up by investors before families get a chance.

We also know there's no single silver bullet for the housing crisis, but building more homes will ease the pressure for everyone, for renters and for buyers alike. That's why we're supporting the construction of 1.2 million homes nation-wide. We're training more tradies, cutting red tape and investing in the infrastructure that's needed to unlock supply. Through our housing future fund, we are delivering 55,000 social and affordable homes for people who do vital work—as I said, our nurses, teachers and aged-care workers. People should be able to live near where they work. As I said, under the coalition, the magic number was 373. Under Labor, it will be 55,000. That's the difference between neglect and nation building.

The opposition say, 'Why not let the parliament have oversight?' Well, that's exactly how this opposition works. Give them a lever, and they will pull it to block progress. They've got form. For years, they were blocking, delaying, bulldozing every housing initiative that was put before them. This is not about oversight; this is about control. This is about giving themselves power to tear down the government's agenda. They are trying to do it now by stealth.

Senator Henderson, I've called you to order.

It's not about oversight; it's about control. It is about the lever they are trying to pull to pull down our housing agenda by stealth. The truth is that these investment mandates are administrative tools, not political playthings. Housing Australia needs stability to keep investors and builders on board. Constant political interference would spook the market and absolutely slow construction. Even the Senate's own scrutiny committees have recognised that these instruments must remain non-disallowable when financial certainty and investor confidence are at stake. If Senator Bragg's bill passes, that stability absolutely goes out the window.

To those who claim that Labor's five per cent deposits are driving up prices, Treasury has been very clear that the impact is very modest, at about half of one per cent over six years. The biggest driver of housing costs has always been supply, and that is exactly why the majority of the $43 billion in our plan is focused on building more homes, not just helping people to buy them. We are restoring the Commonwealth's role as an active partner in housing, not a passive observer. We are delivering more homes, better rental security and a fairer shot at ownership, That's what our government is doing by putting the shoulder to the wheel while those opposite are standing in the way and shouting slogans.

I rise to speak on the Housing Australia Amendment (Accountability) Bill 2025. I have to say that that was a pretty incredible speech to listen to. Senator Cox is part of a government that is making the appalling historic housing crisis worse—worse for young people, worse for renters, worse for women suffering domestic violence who can't find anywhere to sleep—

Hear, hear!

Hear, hear!

Senator Pocock, resume your seat. I can't hear your contribution. I keep calling senators to order. Could you please let Senator Pocock speak in silence.

It's worse for young people, worse for renters, worse for women in my city who are trying to escape domestic violence and find themselves in a tent with a baby or in a car, worse for First Nations communities, worse for the women and children who can't find housing across Australia and worse for those communities who face increasing homelessness.

This bill comes to us at a time when Australia is in a deep housing crisis. It's a crisis of affordability across our country, including in Western Australia. It's a crisis of affordability, accessibility and accountability. Across this country, people are being priced out of their own communities. It doesn't matter whether you are in Perth, Broome, Adelaide, Whyalla or Mount Gambier; or whether you're a renter, a homebuyer, a first home buyer or someone trying find emergency accommodation. The story is the same. Rents are rocketing. The Australian dream of homeownership is on life support.

For most Australians, this is a personal issue. We all know people who are trying to find a rental or trying to accumulate a deposit for their first home. It is personal, and it shapes lifetime conditions for children and those people in housing crisis. Over 120,000 Australians are experiencing homelessness, and we are a rich country. Shame on us! Tens of thousands of Australians, including women, children, pensioners and disabled people, are sleeping in cars, on couches or in tents. Shame on us! Homelessness services are being pushed to the brink. For the first time in 70 years, Hutt St, which provides services to homeless people in my city, is at the point where it can no longer take more people in its doors; it is facing a capacity problem. Homelessness services are right on the edge, and 89 per cent of Australians agree that this is a crisis. They know it. They experience it in their homes, in their families. I'll say that again: 89 per cent. Only two per cent of people think this isn't a crisis.

And what is the Labor government doing about it? At best, tinkering—at worst, making things worse. Since the National Housing Accord was signed in October 2022, the national median house price has increased by $127,000. That's $42,000 a year for the past three years. Young people I know now struggle to open a newspaper or listen to the radio, because every day, including today, there are stories of the crisis becoming worse. House prices have continued to explode under Labor's watch, and they must take accountability.

Then there are the significant shortfalls in public and affordable housing in Australia. Social housing waitlists in every capital city are longer than 10 years. There are 640,000 households right now that need social housing. These massive waitlists are the direct result of underfunding our social housing stock—and that's on both the major parties. This is fuelling financial stress and housing insecurity for many vulnerable Australians. And housing is not just an economic issue; it's a social issue, it's a fairness issue and it's an intergenerational issue. It affects everything from children's education to health outcomes and community stability. It affects who ends up in prison. It becomes a generational lottery, a lottery where the winners are those who bought decades ago and the losers are locked into a lifetime of renting, insecurity and huge debt.

Australia has a huge problem with intergenerational housing inequality, and it's growing wider every day. And what has this government done? They've only introduced one housing bill into this new parliament. Did it help aspiring homeowners to build their first home? Did it wind back the unfair tax handouts to wealthy property investors or fix the structural inequalities in the housing market? Did it directly invest in public housing that Australians desperately need? No. The bill builds public housing—but only for foreign troops and contractors under the AUKUS pact. That's right. This government has deemed US troops and US contractors more worthy of public housing than people in Australia who desperately need a roof over their heads. There was no financial impact statement either on that housing build for AUKUS, despite the efforts of the Greens to secure one. It's incredible. It defies belief. We have no idea how much public money Australia will allocate to building homes for the US military in Australia. The government knows it can build houses directly—it's doing it for the US military—but it chooses instead to do it only for US troops and contractors.

So, with all these pressing issues, you would hope the government would be responding quickly to fix the crisis—well, wrong. Instead, we have the disarray of Housing Australia and the slow, clumsy, costly Housing Australia Future Fund. The government loves to blame the Senate for not passing the HAFF reforms sooner, but, according to the ABC, Housing Australia wasn't even ready to hit the ground running. It took four months for them to start getting applications and more than six months to process them. And many of the homes approved by Housing Australia in October did not reach the contract-signing phase until June. It's no wonder the ANAO is reviewing the design and delivery functions of the HAFF, given these extraordinary timeframes. The HAFF was structured in a way to leave it to the private sector to navigate the market to build homes. It creates opportunities for profit developers who will make profit from building social and affordable housing. You really have to ask yourself who Labor is working for. That is not even mentioning the very high profits of banks in relation to the five per cent deposit scheme. That increase and widening of the five per cent deposit scheme is especially remunerative and profitable for the big banks.

Labor's policies are working for those banks and developers who benefit when prices rise. It's unfair, and there are real solutions that Labor could be adopting. All could have been avoided if the government had just directly funded public and community housing. We need Housing Australia to be guided by clear goals—ending homelessness, increasing public housing stock and ensuring that everyone in this country has a safe, secure and affordable place to live. What of transparency and accountability? Our Senate must play a crucial role in reviewing and scrutinising government policy. That's the role of this chamber. It's not to be a rubber stamp and not to just blindly wave things through. It's to do what the Australian people put us here to do—be a powerful check on the government of the day.

The Greens are a party of transparency and accountability, and Labor's current approach fails us on that front. Much like the rest of their approach to government, it is undemocratic. I've spoken to this issue many times in this chamber. Australians are being left in the dark about the detail of government's housing policies and their funding. We deserve to know what is being built, how much is being spent and who is spending it. When public money is being used—billions of it in this case—Australians deserve transparency and accountability. They need to know and they deserve to know that every dollar spent is helping to deliver homes for people who need them most, not just underwriting private profit.

The Senate agreed to my motion ordering the production of documents regarding the spending of the $3 billion that the Greens won in housing negotiations in the previous parliament. As a direct result of Greens pressure in the last parliament, we got the government to close the no-minimum spend HAFF loophole, and we forced government to guarantee a $500 million annual spend starting in 2024-25. Previously the government could spend anything from zero annually to the $500 million cap. We also got the government to spend a further $1 billion in immediate and direct spending on public and community housing. I simply asked for details, including how much has been spent and where, how much funding each state and territory has received, the number of new and pre-existing dwellings, and so on. But this information should already be publicly accessible. It isn't. The documents were due to be tabled by the minister over a month ago now. There have been no interim response, no letter and no documents—no transparency as yet. Orders for the production of documents are not requests. Compliance is not optional. They are orders. I urge Minister O'Neil to provide these documents to the chamber as soon as practicable or, the bare minimum, provide an update as to why it's taking so long to tell the Australian community about what, how and on whom it is being spent.

Access to government information is crucial to democratic practice, and one of the most powerful tools for accessing this information is this chamber's ability to order the production of documents. But I'm far from the only senator who has not had their motion complied with. Last parliament the Senate only complied with these orders 33 per cent of the time—that's one in three. The Albanese government is worse than the Morrison government when it comes to refusing Senate orders, and that is really saying something. Just this week the Centre for Public Integrity published a report titled The Albanese government's integrity report card, and it showed the government is failing on five out of six integrity measures. They've found this government is leaning into a culture of secrecy. It refused to release the Briggs report of public sector board appointments and has given jobs to mates despite promising to end the practice. It's failed to rein in the power of lobbyists. It's failed to support parliament and its accountability function. For a government who promised to increase transparency, we're getting the reverse.

In closing the Greens support stronger accountability, but let's not pretend that this bill alone will fix the broken problem. We need to continue to push for transparency, not just in Housing Australia but across the whole housing system.

This trend to legislating solely through non-disallowable instruments needs to end. This chamber needs to see real, substantial housing legislation from this government. Australia's housing crisis won't be solved by continuing to outsource public responsibility to the private sector. Housing is essential for Australians, just like health care, education and child care, and we shouldn't be leaving it to the private market. Decades of profit driven policies have left too many people with skyrocketing rents, substandard housing and long-term homelessness. In a housing crisis, the supply of homes cannot be left to private developers whose profits increase the more that house prices and rents go up.

Legislation like the Defence Housing Australia Act makes it clear that the only public housing Labor really wants to spend money on is for the military and contractors living on Australian soil. We can build public housing. We can build it directly, but, at the moment, this government is doing it only for US military and contractors—all while hundreds of thousands of Australians wait for decades on waiting lists.

We will continue our fight for a public developer—one that delivers homes not profits—a publicly owned, democratically accountable body that will build 610,000 homes over the next decade. We can do this. We must do this. This is the kind of ambition needed to fix the housing crisis, not just tinkering and especially not tinkering in ways that drive demand, like the expansion of the five per cent deposit scheme—uncapped for income and pushing up prices. The Australian people deserve more than spin and secrecy; they deserve homes they can afford in communities where they belong.

Australia needs hundreds of thousands of new and genuinely affordable homes. Instead, we are seeing the consequences of this housing crisis every single day. We experience it personally in our families, in our streets and in our communities—record homelessness, record house and rental price rises, and record profits for banks and big developers. We have fixed a housing crisis before. We did it in the immediate post-war period. We are spending billions of dollars out of this parliament on many things. The key thing for many people to a decent life chance is affordable and secure housing—the opportunity to make sure your family has a place with a roof over their head, making sure that the vulnerable in our community are not living in tents.

In my city, we see tents multiplying in our parklands, our streets and behind buildings. It is totally unacceptable that homelessness in our country has risen by 10 per cent in the years of this Labor government. We must do better. We've got an obligation to do better. We've got the resources to do better, and this parliament needs to make sure we have transparency about every decision to deal with, respond to and end this crisis of homelessness and housing.

I rise to speak in support of the Housing Australia Amendment (Accountability) Bill 2025. This bill is fundamentally about three very basic things. It's about transparency, it's about oversight, and it's about protecting the Australian economy from reckless government policy. More importantly, it's about reducing that risk of excessive executive overreach.

The objective of the bill is straightforward. It provides an important parliamentary oversight on all the directions made under section 12(1) of the Housing Australia Act, but, specifically, it relates to those directions that constitute the Housing Australia Investment Mandate—

(Quorum formed) which includes the Home Guarantee Scheme and the Housing Australia future facility. But the real impetus of this bill lies in the fundamental alteration in the expansion of the Home Guarantee Scheme, which came into effect earlier this month. That expansion has now meant that there are no income caps on the Home Guarantee Scheme participants, there are no caps on the Home Guarantee Scheme places, and the scheme can now be used to purchase more expensive property.

Labor's expanded policy has fundamentally altered the original design and intent of the Home Guarantee Scheme, which the coalition established as a highly targeted scheme for low-income earners who struggled specifically with low or no deposits. These individuals still had great credit ratings, and they were approved by banks, but they just couldn't get that deposit together. So this was the first rung on the ladder. It limited the number of participants and it limited the number of houses that were available to be purchased by capping the cost of those houses. Essentially, this program now is a free-for-all. Under the existing law, these material changes to the directions that are governing the mandate can now be enacted not by a policy that needs to go through the chamber but instead by a simple instrument that's issued by the minister.

Crucially, this instrument is not disallowable by the parliament, a fundamental tenet of good governance and good government. The process is not in the spirit of transparent and democratic government. Regulation is there to fill in detail. It's not there to implement substantive changes that impact the functioning of the Australian economy. But that's what this bill will prevent. It will prevent that massive executive overreach. It seeks to protect Australians from the whims of a government that are making significant decisions without meaningful consultation and without parliamentary oversight, which is exactly what this chamber is here to do. The government's hesitance to properly consult and their broad use of delegated legislation align with evidence suggesting that this is one of the least transparent governments in Australian history, and it seems to be increasingly so.

(Quorum formed) Well, isn't it extraordinary that the moment I start talking about transparency and a lack of it from this government games start being played that do exactly that. What has just happened, twice, is that Labor have shut down private senators' time. We're not talking about what they want to talk about, so they have shut it down, twice, for no reason. Can I point out that one senator was actually in the chamber when quorum was called and ran outside! I know you're new, but you can't do that. You can't duck outside the chamber after quorum has been called.

Senator, you can address your comments through the chair, thank you.

Chair, I will tell you that senators cannot duck outside after quorum has been called, and perhaps that was something you should have pulled up—Acting Deputy President.

Excuse me, Senator?

Perhaps, Acting Deputy President, you should have pulled up the senator that ran outside when quorum was called.

Order! Senator, are you raising—

This is a lack of transparency that is becoming the hallmark—

Senator Hume, resume your seat. You do not have the call. Senator Hume, if you are seeking to make a point of order on me calling quorum, you may do so. Senator Hume, is this a point of order, or is this part of your debate?

I would like to continue with my contribution on our private senators' time. I know that this is not Labor's favourite time of the day, but we are going to make sure that Labor has a lot of not-very-favourite times of the day because, as long as you behave this way, as long as you are hiding in the shadows, as long as you play games—well, unfortunately, you might think that you can crunch the opposition whenever you choose to do so, but you don't own the chamber. There are in fact more of us around the ends than there are over there. You can hide. You can refuse to produce documents. You can try and create legislation that has no oversight and no ability for scrutiny, but it will not stand. You who stood so gallantly prior to an election and said, 'We will be the most transparent government that this country has ever seen'—that didn't last long, did it? It didn't last long.

Senator Pocock pointed out that only 33 per cent, one in three, of your orders for the production of documents have come through—one in three. Aren't you ashamed? Aren't you embarrassed? You should be embarrassed. This bill that we're talking about today is to improve transparency. It's to improve accountability. It's to improve governance. These are issues that you said are important to you. Yet somehow, when it's convenient for Labor, those principles are simply set aside. They're set aside, and the behaviour we've seen in the chamber today has demonstrated that. For the sake of the Hansard transcript, I think it's probably worth noting that, just today, we have seen Labor respond to, in the most petulant and sulky way, a requirement of this chamber that they provide documents, and we have said around this chamber that we have the numbers to make sure that they do. If they don't, we will extend question time.

Senator Grogan.

I thought this debate was about housing.

What’s the point of order?

Relevance is the point of order.

Really?

Yes, really.

What's your point of order? Please make it succinctly.

The point of order is on relevance. The senator is talking about a whole range of other things, but I'm not hearing much about housing.

I've only just stepped into the chair. For the benefit of the chamber, I'll just continue listening. If I concur with what you're saying, I will call the senator to get back to it.

I was talking about housing. I was talking about the lack of scrutiny that this government wants for their housing policy. This housing policy is so bad that the ANAO, the Auditor-General, has now decided that it requires additional scrutiny. We've seen the Chair of Housing Australia resign under suspicious circumstances. There were allegations of bullying; now that's gone. We tried to have additional time with Housing Australia at Senate estimates. They were pushed out to the middle of the night—last thing in the middle of the night. Thank heavens the Senate has the power to compel Housing Australia to come back, and we will see Housing Australia at Senate estimates at a spillover next week. But, my goodness, it has been like pulling teeth to get this government to talk about its housing policy, because it is so ashamed.

It's so ashamed of the fact that it hasn't actually built any bloody houses—excuse my language, Acting Deputy President. It is so ashamed because it hasn't actually built any houses. It's spent $60 billion, yet it hasn't built any houses. That's taxpayer money. That's money that has been borrowed through the Housing Australia Future Fund and delivered nothing. The Housing Australia Future Fund has been operating for two years. Do you know how many houses it's built? Doughnuts. Nothing. Zip. Squat. Zero. Nothing. It hasn't built a house yet. That's your money they're using. Today, they are hiding from you. They are not only hiding from you but playing games in the chamber so that they don't have to respond to questions about it.

It is private senators' time, not government time. This bill will at least go some way to helping provide transparency, to helping prevent this executive overreach, to ensuring that we have accountability for decisions that are made and the ability for this chamber to do its job and not have games played—the ability for this chamber to scrutinise legislation and not have a minister have a free rein. I know that power has gone to your heads. You might have the numbers in the chamber over there, but you do not have them here. (Quorum formed) I want to talk about this housing guarantee scheme and I want to talk about the private senator's bill that has been brought in to introduce more scrutiny, more transparency and more accountability, but, unfortunately, I keep getting disrupted. And the reason I keep getting disrupted—can I be very clear—is that Labor are refusing to produce a document that we requested to see for two years. They're refusing to produce a document which, ironically, is a review into jobs for mates.

Senator Hume, please direct your comments through the chair.

Ironically, it is a review into jobs for mates. Now, they were given this review, and they have said it's under consideration in cabinet. This is a nonsense. It's been around now for more than two years. It was commissioned by the government themselves as part of their commitment to transparency and accountability.

It's a bit ironic.

It is; it's totally ironic, Senator Scarr. Let's face it: this is not a government that wants scrutiny. It is not a government that takes accountability seriously. It is not a government that wants questions asked; it simply wants to use its numbers wherever it can and use games to get away with whatever it can.

What they've got away with in housing is outrageous: $60 billion. That's your money they're spending. And did you know that this government has built fewer houses each year than the coalition did in nine years? We didn't spend $60 billion to do it either. The home guarantee scheme is an initiative of a coalition government, but it was small, it was targeted and it was done intentionally to help young people that might have great credit risk and be unable to get a deposit together to get to that first rung on the ladder. But it was so limited that it had no effect on housing prices. Labor have taken the lid off and said, 'This is a free for all,' and now we've got Reserve Bank governors, economists and even Treasury warning that this is a policy that will push housing prices up. But they do not care.

At the same time, we've got the Housing Australia Future Fund, the greatest and most expensive white elephant that this country has ever seen, that has not built a single house—not one. But it borrowed $10 billion of your money to do that. Not only did it not build a house; it actually bought—

Senator Hume, it will assist me to maintain order in the chamber if you could direct your comments through the chair, please.

Thank you. I actually will. The Albanese government's decision to expand the housing guarantee scheme without any corresponding plan to increase supply is reckless. More buyers, fewer homes—that means that house prices will skyrocket, and experts are predicting exactly that. In fact, they're saying potentially up to $90,000 increases in Sydney because of Labor's policy—directly because of Labor's policy.

Even Treasury admit that this policy will push up housing prices, but they do it anyway. Changes of this scope and this scale which threaten massive taxpayer liability and demonstrably inflate the price of houses for the very people that this scheme is purported to help must be subject to the oversight of elected officials. That's what we are here to do. We are here to do that. But, instead, they have circumvented that oversight. You have circumvented that scrutiny. You have hidden from transparency. You have set aside accountability.

The bill that is before us today, a bill that has been put forward by the coalition, by Senator Bragg, will ensure that Australians are protected from that arbitrary government decision-making, that they are protected from executive overreach and that they are protected from the desire for this government—and I'm using their words not mine—to 'crunch' the opposition and 'crunch' the crossbench. You said you would use your numbers, and you have done so effectively, but you do not own this chamber. We will make sure that this government is held to account for its lack of transparency, its lack of accountability and its scandalous behaviour today.

The time for this debate has expired.

I rise on behalf of the government, and, at the request of Senator Walsh, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that this week marks 50 years since the landmark Racial Discrimination Act entered into force on 31 October 1975;

(b) recalls that passage of the act was a unifying moment for the Parliament, with bipartisan efforts to pass the bill with unanimous support across the Parliament;

(c) affirms that the act has played and continues to play an essential role in prohibiting racial discrimination in Australia, building a fairer and more inclusive nation;

(d) affirms that it is unlawful in this country to discriminate against people based on their race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin;

(e) notes the Racial Discrimination Act implemented Australia's obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; and

(f) affirms the Act as representative of Australia's values as a democratic and multicultural nation that stands against hate, prejudice and discrimination.

Fifty years ago tomorrow, a piece of legislation was proclaimed that would fundamentally change Australia; 31 October will mark half a century of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.

When the Whitlam government introduced the Racial Discrimination Act, or RDA, it was groundbreaking. It was the first Commonwealth law to prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, colour, national origin or ethnic origin. But, beyond that, it was the first law regarding human rights and discrimination at all. It marked a historic shift. It set into the law a new standard for all Australians to aspire to: a society that says no to racism. But, under that lofty goal, in its practice, the Racial Discrimination Act provided Australians of all backgrounds a bedrock to stand on to assert their equality under the law.

Fifty years ago, the RDA explicitly targeted insidious and all-too-common forms of discrimination—access to accommodation, to facilities, to housing, to goods in shops, to services and to employment. Those forms of discrimination remain all too familiar to many Australians. We cannot pretend that this act has eliminated racism in Australia; it hasn't. But the legislation was never meant to do that. The Whitlam government understood that you wouldn't end racism overnight with a bill. They were building cultural change, a better Australia. In his second reading speech, Attorney-General Kep Enderby said that the new legal sanctions against discrimination would 'make people more aware of the evils … of discrimination … and make them more obvious and conspicuous'. He said, for those discriminated against:

The fact that racial discrimination is unlawful will make it easier for people to resist social pressures that result in discrimination.

In 1995, when the act was expanded to prohibit racial vilification, Attorney-General Michael Lavarch summed it up well:

The Racial Discrimination Act does not eliminate racist attitudes. It does not try to, for a law cannot change what people think. But it does target behaviour—behaviour that causes an individual to suffer discrimination.

But the genius of the RDA was not just its effect on citizens' behaviour; its genius was also its effect on government. For 50 years the Racial Discrimination Act has sunk roots into our constitutional architecture, and quietly those roots have taken hold, ensuring governments, not just citizens, are prevented from discriminating on the basis of race. Nowhere is this clearer than in the RDA's protection of First Nations title to land. Australians know Mabo, the 1992 case that recognised native title in Australian law, but many will not know that case is Mabo No 2. Mabo No. 1 came to the High Court first after Queensland legislation was passed to pre-empt and extinguish any title rights of Eddie Mabo and the Meriam people—what would be recognised as their native title rights. In Mabo No. 1, the High Court found that the Queensland legislation was invalid. The RDA—namely section 10, on equality before the law—prevented Queensland from singling out the Meriam peoples' rights on the basis they were Indigenous rights. Without the RDA, there could be no Mabo No. 2, and there could be no native title in Australian law as we know it. Without the RDA, these steps towards justice in Australia could have been stripped away with the flick of a minister's pen. First Nations peoples' relationship with country over countless generations never relied on any Commonwealth law, but it took the RDA to begin to dismantle the law's 200-year-long ignorance, cruelty and violence to First Nations Australians.

The Racial Discrimination Act passed two weeks before the Whitlam government was removed. It's daunting to imagine what a delay to the legislation could have meant. It paved the way for the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and the Age Discrimination Act 2004. In recognition of Australians of all backgrounds, the assertion of equality under the law is the RDA. Bauji barra.

():  I rise to speak on behalf of the opposition to mark tomorrow as 50 years since the Racial Discrimination Act came into force. It was a pivotal moment in Australian history and a journey towards social cohesion. The act passed with bipartisan support, reflecting our shared national commitment to a fair go for all Australians. The RDA established the legal protections against racial discrimination in employment, housing, education and public life. Australia is a proud multicultural nation, and the act laid the foundations of our reputation as a leader in human rights and multicultural policy. It has been instrumental in building the inclusive, diverse society that we all celebrate today.

As a South Australian, I am particularly proud of our state's multicultural history. South Australia was founded on the principles of religious freedom and tolerance. Can I acknowledge the work of former Labor premier Don Dunstan, who oversaw South Australia leading the country on transformative racial discrimination legislation. Through his work in 1966, nine years before the federal act, South Australia became the first Australian state to outlaw racial discrimination. Today, according to the 2021 census, our state is home to people from more than 214 nations, 248 languages are spoken and 128 religions are practised. I come from the Riverland in South Australia. This is an area that has absolutely been enriched by waves of migration, from Italian and Greek families who transformed our horticultural industries following the war, to more recent arrivals from Afghanistan, Sudan and Myanmar. South Australia's wine industry, tourism sector and regional communities have all flourished because of this cultural diversity.

Coalition governments have consistently upheld the Racial Discrimination Act and its principles, and we have focused on practical measures to support the diversity of our communities, including targeted education, employment and health programs for Indigenous and migrant Australians. At our core, we believe in individual rights and freedoms, including robust protections from discrimination. We also recognise the need to balance antidiscrimination protections with freedom of speech and religion. Our approach is driven by the importance of social cohesion, national unity and celebrating the vibrant, cultural diversity within our Australian identity.

But, while we celebrate the RDA's achievements, we must also acknowledge the uncomfortable truth: 50 years after this act came into being, Indigenous Australians still face unacceptable challenges. The RDA aims to eliminate racial discrimination and create equity and equality before the law, yet significant gaps still remain in health, education, employment and life expectancy for these communities. Despite successive government commitments, most Closing the Gap targets are not being met. Indigenous Australians still face life expectancy gaps of approximately eight years compared to non-Indigenous Australians. There must be a genuine partnership with Indigenous communities in health, education and economic opportunity. We must recommit to closing the gap—not through top-down government programs or a one-size-fits-all approach conceived in Canberra but by empowering our Indigenous Australians to design and deliver solutions for their own communities. The next 50 years of the RDA must be about turning legal equality into real equality on the ground.

Sadly, I must also talk about racial discrimination today and acknowledge the concerning rise of antisemitism that we are experiencing in Australia. We see it in the armed guards who are standing outside Jewish childcare centres and schools, Jewish businesses that have been boycotted and harassed and synagogues that have been put at risk. This hate has no place in our country. As we recognise the anniversary of the Racial Discrimination Act, we as Australia must also stand united against hate.

The coalition reaffirms our commitment to a society free of discrimination. We must remain vigilant, ensuring antidiscrimination laws are fair, effective and respect fundamental freedoms. Ongoing education, community engagement, social cohesion and courageous leadership are essential in combating prejudice. We must be flexible to ensure the RDA Act responds to emerging challenges such as modern technology as it plays a role in evolving forms of discrimination. We must continue closing the gap for Indigenous Australians and support new migrants, standing against hate and celebrating diversity across our country.

Tomorrow is a day when we can acknowledge all those who have contributed to the progress made over the past 50 years. We have come a long way, but there is still much to do to achieve true equality and harmony. Together, we must continue to build a fair Australia.

Fifty years ago this week, the Racial Discrimination Act came into force—Australia's first federal human rights law. It was a landmark moment born of struggle and courage at a time when people around the country were demanding that racism and discrimination be named for what they are, a blight on any so-called fair and democratic society. It's worth remembering that this law was passed in the shadow of the White Australia policy and on the shoulders of the civil rights and land rights movements.

Fifty years on, I want to say this very clearly: the Racial Discrimination Act remains vital. But racism is still everywhere in this country, woven into our institutions, systems and public life. The race power in the Constitution, enacted on the basis of white supremacy, still exists. We need only look at the racist abuse hurled at First Nations players on the field, the appalling rhetoric, including from the most senior politicians in this country, directed at migrants and people of colour, the racial profiling, the deportations and the incarcerations. This country has never truly reckoned with the violence of colonisation or the racism that continues to sustain it. Until we do, our laws, even those as important as the Racial Discrimination Act, will only be a partial shield against ongoing injustice.

For First Nations people, racism is not history; it is daily reality. The same state that passed the Racial Discrimination Act still oversees the removal of First Nations children at alarming rates, still locks up First Nations kids in prisons and still lets police kill with impunity, with more than 600 First Nations deaths in custody since the royal commission—and no-one has ever been held to account. If we are to honour the spirit of the Racial Discrimination Act, then we must listen to First Nations people calling for truth-telling, for justice, for land back and for treaties. That is what reckoning looks like.

Islamophobia is rife in this country, and we have never even reckoned with the reality that Australia produced the Christchurch mosque murderer. Right now, Muslims, Palestinians and Arabs are being marginalised, silenced and vilified more than ever for taking a stand against Israel's genocide in Gaza. The far right here is more brazen and violent than I have ever seen in my time, and, sadly, we don't have a prime minister with the courage that Whitlam had to fight it.

The Racial Discrimination Act is also deeply personal to me. I've had to rely on it myself when I was targeted with racist abuse by a colleague in this very place, Senator Pauline Hanson, who told me to 'piss off back to Pakistan' and unleashed a torrent of hate against me and triggered people across the country. Using the act was not just about defending myself; it was about standing up for everyone who has ever been told they don't belong because of their skin colour or who has been told to 'shut up, be grateful or get the hell out'. The court found that her words were indeed racist and unlawful. That verdict, now under appeal, laid bare how hard it is, even with legislation in place, for people to get justice in a system built to minimise and excuse racism, and it showed how far we still have to go, because racism doesn't just live in slurs or tweets; it lives in policy choices, who gets housing, who gets stopped by police, who gets detained, who gets deported and whose stories are heard or erased.

So, yes, we commemorate 50 years of the Racial Discrimination Act, but we also confront its limits, especially when we have a national antiracism framework, a road map to end systemic racism, gathering dust on the government's bookshelves. The fight against racism is not a box we tick. It is ongoing and it demands courage, solidarity and action, not just words in a motion. Let's make the next 50 years about building an antiracist, decolonised country that truly lives up to the promise of the Racial Discrimination Act, where no-one's humanity is conditional, where First Nations sovereignty is recognised and where every person, regardless of race or background, can live free from discrimination and fear.

It's 1975, and—maybe not me!—people are wearing flares, listening to ABBA and watching Countdown. Under Labor's Whitlam government, the Racial Discrimination Act became law. For the first time, Australia said that racism has no place here. It made it illegal to treat someone unfairly because of their colour or ethnic origin. It gave everyone equal protection under the law. Employers could no longer reject somebody because of their surname. Landlords couldn't refuse tenants because of their skin colour. Public spaces and schools were open to all. And, if someone was discriminated against, they could take action. They could say, 'This isn't right,' and the law would stand with them. This parliament decided to put that fairness into law. For millions, that decision truly mattered. That's what progress looks like. But laws don't end racism; people do.

A recent review of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 argues that the law remains crucial, yet its impact is constrained by media representation, public discourse and structural issues. While the act gives people legal rights, it does not fully remove the deeper social and institutional barriers that racialised communities often face, and, 50 years later, that fight continues. We see it in the fight to close the gap. The attacks on Camp Sovereignty showed equality on paper means little if it's not lived. We see it when Australians with multicultural backgrounds are told to 'go back to where they came from'. The marches earlier this year proved racism still exists in our nation. We see it every time someone's opportunity is limited by prejudice.

This anniversary is not a pat on the back; it's a call to keep going. When I think of the Racial Discrimination Act, I think of courage—the courage of people who spoke up when it wasn't popular, the courage of leaders like Gough Whitlam and Kep Enderby and all Aboriginal elders who believed this country could be better. As a Mutthi Mutthi Wamba Wamba woman, I know that progress is fragile. My family, like many others, lived through policies that tried to erase the very being of who we are. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, between 2018 and 2021, 65 per cent of First Nations people experienced everyday discrimination. So, no, you cannot say that racism does not exist in this country. And yet, here we stand—proud, loud and still here. Now is the time to represent the diverse voices that make Australia strong. That's why I'm here and that's why I do the work that we do.

This law set a standard that fairness is not optional; it's the law, and it's on all of us to keep it going that way. When one community is targeted, we all lose something. When we fight racism in our systems, our schools and our workplaces, we make our country stronger. So, on this 50th anniversary, let's honour those who fought for this law, let's honour those who fight to keep this promise alive, and let's make the next 50 years fairer, kinder and bolder, because equality is not a finish line. It's a fight, and every generation must pick up the baton and keep moving forward. It's a fight we must choose every single day. For me, I do that on the shoulders of so many of the women who came before me and who continue to fight for a fairer Australia and a fairer country for every single one of us.

It's appropriate to recognise the historical context in which the Racial Discrimination Act was introduced. It was a global era of civil rights reform, and Australia, too, in bipartisan support, embarked on a legislative journey to confront racial discrimination. The act itself was passed by the parliament on 11 June 1975 and came into force on 31 October. The law outlawed discrimination on the basis of race, colour, descent, national or ethnic origin or immigration status. At its very heart, the Racial Discrimination Act articulated a core national value that all Australians, whatever their background, should be equal before the law and enjoy the same fundamental rights and opportunities.

From a conservative standpoint, two principles frame our approach: the protection of individual rights and the preservation of freedoms, including speech and religion, within an inclusive society. The Racial Discrimination Act represents a legislative foundation for a fair go for all—a value intrinsic to the National Party that reaffirms our commitment to uphold equality before the law, to protect individual rights and to ensure that every single Australian has access to opportunity, no matter what their colour, gender or religion or where they live.

Importantly, the act has contributed to Australia's evolution into a more multicultural, inclusive society—one which increasingly recognises that cultural diversity is a source of national strength, especially to our rural and regional communities. The National Party, as a representative voice for regional Australia, brings to this discussion a particular perspective—one grounded in practical reality and one grounded in opportunity, community empowerment and the promotion of secure inclusive regional communities. Our own policy framework states clearly that we want to see stronger, more secure and sustainable local communities that provide the opportunity for everyone to prosper, delivering a stronger, more secure and sustainable nation.

When I think about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations out in rural and regional communities, I think of National Party electorates—like the electorates of Parkes, New England, Cowper, Maranoa, Page, Flynn, Dawson, Lyne, Riverina and even Capricornia, which are all in the top 20 electorates around this country with high proportions of Indigenous Australians. It is very much in our interest to have an inclusive society and for all Australians to experience equality under law and in community. That is very much something that National Party MPs and senators uphold.

It has often been the case—and it's been so even in this chamber this week—that confusing and legitimate concerns in the community about high immigration under this current government or voting no at a referendum on the Voice somehow mean Australia is a racist country, and that is wrong. It is absolutely wrong. Is there more work to do? Absolutely. Is it beholden on everybody in this chamber and outside of parliament to take individual and collective responsibility for that? Yes, it is. But it shouldn't be an excuse to shut down legitimate debates and concerns about real problems in our broader community.

We need to recognise and understand that living in rural and regional Australia does bring unique demographic challenges but also significant opportunities. We're increasingly multicultural, with migrant arrivals and seasonal workforce movements. Local government jurisdictions are managing very, very diverse needs. We need to ensure that the protections of the Racial Discrimination Act are operational in these settings, as both a moral and an economic imperative. At the 50-year milestone, our work is far from complete. We need to ensure that the Racial Discrimination Act remains a cornerstone to enlighten all of our individual and collective behaviours to make sure that Australia remains inclusive for everybody who chooses to build a future here.

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the Racial Discrimination Act—a landmark piece of legislation that was designed to ensure that all of us are treated equally, regardless of race, ethnicity, background or the colour of our skin. The Racial Discrimination Act also laid the groundwork for the Sex Discrimination Act and the Disability Discrimination Act, both of which have helped us build a more inclusive society. We should commemorate this anniversary and how far we've come. We should also use it as a call to action for how much more we can do to stamp out racism in our communities and make our society more equal for all Australians and for all people who call Australia home.

Late last year, the Australian Human Rights Commission launched the National Anti-Racism Framework, with recommendations and a road map for governments, business and community organisations to address all forms of racism in Australia. The recommendations in that framework call on the Australian government to lead a national response to eliminating racism, starting with truth-telling for First Nations peoples and embedding their right to self-determination. It also recommends the implementation of antiracism action across all sectors, including health, education, the media, the arts and the justice system. So far, those recommendations have been left to gather dust. There's been no formal response from the Labor government and, crucially, no funding for the Australian Human Rights Commission to start implementing that framework.

Everyone deserves to live with dignity, equality and access to justice, but our current systems are failing to deliver. Fifty years on from the Racial Discrimination Act, it remains a vital tool in the fight against racism, but it cannot be the only tool. It's not enough to say that racial discrimination is illegal; we need to be actively antiracist.

Wherever we are in this nation, we are living and working on stolen and unceded land, and we still have a long way to go before we can achieve any semblance of racial equality with First Nations people, let alone justice. First Nations kids are 26 more times likely to be imprisoned than non-Indigenous kids. First Nations women are 33 times as likely to be hospitalised for family violence as non-Indigenous Australians. It's 2025, and we still don't have a truth-telling process in this country. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice referendum campaign clearly showed there is a compelling case for truth-telling and treatymaking to deliver hope, justice and pathways towards healing for this ancient nation. The major parties have not only failed to address these issues; they've also often exacerbated them through divisive rhetoric and policies that neglect the lived realities of racism in Australia.

Australia is a country built on immigration, and we should be proud of that fact. We are enriched by having diverse communities with cultural, linguistic and spiritual traditions, but those communities face systemic racism and discrimination. We've seen an increase in Islamophobia, anti-Palestinian racism and antisemitic threats and attacks alike. These are not isolated incidents; they are part of a deeply worrying trend that demands urgent action. This year we've seen those on the opposite side of the political spectrum ramp up their attempts to harness people's rightful anger at housing and the cost-of-living crisis and try to twist that into an unfounded attack on migrants. We cannot let the major parties or those on the far right demonise migrants and use them to distract from their own failings. The reality is it's inequality and not immigration that people should be angry about.

The Greens are the only party with a standalone antiracism portfolio, held by our fabulous and staunch deputy leader, Senator Faruqi, and we're the only party with a plan to build an antiracist and genuinely multicultural country. We are the ones in this place encouraging people to direct their anger at the real cause of inequality in this country—the big corporations and the ultrawealthy individuals who are pulling the strings behind the two major parties.

Everyone has the right to live without fear of racial violence, abuse and discrimination, and the Greens will always support people and communities left behind by systemic racism, in the face of major parties that seem hell-bent on upholding policies that entrench inequality and injustice.

As an Noongar Yamatji woman and Labor senator for WA, I stand here with deep pride to reflect on and mark the 50-year anniversary of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. It's one of the most important and transformative pieces of legislation in our nation's history.

When the Parliament of Australia passed the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, it became the first federal law to make it unlawful to treat someone unfairly because of their race, colour, descent, nationhood or ethnic origin. It was an extraordinary moment in the story of this country, and it came after decades of struggle by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and migrant communities who demanded recognition, equality and respect. It came after the shame of the White Australia policy and after generations of exclusion that denied so many people their basic rights.

This landmark reform was the work of a Labor government. It was the Whitlam Labor government that introduced and passed the act, drawing inspiration from the United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. In doing so, Labor placed Australia firmly on the side of equality and human rights. Prime Minister Gough Whitlam called it 'a historic measure' to 'entrench new attitudes of tolerance and understanding in the hearts and minds of the people'. It was Labor's belief in fairness, the dignity of every person and the power of government to deliver social justice that made this act possible.

For my people, First Nations and First Australians, the act was part of a much longer journey towards equality. It didn't erase the wounds of dispossession or the pain of the stolen generations, but it offered a new framework for justice. It gave Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people a voice in the courts and in the community, and it laid the foundations for future reforms, from land rights to native title and from self-determination to reconciliation. Fifty years on, the Racial Discrimination Act remains the cornerstone of our democracy. It has helped Australians challenge racism, advance fairness and build a society that celebrates diversity instead of fearing it. It reminds us that difference is not a threat to be managed but a strength, in fact, to be embraced.

Anniversaries are not only for celebration; they are also for reckoning. While we can be proud of how far we've come, we must also be honest about how far we still have to go. Racism is not an artefact of history; it persists in our institutions, in our systems and in the daily lives of too many First Nations and culturally diverse Australians. As an Indigenous Labor senator, I see the Racial Discrimination Act not as a relic of the past but as a living commitment, a reminder that laws alone cannot end racism but can light a path towards justice. Every generation has a responsibility to renew that commitment and to make sure equality before the law is matched by equality in life.

This act was born of courage and conviction from people who refused to accept that division is inevitable. Our task now is to carry that spirit forward to ensure that every person, regardless of their background, can live with dignity and without fear of discrimination. The Racial Discrimination Act was a promise made by a Labor government that believed in fairness, equality and justice for all. Our job now is to keep that promise alive.

It's a great honour and privilege to contribute to this recognition of the passage of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, and, in doing so, I acknowledge that the Liberal Party of Australia supported the passage of this act. I would like to quote from one of my boyhood heroes, someone who means a great deal to me and to others I know very well, Senator Neville Bonner, who spoke on the passage of this legislation. Neville Bonner was of course the first Indigenous senator to sit in this place—a remarkable individual. I'm proud to be a Liberal senator for Queensland knowing that Neville Bonner was also a Liberal senator for Queensland.

I want to read to you from his speech on this bill, which I read last night and which is very moving. I recommend that everyone go back and read Neville Bonner's speech. There are two excerpts that I thought particularly warranted being put on the record:

I have had the opportunity to read some of the speeches on this Bill. Some have said that there is no discrimination. I say to all and sundry: Ask an Italian, a Sicilian, or a Greek who has been called—

I won't repeat the denigrating terms—

… or ask a Jew who has been called—

another denigrating term—

… Ask some of the Aboriginal people who have been called—

denigrating terms—

… whether there is discrimination. There is discrimination and we must do something about it.

He said:

Over the last few years, particularly since becoming a senator for Queensland, I have had the opportunity to travel quite extensively throughout Australia. To my consternation, to my hurt and to my shame I have found throughout this country discrimination and prejudice aimed particularly at one of the minority groups. I speak particularly of the Aboriginal community.

Then Neville Bonner recounted a personal experience, which is heartbreaking:

I quote a case in which I was involved 8 or 9 years ago. I was manager of a farm. Unfortunately the company which owned it was closing down. It gave me a month's notice. During that month I scanned the newspapers because I had 7 children at school and I had to support and feed them. I was looking for another job. There were advertisements in the papers about a manager required for a farm or for a family to work a farm. I answered one of these advertisements. I took my son with me—

He took his son with him—

We drove to the farm. A chap met us at the gate. He leaned over the gate and said: 'What do you chaps want?' Prior to that I had rung him and he had told me to come and look at the house and conditions, how far it would be for my children to go to school, and so on. At that time I did not tell him I was an Aborigine. I was just talking to him on the telephone. When we arrived he said: 'Yes, what do you chaps want?' I said: 'I am Neville Bonner. I spoke to you on the telephone about the job on the farm'. He said: 'I am sorry, it would not be available to you. I could not have an Aborigine working on my farm because we are supplying milk'. There is no discrimination, according to some people.

I find it difficult to place anything on the record that has the resonance of what Neville Bonner said in relation to this matter. I simply say all of us as Australians have a deep responsibility to do everything that we can to combat racism and discrimination in all of its forms, to bring Australians together and to not divide them.

How wonderful of the government to celebrate half a century of solving racism in this country. Of course, in the last 50 years since introduction of the Racial Discrimination Act, First Peoples and people of colour have experience no racism and discrimination at all—LOL!—because this country is so welcoming to asylum seekers and to refugees and values its rich history of the oldest continuing living culture in the world more than anything.

If you ask me, the anniversary of the Racial Discrimination Act is not a reason to celebrate but a reason for the governments of this country to hang their heads in shame. Racism kills. Despite the act supposedly making it unlawful to discriminate based on race, ethnicity, colour, country of origin or immigration status, this country's immigration laws are so racist that even Trump is jealous. The act has been around since I was three years old, and this country is more racist today than back then. I experienced racism at school, at work and even in the hospital where I gave birth to my three children. I had to fight when my kids experienced racism then and fight when my grandkids experience racism today.

My people are the most incarcerated people in the world. Our babies continue to be taken from us in ever increasing numbers, and more and more of our people are taking their lives. We have Nazis marching for racism and politicians standing with them. Nazis can even publicly and violently attack us and desecrate a burial site and get away with it with a slap on the wrist. The genocidal practices continue day by day in this country. They are systemic, sophisticated and driven by this place.

Publicly, of course, this government is trying to save face through a tick-a-box measure like the Racial Discrimination Act and by having a Race Discrimination Commissioner. The commissioner's National Anti-Racism Framework showed the act has no antiracist or systemic approach. There's a huge backlog of racism complaints, and, even when people manage to go through this challenging process, it hardly ever ends in anything real, in actual redress or in any consequences for the perpetrator. When the government want to be racist, they can just suspend the Racial Discrimination Act, as they did in the Northern Territory intervention.

This very workplace—colonial headquarters—is built on racism, and it's not any safer than it was back then. There is no mandatory antiracism training here. I am certain that almost no parliamentarians have ever had such training, and it shows in what they say, in their behaviours and in their actions every day in this place. In fact, I still get reprimanded for calling out racism in this place by the very president of this place while those who are actively racist get protected and supported by this system. Meanwhile the anti-racism commissioner is supposed to—

Senator Thorpe, I don't mean to interrupt you, but could you please withdraw the remark about the President. I want you to continue with your contribution.

I withdraw. Meanwhile the anti-racism commissioner is supposed to fix everything with two staff. He and his team are completely overstretched with the ever-increasing demands of the job. If the government were serious about protecting people's rights, it would enshrine them in legislation through a national human rights act. Let's be clear—this government is not serious about tackling racism in this country. It has been a whole year since the National Anti-Racism Framework was handed down, and the government have not responded to that framework. There's been zero response. The colonial system has no interest in tackling racism. It is built on it. Look at the Northern Territory government right now and how it gets away with openly targeting my people—locking our kids up, destroying our sites—with no consequences. The government here needs to stand up to any racism, including these state and territory governments.

Moral philosopher John Rawls in his seminal work A Theory of Justice proposed the veil of ignorance, a thought experiment in which decision-makers design society as if they did not know their own social status, wealth, gender or race in that society. Behind that veil, Rawls argues just and fair policies emerge because in that context they're designed without bias or self-interest. The piece of legislation which we are recognising and reminding ourselves of today, the Racial Discrimination Act, embodies that very ideal. It asks us to imagine how society would and could look if we were born into any background and to legislate for practices, behaviours, attitudes and beliefs in this country in ways that ensure fairness, equality and respect for all.

The Racial Discrimination Act was monumental when it came in in 1975, determined to impact on the lives of ordinary Australians by righting wrongs and improving the lives of peoples of all types who make up the polity of this great country we call home. Discrimination against a person because of their race, colour, descent, national origin or ethnic origin is deeply wrong. It has always been wrong. It remains a wrong inflicted on too many right across the world and sadly still in this country. But to legislate is a commonsense move—to put on the record what we believe and what we desire through our legislation. It was under the Whitlam government on 31 October that the Racial Discrimination Act came into force, and it implemented the critical United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in Australian law. This act that we are honouring today and using as a very important moment to remind ourselves of our obligations was the first piece of Commonwealth legislation to prohibit racial discrimination and the first to focus squarely on human rights and equality.

This piece of legislation is important not just because of what it sought to name and redress at that time but because of what it continues to remind us of. It marked a decisive shift, one that said to the nation and to the world that discrimination based on race has no place in Australian life. The reality of hate unleashed across communities is sadly something we still continue to see, but this law is a vital line in the sand that clearly indicates what Australia expects. It is unlawful to discriminate against a person because of their race, whether doing that directly or indirectly, in the way that Senator Scarr has just contributed with Neville Bonner's story. It's unlawful to discriminate when discrimination undermines the equal recognition or enjoyment of basic human rights. This law, now 50 years old, was put in to protect against discrimination in access for people to places, facilities, housing, goods and services and employment and to protect the right to participate in trade unions. It also, importantly, prohibits acts that are reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate people because of their race, colour or ethnic origin.

What we're talking about, with this piece of legislation of 50 years, are not abstract protections; they're statements of principle about who we are and the standards we expect from one another. Our common humanity is our greatest strength. When we all seek kindness and the dignity of being treated fairly, it is incumbent on us—we, who ask for that to be given to us—to provide that to every other human with whom we come in contact. (Time expired)

The Racial Discrimination Act passed in 1975 and established legal protection against racial discrimination amidst a global push for civil rights and antidiscrimination laws. It passed with bipartisan support. Equality before the law is a core Liberal value. We believe in individual rights and freedoms, including protection from discrimination, recognising the need to balance antidiscrimination protections with freedoms of speech and religion. The coalition has always focused on practical measures to address disadvantage, such as targeted programs in education, employment and health for Indigenous and migrant Australians and effective, meaningful, public awareness and education on issues of race and equality. We've supported the process of reconciliation.

Legislation alone, though, cannot change attitudes or eliminate prejudice. In fact, what must also occur is doing things that do no further harm and that prevent it before it starts. Social and economic inclusion create opportunity, diminish difference and make a place in every corner, place and community based on equality of opportunity. Using legislation to assert rights is available to all citizens, but the advice should always be to prevent, to intervene early and to respond and behave in ways that do not result in the need to assert legal rights.

The Labor government talks a big talk about social cohesion, yet it has stood by idly and has seen some of the most appalling antisemitic attacks on the Jewish community in Australian history. According to the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, in the 12 months following 7 October 2023, there was a 316 per cent increase in antisemitic attacks. To ensure a fair and just community, we need to be always vigilant. The first job that this government focused on in its first term was the Voice to Parliament referendum. It was perhaps one of the most divisive periods in our history not just for Indigenous Australians but for all Australians, and it was not just about the proposition but also about how this government went about it. It pitted people against each other on the basis of race, giving special rights to a group of people above all others in our foundation document, the Australian Constitution.

Prioritising symbolism over practical action does not change lives. Despite the Labor Party promulgating its own version of history, here are some facts. It is the Liberal Party that has taken practical action to address exclusion and division. In early 1967, the Federal Council for the Advancement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders sent a delegation to meet with Liberal Prime Minister Harold Holt. They sought and received support for a referendum to remove words discriminating against Indigenous Australians from the Constitution. That was a Holt government. This included the removal of words from section 51. Later that month, the Australian parliament passed the coalition's Constitution Alteration (Aboriginals) 1967, ensuring Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders would be counted as part of the Australian population and that the parliament could make laws for them. The key difference between this successful process and the Albanese government's Voice referendum is that the coalition introduced clear legislation and then actively campaigned on it.

These important reforms did not end with the Holt government. The Office of Aboriginal Affairs was established soon after Prime Minister Gorton to receive advice on issues impacting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Prime Minister John Howard introduced Indigenous protected areas in 1998. In 2019, the coalition government established the NIAA to lead and coordinate Indigenous policy across government. This approach is echoed by our support for a standalone estimates day, something the Albanese government got rid of. The previous coalition government introduced the groundbreaking Indigenous procurement policy to ensure greater opportunity in business to contradict those terrible stereotypes that sometimes persist. In the chamber this week, we saw the Greens make an issue about race when I don't believe race was even an issue. Race is not something to raise to shut down dissent. People are harmed, not helped, by that.

Thanks to all those who have contributed to those over the last 50 years—lawmakers, community advocates and everyday Australians. Thanks to people like the late Neville Bonner, who first came into the Senate as a Liberal Senator in 1971 and said, 'I am a senator for all Australians, no matter their ethnicity, no matter their background or ancestry.' It's important we reflect on those words. Today, though, we recognise that there is still much more work to be done.

Fifty years ago, this parliament took a historic step. It passed the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, the first federal law to make it unlawful to treat someone unfairly because of their race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin. It wasn't an easy passage. The act we celebrate today was the last of four racial discrimination bills introduced under the Whitlam government. It took two years between 1973 and 1975 for both houses to agree on this reform, which implemented Australia's obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination. Australia signed that convention on 13 October 1966, yet it took almost a decade and a change of government for this nation to honour its promise.

In his second reading speech, Attorney-General Kep Enderby, who had been appointed to that office only three days prior, said something that still rings true today:

The Bill is based on the view that laws proscribing discrimination are vital, but not in themselves alone can they be sufficient. The educative role is at least as significant and the Bill recognises that there must also be effective and systematic enforcement of rights and the promotion of education and research, if the elimination of racial discrimination in this country is to be achieved in fact as well as in theory.

That captures the heart of this anniversary. The Racial Discrimination Act did not end racism in Australia. It marked the beginning of our national journey, a promise that equality would no longer be just an aspiration but a legal right. And yet I need only to glance at my Facebook comments to know that racism is still alive in this country.

We will not arrive at universal tolerance by accident. If we want to continue to live in a harmonious, multicultural society, we must work for it. The responsibility lies with every generation, every community and every parliament. Racism in this country has a long history, from the myth of terra nullius to the massacres of First Nations people and the forced removals of children during the stolen generations. Even this very place has not been immune. The first amendment ever moved in this chamber, on 21 May 1901, proposed prohibiting immigration from the Pacific.

As a woman of colour born in Afghanistan and raised here in Australia, I know that the protections we commemorate today made it possible for people like me to stand here. My parents came to this country seeking peace and opportunity. It was the vision of multicultural Australia built on belonging, not exclusion, that gave us the chance. The Australia we all know today was built by immigrants who brought their food, their music, their languages, their faiths and their traditions. That is what makes us rich and makes every generation of Australians more colourful than the last.

But alongside that beauty we have seen shadows of bigotry: the rise of Islamophobia, antisemitism, anti- Palestinian racism and all forms of racial discrimination; the reemergence of Neo-Nazi movements on our streets; and politicians who trade in fear using division as a tool. This is not who we're meant to be. When hatred is normalised, when migrants and refugees are scapegoated, and when truth-telling and treaty are ignored, we betray the progress of the last 50 years. We must remember that education, empathy and equality are the antidotes to prejudice.

That is why the next step in this journey must be the introduction of a national human rights act. Australia remains the only liberal democracy in the world without one. Right now our protections and laws are patchy and incomplete. The Racial Discrimination Act was a huge milestone. A human rights act would be a natural successor, guaranteeing that, no matter who you are, where you come from or what you believe, your rights are protected by law.

So, as we mark 50 years since the parliament took that courageous step under Gough Whitlam's leadership, we should ask ourselves: what will the next 50 years demand of us? We must summon the same courage, the same moral clarity and the same resolve, because Australia's story—my story, your story—is proof that, when we make room for everyone, this nation shines the brightest.

Racism in all its forms is ultimately a denial of dignity and respect. Today we mark the anniversary of the Racial Discrimination Act, but let's also remark on its continuing aspirations into the future, because the act doesn't prevent these denials from continuing to happen, as those of us here in this place know well. But it sets the standard for how we should approach these denials, and it sets a framework for how we should respond. We have witnessed stunts to shock and divide—entering this chamber in cultural or religious dress, not as a sign of respect but as a prop to ridicule. We have seen senators turn their backs on acknowledgement of country, a small but deeply significant act of respect to the First Nations peoples of this land. We hear inflammatory claims that entire communities are a threat to public safety, seeking to weaken racial vilification protections under section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, framed as free speech. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Ruston to the Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment Bill 2025 be agreed to.

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I present the seventh report for 2025 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

Selection of Bills Committee

REPORT NO. 7 OF 2025

30 October 2025

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Senator Tony Sheldon (Government Whip, Chair)

Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip)

Senator Sean Bell (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip)

Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip)

Senator Ralph Babet

Senator Leah Blyth

Senator Ross Cadell

Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm

Senator Jessica Collins

Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher

Senator Jacqui Lambie

Senator Fatima Payman

Senator David Pocock

Senator Lidia Thorpe

Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 7 OF 2025

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 29 October 2025 at 7.18 pm.

2. The committee recommends that—

(a) the provisions of the Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025 and the Commonwealth Parole Board (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 19 November 2025 (see appendix 1 for statements of reasons for referral);

(b) the provisions of the Corporations (Review Fees) Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 29 January 2026 (see appendix 2 for statements of reasons for referral);

(c) the provisions of the Education Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 November 2025;

(d) the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Ban Unethical Contractors) Bill 2025 be referred immediately to Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 17 March 2026 (see appendix 3 for statements of reasons for referral); and

(e) the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Financial Systems and Other Measures) Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 19 November 2025 (see appendix 4 for statements of reasons for referral).

3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees:

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

5. The committee considered the following bills but was unable to reach agreement:

(Tony Sheldon)

Chair

29 October 2025

I move:

That the report be adopted.

I move:

At the end of the motion, add: ", and:

(a) the provisions of the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and related bills be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 November 2025;

(b) the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Bill 2025 and a related bill not be referred to a committee;

(c) the Criminal Code Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) Bill 2025 not be referred to a committee; and

(d) the provisions of the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025 not be referred to a committee.

For those who haven't seen it, the amendment that the government is moving to this report from the Selection of Bills Committee seeks to refer immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee the provisions of the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, which has just been introduced into the House of Representatives. We're seeking a report from that committee by 24 November 2025. There are a number of other amendments that we're moving, but I'll just speak to the amendments to the EPBC legislation.

Unfortunately, the 'no-alition' is back—the 'no-alition' that slowed down, got in the way of, blocked and obstructed housing reform, environmental reform, health measures and all sorts of other reforms that the Albanese government sought to achieve in our first term. They enjoyed the experience so much that they've decided to do it all over again when it comes to environmental reform. I am surprised that they enjoyed the 'no-alition' as much as it appears they did, because the Australian people didn't enjoy it very much. The Australian people had their say about the 'no-alition' at the last federal election, where we saw both the coalition and the Greens pay an electoral price for the 'no-alition' and for consistently obstructing and blocking progress that the Albanese government was seeking to achieve.

I have made no secret of the fact that we believe, and I believe, the Australian people want changes and amendments to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act made now—not in another five years, not in another few months, not when we get around to it after the 'no-alition' breaks up temporarily, but now. The reason we need to act now and have a Senate committee report come back enabling debate of this bill in the last sitting week of the year is that, with every day, every month and every year that the 'no-alition' blocks these reforms, we see our natural environment decline and we see housing, renewables and other important projects held up in the red tape of the provisions of the current act that we are seeking to amend.

The bills that we have introduced into the House of Representatives today put forward a balanced package of reform that deliver real gains for nature and for approvals processes that business is desperately seeking. The reforms in the bills also dramatically improve the transparency and accountability of decision-making when it comes to the environment in this country, in particular through the creation of Australia's first-ever National Environment Protection Agency—a proud Labor achievement and something that we have taken to two federal elections in a row and that has been endorsed by the Australian people two elections in a row but that has been blocked, yet again, by the 'no-alition' of the coalition and the Greens.

It's about time that the coalition and the Greens recognise that continued frustration of these reforms is leading to a decline in nature. The Greens Party—well, some of them—say that their reason for being is to protect the environment. Some of them say it's just about having protests outside electorate offices, but some do say that their reason for being is to protect the environment. They have an opportunity to do that right now with the Environment Protection Reform Bill, which has been introduced into the House and which we're seeking to have referred to a Senate inquiry to report back by the last sitting week so that we can get on with it and pass these reforms.

The coalition have an opportunity to listen to the voices of business—who they say back them, but, half the time I'm not really sure that's right—who desperately want changes made to the processes that are strangling investment, strangling productivity, strangling housing developments and strangling renewable energy and other economic projects. This week we saw the business community oppose the actions by the opposition leader, Sussan Ley, when she called for the bill to be split. She couldn't even get business groups to back her in on that. She was trying to split a bill to avoid a split in her own party room. That's what we saw from Sussan Ley this week.

We have the opportunity to move now. It is five years since Graeme Samuel tabled his review for the then environment minister, Sussan Ley, which recommended changes for nature and changes for business. It has been five years. Since then, we've been spinning wheels and seeing attempt after attempt to pass these laws blocked by the 'no-alition'—and they're back at it. We should get on with it and we should get a Senate inquiry happening now.

I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

"and, in respect of the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and six related bills, the provisions of the bills be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 March 2026".

I've circulated an amendment to Minister Watt's amendment to give this bill the scrutiny it deserves and needs—to send this to an inquiry where the Australian people can have a good look at the stitch-up that this government has done with the big business lobby, the miners and the loggers. We know that the legislation that's been tabled in the House of Representatives today has big business's, the miners' and the loggers' grubby fingerprints all over it. There are more loopholes. There are more get-out-of-jail-free cards for the business lobby, the miners and the loggers. There are, however, no guaranteed protections for our forests, for our climate. There are no guaranteed protections for our endangered species.

This bill—this package of bills, seven bills, hundreds of pages—does not do what it says on the tin. It is no wonder that 'Mr Murray in a hurry' wants to ram this legislation through this place with a short inquiry, because he's done a deal with the big businesses, the big polluters and the big loggers, and he doesn't want anyone to know about it. There's only one thing that drives a government to truncate the process of the Senate, and that's when they're trying to hide what's really going on. When they don't want the community to know, when they don't want their own voters to know, when they don't want their own backbench to know what's really going on, the government moves things as fast as they can, rams legislation through and hopes no-one will notice, or, if they do, it will all be too late.

That's why they don't want a genuine Senate inquiry today, but we are going to move to make sure that this chamber has the ability to do its job. There are hundreds of pages of this legislation. The weasel words have grown and grown. In fact, it was just up until yesterday that the department and those in the minister's office were finalising how many more weasel words would be in this piece of legislation. The government itself wasn't able to settle on exactly what would be in this package until the last minute. If they expect the Senate just to roll over, rubberstamp this and ram it through, they've got another thing coming.

For far too long, we've had big business, the big logging companies and the big miners write the laws in this country. In the one package that is meant to be about protecting the environment, you'd think they'd do what it says on the tin. Imagine if the environment minister actually talked about, and put forward, legislation that protected the environment. Do you think BHP would be cheering it on? Do you think Chevron would be saying, 'Ram it through'? Do you think the Minerals Council would be telling the Senate to get out of the way? No, they would not. Why are they all lining up today to tell Senator Watt, the Minister for the Environment and Water, to get this all done quickly before anyone notices? It's because it's good for their business. It's good for their mining. It's good for their pollution-pumping projects. Of course, because it does nothing to stop native forest logging, the trees will keep falling, the animals will keep dying and the pollution will keep growing. That is what is on the table, and the community deserves to know.

I know that this makes the government terribly nervous, because there are people within their own backbench who are alarmed at what is in this package. I say to the backbenchers of the Labor Party: here is your chance. Here is your chance to get behind the rest of the community, who want strong environmental protections, our forests saved, the pollution to stop and a natural environment that is protected for the next generation, for our kids. If you want to take this opportunity, now is the time. Now is the time to have a backbone. Now is the time to find your voice and use this process to do it. Otherwise, this package of bills, written by the business lobby for the loggers and the miners, will sail through. Who knows what the coalition will do? They're totally divided. But the idea that a Labor government would ram through legislation, beg the coalition for a deal and then have the gall to call it 'environmental protection'—you know it stinks. The people know it stinks. It absolutely stinks, and that's why it needs scrutiny.

We will be supporting the Greens' amendment, regarding a reference of the bills to a committee. The minister came in here to tell us that we need to pass this legislation today because this is their true form—get it through; ram it through. As Senator Hanson-Young says, there are seven bills as part of this package. There are 700 pages of legislation and an EM which, I understand, is 700 pages long as well. They were tabled today, incomplete, with elements still not finalised. Senator Watt tells us the business community are sending strong messages. If you talk to the business community, they say they want time to scrutinise this as well because it's all been rushed.

Let's go back over the history of what's happened here. Senator Watt tells us it's been five years since the Samuel review was tabled. What happened for the last three years was that you had an environment minister—Tanya Plibersek, the member for Sydney and former environment minister—sacked at the end of the last term because she couldn't do her job, so much so that, now, she doesn't even represent the environment minister in the other place. You'd think the former minister would have that job over there, in the other place, to represent the environment minister in the Senate. No—they don't even trust her with that, so badly did she handle this portfolio and squander three years of opportunity.

You had a coalition that wanted to work with the government to get this legislation through, but instead the minister refused to work with us. You had a prime minister who saw sense, and he stopped the minister from doing these dodgy, dirty deals that we knew about. We had documents released under FOI—with big, black swathes across them again, true to form for this Labor government, wanting to make sure no-one knew what was really going on—and deals done between Minister Plibersek, the Australian Greens and, of course, other crossbenchers. Who knows what the detail of those deals was? We will never know, because it was all part of this secret arrangement this government wants to keep going in this place, and we've seen that again this week. The idea of scrutiny is abhorrent to them.

Australian Labor Party senators aren't in their seats and continue to interject, of course, because they've got a lot to say about the need to back in a minister who wants to rush this bill through the Senate, avoid scrutiny and avoid any accountability, like they do every other day of the week. Can I tell you, we in this place have had enough of this government seeking to just run the show in accordance with their own tune and not seek any input from anyone else.

We're happy to work with the government on the nature of this legislation and to get a good outcome for this country. We've laid down some key markers about what we think needs to change in this legislation, and the shadow minister, Ms Bell, has been very clear about that. Of course, the government, doing what they do and attacking everyone else rather than actually working constructively with them, will take issue with that. We are ready to work with the government, but we're not going to just rush it throughout at your demand. This is a democratic institution.

Five years!

I'll take the interjection from the minister. Three of the five years that we've had since Samuel tabled his report were wasted by you. You could have had this done in the last term, but you chose not to. You had your dark, smoke-filled rooms over there and you were doing deals with the business lobby, the green groups or whoever it was. We don't know, because there were all these nondisclosure agreements signed. Again, a hallmark of this government is a lack of transparency. All of these Labor senators think it's funny to deal with the public good and the environment and providing investor certainty is just a laughing matter. Well, I'm sorry, but it's not.

That's why this Senate needs to do its job. That's why we are holding this government to account today. We will be ensuring that there is scrutiny applied to this legislation, as is required, not just bowing to the minister's demands, acquiescing, rolling over and being compliant. I'm sorry, but it doesn't work like that. This legislation will come out the other end looking much better than it's gone in, and we will actually see what this government intends to do for this country, whether it's serious about wanting to do a good job for the environment and business. At this point, we don't know, because what's been tabled in the other place isn't even complete. Lobby groups are telling us they need the time. Both environmental and business groups want to look at this legislation properly. So we will support the extension for this inquiry because it's important to have this scrutiny, but we're not going to roll over. We're sick of being told what to do by a government that doesn't know what it's doing.

Those remarks from Senator Duniam really were a way to let the Senate know that—

Brilliant remarks!

Senator Henderson, you don't have the call and you are not in your chair.

Order! I will make this point now. Prior to this matter coming on, we had had a vote and so many of you are not in your correct seats. It is absolutely against the rules to be interjecting when you are not in your seat, so the silence will continue. Thank you, minister.

It was about why environmental reform cannot be progressed this year—again, another year where environmental law reform doesn't progress. I know how many meetings Senator Watt has had with members of this place and with other stakeholders to ensure that this bill has the smoothest or quickest passage through, with appropriate scrutiny. The minister has been working on this and working with colleagues since May, and he has outlined the arguments to this chamber. But we accept that the view of those on the opposition benches, the Greens and others is that they want to delay the passage of this bill. That's what's happening here this morning on the environmental law reform.

On the other bills—and I note there are a number of amendments that are going to be moved across a number of bills—I just want to take the opportunity to outline the government's position outside of environmental protection reform. We would like a short committee process to report on that by 24 November. But there are a number of other pieces of legislation, including on payday superannuation. Again, it is unsurprising that the opposition are seeking to delay the passage of this bill. The ATO estimates that $5.2 billion in super went unpaid in the 2021-22 year. That's $100 million every week that workers did not get put in their accounts. This bill seeks to address that. I would have thought that was a pretty important job—for the Senate to be dealing with that bill so that workers are getting the superannuation they are entitled to as soon as that bill is able to be passed. That is why we are suggesting that that bill not be referred to a committee. We are moving an amendment to that degree. I hope that people will support that amendment.

In (c) of the amendment moved by the government, it states:

(c) the Criminal Code Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) Bill 2025 not be referred to a committee …

This bill would allow the government to list the IRGC, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, as a state sponsor of terrorism, consistent with the PM's announcement in August. There has been a lot of discussion around that. We think it's very important that that bill be passed as soon as possible and not referred to a committee, especially as we know the advice from our intelligence agencies about the involvement of people aligned with that group in relation to attacks here on our own soil that have aimed to put fear into the community. This bill deals with that. Again, I hope that we get the support of the chamber not to refer that to a committee. 'The provisions of the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025 not be referred to a committee'—this important bill will allow the establishment of a committee to provide increased transparency on AUKUS and allow the parliament to continue to scrutinise this important project. This is going to be done through this bill, and we again would urge the chamber to not refer that to a committee.

The final point I want to make is in relation to Senator Robert's amendment that's foreshadowed to be moved in this part, which is on the Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya's) Bill 2025. Senator Roberts seeks to move that to a report by 27 February 2026. The government does not support that. This bill will provide clarity and consistency about eligibility for paid parental leave. The bill uses existing definitions that already apply to unpaid parental leave in the Fair Work Act and government funded paid parental leave in the Paid Parental Leave Act. The loss of a child is one of the most devastating things a parent can experience. It has a profound and long-lasting impact on parents, families and their communities. These are very difficult circumstances for workers and employers to navigate. We feel this bill provides certainty, and we are—as we have heard in speeches in the other place—deeply disappointed that a very small minority have tried to hijack this bill and pretend it is about something that it is not. On those grounds, the government will not be supporting Senator Roberts amendment and don't support the inquiry until the end of February next year that he's proposed.

Senator Whish-Wilson.

It's Senator McKim.

I beg your pardon!

I'm happy to take the call, President!

It's flattering to at least one of you! Senator McKim, my apologies.

I'm going to leave that where it is. Thank you for that dorothy dixer, President. I'll tell you what the Australian Greens are not going to cop. We are not going to cop a lecture on environmental protection from Labor's so-called Minister for the Environment and Water, Murray Watt, who is part of a government that is approving every coal and gas project it possibly can as fast as it possibly can while the planet is cooking and our ecosystems are crumbling around us. We're not going to cop a lecture on environmental protection from a so-called minister for the environment who is cheering on as our native forests are being flattened and burned by the logging industry in this country. We're not going to cop a lecture on environmental protection from a government that continues to subsidise the burning of fossil fuels from the public purse while our climate is breaking down around us. We are not going to cop a lecture from 'One Watt' Murray, who has spent the last few months sitting in the corporate boardrooms of mining corporations and logging interests drafting up these laws. Make no mistake—these laws have been written for big business. They have been written for the loggers. They have been written for people who want to destroy our environment. That's what so-called environment minister Murray Watt has spent the last few months doing, and we see right through what he is up to.

Who is cheering on the Labor Party to get these laws through the parliament quickly? Let's have a look. The Business Council of Australia wants these laws passed quickly. The mining lobby wants these laws passed quickly. The loggers want these laws passed quickly. The Labor Party wants these laws passed quickly. That tells us everything we need to know—every simple thing that we need to know. The Greens have got a message for the Labor Party, particularly the so-called minister for the environment, who is actually masquerading in that role because he's a minister for big business, Murray Watt. That message is this—do not take the Greens for granted in this place. These laws do not protect our precious, beautiful carbon-rich forests that are home to so many spectacular and beautiful creatures. They do not protect the climate. Because they don't protect forests and they don't protect our climate, they're not worth the paper they are printed on. We are not going to vote for laws that take environmental protection backwards in this country. And I say this to the Australian people: you know you can trust the Greens to fight for the environment. Our party was founded to protect nature. Our party was founded to protect forests, to protect the wild rivers, to protect our coastlines, to protect our oceans and to protect our terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. It is in our DNA, and we have fought, since we were founded, to protect nature. We're doing it today, and we will continue with every fibre in our being to protect and defend nature. We will fight hard to do that in this place and we will fight hard to do that in the forests, in the oceans and on the streets if we have to. We take pride in our history, and the Australian people know that they can trust us on nature. They can trust us on the environment. They can trust us on forests. They can trust us on climate, and they can trust us on ecosystems.

Wherever those ecosystems are—local in communities or at a global level—the Greens are here to protect nature and to demand Labor do better, demand that our forests are protected, demand that we have climate action and demand that Labor stop sitting down with the big polluters, the loggers, the miners and the fossil fuel corporations; get out of those board rooms; get out of those back rooms; and actually work with the Greens to deliver reform through this Senate that actually does what it says on the tin—protects nature, protects forests and protects climate.

One Nation supports Senator Hanson-Young's amendment. This bill will have far-reaching impacts on Australia. It's not to be rushed through the parliament. One Nation is the party of the natural environment and the party of the human environment. We want to give Australians a say. Workers, employers and small businesses—the parliament needs to listen to these people and give them a say.

I'd also like to now move my amendment to the Selection of Bills report as circulated in the chamber.

Senator Roberts, you can't. We are dealing with Senator Hanson-Young's amendment at this point. You can speak to your motion if you wish to, but you can't move it.

Thank you. I will speak to it now, and that'll save us time later. One Nation has moved to send the Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya's) Bill 2025 to committee. The bill, as worded, allows employer paid parental leave for the parents of a baby who has been born still as a result of a termination or of a live birth abortion. Loss of a child due to natural circumstances is crushing, but where a child is terminated and born alive that child is cast away into a cold steel tin and left inhumanly to die from neglect in a bucket of cold steel. This is what's going on our country. Alone, scared and suffering, the child dies a slow and terrifying death.

This happens every few weeks in a hospital somewhere in Australia. The mother's employer or the taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for 26 weeks paid leave for an aborted baby or neonatal murder—they should not. This is too important an issue to wave through parliament for social media likes and gender warfare points. A committee inquiry is needed to review this position and allow the public their say. The people of Australia need to have an opportunity to have their say, and we need to listen.

I think you've got about three minutes, Senator Pocock.

That's all I need. I have real concerns with the Albanese government proposing a 3½ week Senate inquiry to look at seven different bills and almost 1,500 pages of legislation on the biggest environmental law changes in a generation. It doesn't do this important issue the justice that it deserves.

Like many Australians, I am a first-generation migrant and have fallen in love with this incredible place, this continent we call home, and the incredible natural beauty. We are doing a pretty shocking job of looking after it. We're the world leaders in mammal extinctions. We all know that. We all know that the status quo is not going to turn things around. Even if you don't necessarily care about numbats, potoroos, Tassie devils, spotted-tailed quolls or whatever it might be, as senators, I think we should care about something in this bill which I think is a huge red flag. Minister Burke, when introducing it in the other place, said:

This package of bills remains faithful to our commitment to follow the spirit of the Samuel review …

One of Graeme Samuel's biggest issues was the powers that the environment minister had. He said that they should be scaled right back, and yet the Labor government is handing the executive even more powers. They're handing the environment minister even more powers. That is directly opposed to what the Samuel review said. And, like they're doing with FOI and robodebt, where robodebt said, 'Don't do this to FOI,' the government is doing that to FOI and trying to use robodebt as justification—the exact same thing is happening with the Graeme Samuel review. We cannot continue to give the executive more and more power. You add, on top of that, this national interest exemption where projects can essentially just get the green light, even if they're in a no-go zone, even if they will potentially cause the extinction of a species. On top of that, they may not even be subject to offsetting or the pay-to-destroy model, because they're in the national interest. This all needs some very serious scrutiny.

If we are going to turn this extinction crisis around, which I believe the vast majority of Australians want us to do, this bill deserves scrutiny. It deserves strengthening. It deserves consultation. We've seen a number of groups come out and say they were not consulted on the 1,400 or so pages in this. I thank Senator Hanson-Young for putting forward this extension, and I thank the coalition—despite disagreeing with some of the direction that you're taking on this—for giving the Senate extra time to look at it.

The time for this debate has expired.

The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Hanson-Young be agreed to.

I move the amendment, as circulated by the opposition, relating to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Bill 2025:

At the end of the motion, add:

"and, in respect of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Bill 2025 and the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Amendment Bill 2025, the provisions of the bills be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 19 November 2025".

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

I move the amendment that has been circulated in my name:

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

(c) the Criminal Code Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 19 November 2025; and

(d) the provisions of the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 19 November 2025".

The question is that the amendment standing in the name of Senator McKim be agreed to.

The question now is that the motion moved by Minister Watt, as amended, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

I move an amendment to the motion on the adoption of the Senate Standing Committee for the Selection of Bills report, as circulated in the chamber:

At the end of the motion, add:

"but, in respect of the Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya's) Bill 2025, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 27 February 2026".

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

I move:

That general business notice of motion No. 214 be considered during general business today.

Question agreed to.

I move:

(1) That the following matter be referred to the Procedure Committee for inquiry and report by Wednesday, 4 February 2026:

Senate orders for the production of documents, with particular reference to:

(a) the growth in public interest immunity claims and other

non-compliance by the Government in response to orders for the production of documents;

(b) the legitimacy of public interest immunity claims raised by the Government;

(c) measures available to the Senate when the Government fails to comply with orders where public interest immunity claims have been rejected by the Senate; and

(d) any other related matters.

(2) That for the purposes of this inquiry only:

(a) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate or Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, or any minority party or independent senator; and

(b) such participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee and have all the rights of members of the committee except that a participating member may not vote on any questions before the committee.

(3) That the committee have the power to consider and use the records of the Procedure Committee appointed in previous parliaments.

I ask that paragraphs (1) and (3) be put separately from paragraph (2).

The question is that (1) and (3) of Senator Hanson-Young's motion be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The question is that business of the Senate in the name of Senator Hanson-Young, paragraph (2), be agreed to.

This omnibus bill, the Health Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 1) Bill 2025, seeks to make changes to the process for claiming a private health insurance rebate. The private health insurance rebate enables, as we know, eligible people to have the cost of their private health insurance subsidised by the government. Right now, the IT systems responsible for administering these rebates simply can't meet the expectations set out in the legislation, so this bill will update the law to better align with what the system can actually deliver. The Greens have been clear on our position in relation to private health insurance. Our priority, in our view, is that we should be improving and strengthening our public health system. However, while there remains a private health structure in Australia, we see the need and the value in aligning these systems.

Let me move to the issue of head and neck cancer. I would like to take the opportunity presented by this legislation to talk about an issue that I am incredibly passionate about: access to affordable oral and dental health care, particularly to dental prosthetics for people who have undergone treatment for head, neck and oral cancers. Head, neck and oral cancers can cause significant damage to a person's mouth and oral health. In some people, this might be through the removal of parts of the face or mouth, such as their lips or gums. For others, the radiation treatment around the head area can cause permanent damage to the salivary glands, which play a crucial role in keeping the mouth healthy. If it were any other type of cancer that we were talking about, Medicare would cover the post-treatment rehabilitation, including prosthetics. But, because we are talking about cancers of the head, mouth or neck, these prosthetics and that rehabilitation aren't covered by Medicare. Instead, cancer patients need to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars out of pocket for it.

We have heard of people having to mortgage their house and pull from their super in order to pay for dental prosthetics that they need. While millionaires are living large on government funded tax cuts, it is unacceptable that Medicare can't cover prosthetics. In 2023, the dental inquiry that I had the honour of chairing uncovered these huge gaps in the Medicare system and made two recommendations. These recommendations were to further investigate the ways in which cancer and cancer treatment could impact the mouth and to look into addressing these impacts, including reviewing the Medicare Benefits Schedule with a view to improve access to care.

Today I call on the government to implement those recommendations so that survivors of head and neck cancer can access prosthetics and post-treatment care that they need without going broke trying to afford it. I moved the second reading amendment in my name last night during the debate, and I would ask the government to consider supporting that amendment and to action those recommendations. Somebody who has won the battle with cancer of the head, neck or mouth should never have to then think about where they will find the money for the postcancer treatments or the prosthetics that they may need. I am so sick and tired of hearing that yet another member of my WA community has survived cancer and that, after a battle that has claimed a large section of their face or a large part of their mouth and has taken their ability to produce spit in their mouths—can anybody actually imagine what it is like to live with that as a reality day in, day out? And that's their life. The one thing that can collectively be done is to make sure that, when they are in need of medical treatment and prosthetics, they can get it through Medicare.

I'm often asked where we should begin the work of bringing dental care into Medicare. Well, here is an opportunity. Let us start by uniting around the idea that people who have survived cancer should be able to get rehabilitative treatment covered under Medicare, regardless of where on the body that care needs to be administered or where the prosthetic might need to be attached. Can we all just do that? Could we all just agree that that is something that should be done?

Back this amendment. Let's have it be a unanimous position of this Senate that it should be the case that head, neck and oral cancers are covered under Medicare and that you can get the prosthetics and the treatment you need without having to mortgage your house. Come on—let us do this together. It's a good thing, and the time has come.

I rise today in support of the Health Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 1) Bill 2025 because this bill strengthens Medicare and modernises our health system and makes it fairer for patients, doctors and communities right across Australia.

For Western Australians, particularly those in our regions and remote areas, this bill is about more than just administrative fixes; it's about addressing those inequities in access, in the workforce and in the outcomes that have persisted for far too long. Medicare is one of Labor's proudest achievements, and it was built on the belief that, no matter your postcode, your income or your background, you should be able to see a doctor when you need one. This bill carries forward a vision that is about cutting red tape and modernising the systems that support our health workers.

Right now it takes too long for new doctors and health practitioners to get their Medicare provider number. For overseas trained professionals, that delay can be up to a couple of months—months that could have been spent treating patients in our communities that are crying out for care. This legislation changes that. It allows the Chief Executive Medicare to use secure computer systems to automatically issue a provider number where the decision is straightforward, while keeping human oversight in place for anything that's complex or discretionary. It is a simple, practical change that means doctors, nurses and allied health professionals can start the work they need to do much sooner. In places like the Goldfields, the Wheatbelt and the Great Southern areas of my home state of Western Australia, where the nearest GP can be up to hundreds of kilometres away, that matters a lot.

Another key part of this bill is making bulk-billing fit for the 21st century. A law that underpins bulk-billing was written when everything was still done on paper. This bill gives patients and doctors the flexibility to assign Medicare benefits digitally and securely, and it also extends the time for clinics and software providers to transition to their new systems, ensuring that absolutely no-one misses out on the care they need. Labor is delivering the largest investment in bulk-billing in Medicare's history, with $7.9 billion to make sure that all you need is your Medicare card, not your credit card, to access world-class health care. This legislation ensures that Labor can deliver on those reforms.

The bill also strengthens our ability to get more doctors in regional, remote and outer metropolitan areas. Under the old Bonded Medical Program, if a bonded doctor failed to complete their return-of-service obligation, they could have faced a six-year ban—a blunt penalty that punished not just the doctor but the very communities that needed their care the most. Under the reformed system, we'll ensure that doctors who've acted in good faith, working in rural hospitals, Aboriginal medical services or regional clinics, will have their contributions recognised. It is a fairer system that supports doctors and, importantly, the patients they serve. For First Nations communities, continuity of care is vital. So when bonded doctors are supported, rather than penalised, communities retain trust and stability in their local health services.

At the heart of this bill is integrity, efficiency and equity. Australians deserve to know that every taxpayer dollar is handled properly and that our public and our private systems work together to keep health care affordable. This bill will strengthen the integrity of the private health insurance rebate system so that the $7 billion paid to insurers each year is managed lawfully and transparently. Our government's approach is very simple. We modernise where it makes sense; we reduce red tape when it gets in the way, and we make sure fairness and accountability stay at the core of Medicare.

As a Yamatji Noongar woman who was born in the great southern region, in my home town of Kojonup in regional WA, I know that the health system has not always worked equally for everyone. Too many regional and remote communities still face unacceptable gaps in accessing doctors, specialists and mental health care. That's why bills like this one are so important. Every time we make Medicare faster, fairer and stronger, we take another step towards health equity—towards a system that truly serves all Australians.

It's really simple. This bill is about making health care and the healthcare system work better for patients, for healthcare workers and for communities that rely on them. It's about ensuring that the next doctor who wants to serve in Kalgoorlie or Albany does not have to wait months for a provider number. It's about ensuring that a patient in Leonora can be bulk-billed by their GP service just as easily as someone in Fremantle. It's about ensuring that Medicare, one of Labor's proudest legacies, continues to grow stronger for generations to come. I commend this bill to the Senate.

The Health Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 1) Bill 2025 is about strengthening Medicare. It's about making sure that Australians can see a doctor when they need to, our health system keeps up with modern technology and every dollar of public investment in health delivers better care for patients. For more than 40 years, Medicare has been at the heart of who we are as a nation. It reflects our belief that access to health care should depend on your Medicare card, not your credit card.

Under the Albanese Labor government, Medicare has been renewed and strengthened through cheaper medicines, record investment in bulk-billing, new Medicare urgent care clinics and support for doctors and nurses across the country. This bill builds on that work. It makes practical, sensible changes to help health professionals do their jobs and make it easier for Australians to get the care they need. It also helps to protect the integrity of Medicare, ensuring that systems, payments and regulations are modern, secure and fair.

This bill makes targeted amendments to four main areas, automating the allocation of Medicare provider numbers, strengthening the private health insurance rebate system, supporting the transition to modern, digital bulk-billing and simplified billing, and updating the Bonded Medical Program to better reflect today's workforce realities. Each of these changes contributes to a stronger, more efficient and fairer healthcare system.

The first part of the bill deals with Medicare provider numbers, the unique numbers that identify health professionals and their practice locations. Under current arrangements, new practitioners, especially overseas trained doctors, often wait weeks or even months before receiving their provider number. That means they cannot bill Medicare, even if they are ready and qualified to work. The review that was conducted into this, an independent review of Australia's regulatory settings for overseas health practitioners, found that in some cases these delays could stretch to three months. During that time, doctors are unable to see patients, and communities go without much-needed care.

This bill fixes that. It allows the chief executive of Medicare to approve the use of secure computer systems to allocate provider numbers automatically where all eligibility checks have been met. Importantly, any decision to refuse an application will still be made by a person, not a computer, ensuring human oversight and accountability. This reform will speed up the process for new practitioners to begin work, reduce administrative burden and help address workforce shortages, particularly in areas where doctors are needed most. It is a practical measure that reflects modern realities. We should not have highly trained doctors sitting idle because of paperwork delays. By supporting automation where appropriate, this bill will make it faster and easier for health professionals to start treating patients, while maintaining strong safeguards that protect patients and uphold Medicare's integrity.

The second key reform in this bill ensures that the private health insurance rebate system operates consistently with the law and continues to support affordability for millions of Australians. The Australian government spends about $7.8 billion each year, helping Australians with the cost of private health insurance premiums. These rebates are an important part of keeping private cover affordable and relieving pressure on the public hospital system. However, over time, some administrative systems used to process these rebates have not fully aligned with legislative requirements. The bill corrects that, aligning the registration and the claims process, under the Private Health Insurance Act 2007, with current technology and practices. It introduces a new self-assessment model for private health insurers, ensures appropriate checks and documentation and allows the chief executive of Medicare to approve automated decision-making for certain administrative tasks. These updates will not change the rebate amounts people receive, but they will strengthen the integrity of the system and protect taxpayers' money. They ensure that payments are lawful, accurate and recoverable if errors occur. This is about making sure every rebate dollar is correctly spent and that consumers continue to benefit from affordable health insurance.

The third and perhaps most significant part of this bill focuses on modernising the assignment of Medicare benefits—the process that underpins bulk-billing. When a patient assigns their right to a Medicare benefit to their doctor or clinic, Medicare pays that benefit directly to the provider. That simple transaction—signing over your benefit so you pay nothing upfront—is what makes bulk-billing possible, but, for decades, that process has been based on outdated paper based systems designed in the 1980s. This bill brings Medicare into the digital age. It remedies technical issues identified in the Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Assignment of Medicare Benefits) Act 2024 and allows time for the new digital assignment systems to be built, tested and adopted safely. Specifically, it postpones the start of the new arrangements from January 2026 to July 2026, giving software developers, medical providers and patients more time to prepare. These changes are essential to ensure a smooth transition. By allowing the digital assignment of Medicare benefits, Australians will be able to bulk-bill without needing to sign paper forms. It will make life easier for patients and providers alike. Because the Albanese Labor government has tripled the bulk-billing incentive for pensioners, concession card holders and families with children, this bill will help make sure that those new incentives flow smoothly and securely through the digital system.

This work is part of Labor's broader commitment to strengthen Medicare and to make it easier to see a doctor. Labor's reforms have restored bulk-billing for 11 million Australians and delivered on an extra six million bulk-billed visits across the country. This bill ensures the technology behind Medicare keeps up with that progress. It protects the foundations of a fair, modern healthcare system where bulk-billing remains central to how Australians access care.

In Tasmania, these reforms will make a real difference. We know Tasmanians value Medicare deeply, but too many still struggle to find a bulk-billing GP or face long waits for appointments. The government's investment in bulk-billing and urgent care clinics are already helping to change that. In Hobart, the two Medicare urgent care clinics have provided thousands of free, walk-in consultations, offering an alternative to hospital emergency departments for families needing care for urgent but non-life-threatening conditions. Across the state, more Tasmanians can now see a bulk-billing doctor without worrying about the cost. Tripling the bulk-billing incentive has made it viable again for many clinics to return to bulk-billing.

This bill ensures that those new incentives roll out from 1 November 2025 and the technology and payment system supporting them are up to date and functioning properly. For Tasmanians, that means smoother billing, faster payments to clinics and fewer administrative barriers for doctors, especially those in regional areas who are already carrying heavy workloads. It will also help ensure that the $7.9 billion in bulk-billing incentive payments announced in the 2025 election reach frontline providers on time. Combined with Labor's new investments in women's health, mental health and cheaper medicines, this bill supports a health system that works better for everyone, from families in Hobart's northern suburbs to older Tasmanians on the north-west coast. Labor's Medicare urgent care clinics, endo clinics, pelvic pain clinics and Medicare mental health centres are all designed around the same goal: accessibility, affordability and community based care.

These reforms are delivering real results. In Tasmania, families are saving money on prescriptions; older Australians are seeing doctors without out-of-pocket costs; and patients who once turned to emergency departments can now access timely, free care in their own communities. This bill supports that success by ensuring Medicare systems are modern, secure and efficient.

The final part of the bill makes important changes to the Bonded Medical Program, a program that encourages medical graduates to work in regional, rural and remote communities. These amendments remove that outdated, six-year Medicare ban for doctors who do not complete their return-of-service obligation, balancing fairness with community need. They also ensure that workers complete it in good faith, including under earlier schemes or in eligible areas misidentified by government. They can still count towards that obligation. These changes make the program more consistent and fairer for participants while ensuring communities continue to benefit from access to doctors. The aim is clear: to strengthen regional medical access by supporting a fair and sustainable approach for the health professionals who serve those areas.

This bill is a practical step towards a stronger Medicare, one that works for patients, practitioners and the community. It makes it easier for doctors to get provider numbers and ensures rebates are handled lawfully and efficiently. It modernises the way patients assign their Medicare benefits and keeps the Bonded Medical Program fair and effective. Together, these measures help deliver the government's vision for a health system that is fair, modern and fit for the future. They also sit alongside an historic investment in bulk-billing, cheaper medicines, hospital funding and urgent care, all central to Labor's mission to make health care universal and affordable. The Albanese Labor government believes that, when Australians are healthy, our communities are stronger. That is why we are investing in Medicare like never before, with more doctors, more bulk-billing and better care across every state and territory. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Given the hour, I don't intend to go over all of the elements of the Health Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 1) Bill 2025. I thank very much, though, senators who have made contributions about different aspects of this bill which ranges across quite a broad range of areas in the health system.

I do, however, want to make a number of remarks in relation to schedule 4, given the amendment that has been circulated by the opposition. Schedule 4 to the bill amends part VD of the Health Insurance Act 1973 to enhance elements of the Bonded Medical Program. The intention of this bill is to ensure that the consequences for participants who withdraw from the program or fail to complete their return-of-service obligations are fair, and the changes balance the personal circumstances of the bonded participant with the broader interests of the community. I need to address a number of issues which have been incorrectly asserted in the contribution made by the opposition earlier in the debate in relation to the Bonded Medical Program—in particular, the impact of this bill on that program. Senator Sharma made the contribution on behalf of the minister yesterday. I note that Senator Sharma is in the chair as we speak, but he said this:

Despite the Bonded Medical Program being designed to address the shortage of medical professionals in regional, rural and remote areas of Australia, the government's changes to distribution priority areas now allow doctors to work in major metropolitan cities and still meet their obligations under the program, further worsening doctor shortages in truly underserved areas and obviating the intent of the program.

This is not correct.

The current Bonded Medical Scheme was established by amendments made by the Morrison government in 2019, and the explanatory memorandum to that bill describes the operation of the return-of-service obligations. It says:

The statutory scheme provides a legislative basis for the Bonded Medical Program; that is, it requires participants to complete a return of service obligation (i.e. working in regional, rural and remote areas and areas of workforce shortage as defined in the Bonded Medical Program rules to be made under the Act) in return for a bonded Commonwealth supported place in a course of study in medicine at an Australian university.

The key thing in that quote is its reference to the rules to be made under the act. The rules affecting the eligible areas for the return-of-service obligations under the Bonded Medical Program have not changed since 2020. The eligible locations for the Bonded Medical Program are defined at section 10 of the rules, and there has been no change to that section of the rules since they were introduced in 2020. I wanted to get that on the record because I don't wish people who may be listening to the debate or other senators to be uncertain about the intent of the legislation that we're considering this afternoon. With that, I note the thoughtful contributions from various speakers over the course of the debate. I thank senators and commend the bill to the chamber.

Question agreed to.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3452 together:

(1) Schedule 4, Part 1, page 56 (line 2) to page 57 (line 15), to be opposed.

(2) Schedule 4, Part 3, page 59 (lines 1 to 15), to be opposed.

I simply wish to indicate that the government does not support the amendment that's been circulated by the opposition. That's essentially because, as I indicated in my contribution at the end of the second reading debate, these amendments are important to make sure that the obligations placed on participants in the Bonded Medical Program and some of the programs that preceded it are fair and in the national interest—that is, aligned with the public health interest that the program overall seeks to support.

I want to particularly draw senators' attention to the consequences of the current arrangements for students who commence a medical degree but withdraw. This bill seeks to change that to make it fairer. Currently, a student must withdraw before the census date in their second year of study and, if the student withdraws after that date, they incur a debt to the Commonwealth equal to the full cost of their Commonwealth supported place up to the date of withdrawal. This bill seeks to extend the existing grace period from the HECS census date in the second year of study to the awarding of the medical degree.

I want to put on the record for senators and anyone else who may be listening to the debate the reason that the government doesn't think that is currently fair. I have with me an email that's been recently received by ministers in our government from a participant. I will name this fellow. His name is Sharath. He says he is writing in strong support of the amendment that's currently before us and is the subject of a further amendment by the opposition. He says: 'I started doing medicine in 2020 at Western Sydney University. However, I soon realised that medicine was not the career for me. I made the difficult decision to leave medicine to pursue civil engineering at the start of 2023. Unfortunately, I had accepted a spot in the Bonded Medical Program in 2020. This meant that, upon leaving medicine, I would become liable for the full Commonwealth contribution for that part of the degree I had completed and this amounted to a total of $78,000 over three years. The purpose of this program is to give students a CSP in medicine and, in return, they will practice as a doctor rurally upon graduation for a fixed number of years. Penalties are intended to make sure qualified doctors do not try to evade their obligations to work rurally. Crucially, the intention is not to penalise students who decide to leave medicine. These students, like myself, are not depriving rural areas of a qualified doctor because they will never become a qualified doctor.'

He goes on in his email to talk about this further. He says: 'This has caused me undue amounts of distress. Since February 2023, when I deferred my medicine degree, I dreaded the day that I would need to begin repaying the amount I owed. To avoid triggering repayments, I've deferred my degree ever since 2023. Of course, I knew I could not defer my degree forever. I was delaying the inevitable.'

We want this program to work well for prospective students. We want it to deliver a workforce that can work in underserved areas across our community. But we don't wish to punish people or make peoples' lives unnecessarily difficult. I think that that email sets out the scale of the challenge that is in place under the current arrangements. It is one of the reasons why the government does not support the amendments that have been circulated by the opposition and are before the chamber at this point in time.

Minister, schedule 1 of the bill automates the issuance of Medicare providers numbers, MPNs. 'Automation' I assume means computer software. Computers are used now for the process. What is different about the process being proposed that requires legislation to enact?

Thank you for your patience, Senator Roberts. I was just obtaining advice so I can advise you correctly. This new part of the act will ensure that the system can approve the use of a computer program for certain decisions relating to the allocation and management of Medicare provider numbers. It will not—and this, I think, will be important to you—enable the approval of the use of a computer program to make decisions about revoking a Medicare provider number or suspending a Medicare provider number where the suspension is not at the request of a health professional.

It will also include safeguards around the use of computer programs to make decisions relating to Medicare provider numbers. Those safeguards include a requirement to notify a person where a computer program was used to make a decision about their Medicare provider number; a requirement to make it public when the use of a computer program to make decisions about Medicare provider numbers has been approved; a power to make substitute decisions where they are satisfied that a decision made by the operation of a computer program is incorrect; and a requirement to include information in the Services Australia annual report about the number and types of substituted decisions.

Importantly, these things introduce safeguards, and they also, as is indicated in the explanatory memorandum, provide legislative support for an existing practice where some Medicare provider numbers have been allocated by use of a computer program, rather than by a human delegate.

I think you anticipated one of my future questions, but, in the meantime, who decides if a person is qualified for a Medicare provider number, including the decision to give a Medicare provider number to a new arrival in the country? I'm asking this to see how this automation will impinge on the process of determining qualifications.

May I clarify. I think what you're asking is, 'How would a new migrant to Australia have their qualifications recognised for the purpose of practising in an Australian context?' Is that correct?

That's part of the question. The other part concerns any Australian who's here right now; how would they be qualified?

I'm terribly sorry. I might ask you to clarify further. You said that you're asking about how a person who is here now would obtain a Medicare provider number. Do you mean an Australian citizen or another person? What are you trying to elicit from me?

Anybody who's qualified to get a Medicare provider number—how would you make sure they are qualified, and how would you make sure that we're not excluding people?

The advice I have is that the bill that's before us doesn't change any of the existing arrangements. Those arrangements, of course, include a series of processes to ensure that a person seeking to practise within the Medicare system is qualified.

How extensive are the checks, and is there any hint of automation being more than just computer software? Is the bill intending to allow for the use of AI for automatic MPNs?

No.

So there's no requirement for artificial intelligence to be used in allocating MPNs?

The advice I have is no.

I'll quote from the explanatory memorandum:

The Bill will enable the Chief Executive Medicare to approve the use of a computer program to make appropriate, non-discretionary decisions relating to the registration and claims process.

Can I confirm you intend to use AI for that process? If so, what checks are in place to make sure the AI is fit for purpose?

The advice I have in relation to AI is that there is no intention. We do not require AI to perform the functions that are set out in the bill. In relation to your earlier question about the process by which a person becomes eligible for obtaining a Medicare number, the Parliamentary Library's bill digest in relation to this says:

To be eligible to provide a Medicare service, health professionals must meet certain criteria. Practitioners eligible to have Medicare benefits payable for their services 'at the place of practice as well as refer patients to other health professionals for Medicare eligible services, such as pathology and diagnostic imaging from the place of practice', may apply online or in writing to Services Australia for a MPN for the locations where these services/referrals/requests will be provided.

MPNs are used by health practitioners both 'as a means of identifying themselves and their place of practice for the purposes of claiming Medicare benefits for eligible services, and as an identifier to support other Medicare-related programs …

To clarify for constituents and to get some reassurance: you didn't hesitate when you used the word 'intention' with regard to AI and then said there was no requirement. After the robodebt fiasco, the Bureau of Meteorology website fiasco, the Australia Post software fiasco and the Border Force cargo management automation, constituents have every right to point out that these stuff-ups keep happening because of the way in which new technology is rolled out. That's a big concern. Now you're giving the software decision-making powers, and it sounds like there are no plans to do that with due care. What security steps are being taken to reassure our constituents that the automations proposed in this bill don't become yet another government stuff-up? I acknowledge that not all of the stuff-ups have occurred on your watch.

This bill puts in place safeguards to ensure that, to the extent that a computer is utilised, the circumstances in which a computer is being used are made very explicit. It also puts some constraints around the kinds of decisions that may be taken by a computer in the context of this process—that is, the process of obtaining a Medicare provider number. I read to you earlier some of those safeguards, which are set out in the explanatory memorandum. As I indicated to you, the advice I have is that this process, which involves the use of a computer for certain purposes that are quite tightly defined and constrained, does not require the use of AI.

This final question has a lengthy preamble. Item 3124ZH1 removes the requirement for students who do not complete their degree to repay the Commonwealth supported place cost. Students can currently withdraw from the program without consequence up to the HECS census date in their second year of study. If the student withdraws after that date, they incur a debt to the Commonwealth equal to the full cost of their commonwealth supported place up to the date of withdrawal in addition to any HECS or HELP liability. The proposed amendment, as I understand it, seeks to extend the existing grace period from the hex census date in the second year of study to the award of the medical degree. Can you please explain that provision? It sounds like they can pull out right at the end of their degree and not have to pay back the cost. Is that right?

Senator, you're correct that at the moment a person who withdraws from their degree doesn't need to pay the cost of the scholarship back if they withdraw prior to the census date you alluded to. I believe that they do remain liable for the HECS costs incurred by them in the pursuit of their studies up to that point. You are also correct that a purpose of this bill is to extend the period during which a person may withdraw without incurring a debt associated with their receipt of Commonwealth payments.

Sorry, that was my second-last question; I've got another one now. What is the rationale behind extending the withdrawal date so they won't have to pay it back?

Earlier in the debate I read out an email from a person who has incurred a debt in precisely these circumstances, and they spoke about the hardship they had experienced as a consequence of that. This person made the point that the purpose of the bonded nature of this program is to ensure that people who do qualify as medical professionals fulfil their obligation to work in an area that is underserved by medical practitioners. The purpose is not in itself to recoup funds from students, and we simply seek to make the system fairer.

The question is that parts 1 and 3 of schedule 4 stand as printed.

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I rise today to speak on the Australian Centre for Disease Control Bill 2025 and the Australia Centre for Disease Control (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025. These bills together establish a new national body, the Australian Centre for Disease Control, as a statutory, non-corporate Commonwealth entity. On its face, this appears to be a straightforward measure on Australian public health preparedness. However, when you look more closely, serious concerns emerge.

The opposition will be moving a number of critical amendments to attempt to resolve these fundamental concerns. We do so not because we oppose strengthening our public health response capability or the idea of improving Australia's pandemic preparedness. On the contrary, the coalition has always supported measures that protect the health and safety of Australians. But we cannot in good conscience support this legislation without resolving the serious issues related to transparency and data privacy in this bill. Transparency is not a burden; it is a duty. Yet this government, which promised greater transparency and integrity, is one of the most secretive governments in our history, and they are proving that once again with the provisions that they've contained in this bill.

Let us remember: Labor first promised to establish a US-style CDC centre almost five years ago, yet, after all that time and more than three years in government, the Albanese government has only now brought this legislation to parliament, with barely three months to go before the promised start date. They still have not outlined to the Australian people how the CDC will avoid some of the major issues we saw during the pandemic, specifically unilateral actions taken by state and territory governments that were often made on the basis of minimal or no health advice at all. Just recently, the former chief health officer in Victoria, Brett Sutton, openly admitted that several state pandemic directives were probably never necessary. These are not trivial issues. They go to the heart of how Australia would respond to the next pandemic.

Provisions contained in this bill also create significant concerns around transparency and freedom of information. In October last year, the Minister for Health, the Hon. Mark Butler, alleged a lack of transparency had driven a decline in trust. Despite this clear recognition from the minister, this bill goes out of its way to prevent information from being made public. While the government claims the CDC's advice will be published by default, the fine print tells a very different story. The director-general will have extraordinarily broad powers to withhold information, including any advice they consider might affect the integrity of other government processes. These are vague and subjective terms that could be used to withhold almost any piece of information the government finds inconvenient to publicly release. There are no clear appeal rights, no external oversight and no guarantee that the public or the parliament will ever see the advice underpinning critical health decisions.

This is another example of the disturbing trend of this government hiding from transparency and accountability. These concerns have been raised by experts and the government's own Information Commissioner. In the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons' submission to the inquiry, it said that these provisions:

… may erode the transparency needed to inform authorities based on balancing infection control with peri-operative continuity of care.

The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner also noted:

… the CDC's determinations of whether documents are exempt under the FOI Act, and therefore not required to be published, would not be subject to any overarching review or accountability mechanisms.

That is not transparency.

This is another concerning move from a government that has proposed a truth tax on FOI applications. That is why we will be moving an amendment to the bill to remove these proposed additional provisions which strengthen the government's already concerning level of secrecy. Even with the approval of these provisions, the CDC and director-general can still rely on existing provisions in the FOI Act that apply to other agencies, which are already quite broad.

The bill also raises concerns about privacy and data-sharing. Under clause 67, the director-general can issue a data-sharing declaration that overrides normal privacy protections. While this may be necessary in a true public health emergency, there are no clear safeguards, no independent oversight and no limits on which agencies can receive that data. Our amendment would put in place additional and independent oversight of the release of sensitive information to ensure it is reasonable and proportionate, which is imperative.

The bill also downgrades the role of the Commonwealth Chief Medical Officer by transferring all functions, powers and duties of the Director of Human Biosecurity to the Secretary of the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing, instead of the CMO. This is despite Director of Human Biosecurity being a role that requires medical expertise. This shift risks undermining public confidence by placing key health decisions in the hands of individuals without clinical background, and it risks undermining Australia's trust in the CMO and Deputy CMO roles, which performed effectively during the COVID pandemic. Indeed, Professor Michael Kidd, who served as the Deputy CMO during the pandemic has been appointed to the role of CMO under this government—an appointment the coalition supports in recognition of his strong contribution to our pandemic response.

The Director-General of the CDC will also chair the CDC's advisory council, effectively advising themselves. Multiple stakeholders have rightly pointed out that this structure contradicts best practice and invites conflicts of interest. That is why the coalition will move an amendment to put in place an additional requirement that all data-sharing declarations must be approved by the Office of the Information Commissioner prior to execution.

We should remember that Australia ranked second in the world for pandemic and epidemic preparedness in the 2021 John Hopkins Global Health Security Index. Our pandemic response was described internationally as the gold standard. So the question remains for the government to explain how this CDC will improve Australia's approach and add value to existing structures. Labor have had five years to make the case for this policy and they have still failed to do so. Now they are attempting to ram this policy through in five minutes. Until the critical issues that I have outlined in this contribution are resolved, the coalition cannot support the establishment of this CDC, designed in secrecy, designated significant powers and shielded from transparency. The Australian people deserve confidence that their public health institutions are robust, transparent and accountable. They do not need additional layers of bureaucracy and secrecy.

For these reasons, the opposition calls on the government to support our amendments to the bill, which are fundamental to the operation of transparency and good governance. The government must put their own rhetoric into action, improve transparency and restore public trust by supporting our amendments or we cannot support this bill.

I rise to speak in support of the Australian Centre for Disease Control Bill 2025 and the related Australian Centre for Disease Control (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025. These bills deliver on one of the Albanese Labor government's most important commitments—to establish the independent Australian Centre for Disease Control, CDC. For the first time, Australia will have a dedicated national body bringing together experts, data and public health leadership to prepare for and respond to future health threats. Before Labor came to government, Australia was the only country in the OECD without a centre for disease control. That absence left us exposed when the COVID-19 pandemic struck. The independent COVID-19 response inquiry made clear that we went into that crisis without a playbook, without a single source of authority and without modern systems for collecting and sharing public health information. Australians deserve better than that. We deserve a system that learns from the lessons of the pandemic and builds something stronger and more resilient for the future. That is what these bills deliver.

The Australian Centre for Disease Control will be established as a statutory agency from 1 January 2026. It will operate independently, guided by a director-general and an advisory council of experts. The CDC's purpose is simple but vital: to protect Australians from health threats and to make sure our country is ready for the next crisis, whether it is a pandemic, an outbreak of infectious disease or the health impacts of climate change. The bill ensures the CDC can collect, analyse and share public health data; provide independent evidence-based advice to governments and the public; support national consistency and public health responses across state and territory borders; and publish its advice openly to build public trust and transparency. The director-general will be an independent statutory appointment. Their advice to government will be based on evidence not politics. Importantly, they cannot be directed by the minister. That independence matters. Australians must be able to trust that public health advice is based on science not ideology. The CDC will focus first on communicable diseases and pandemic preparedness, with its remit expanding over time to include chronic and environmental health risks.

The accompanying bill, the Australian Centre for Disease Control (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025, will transfer certain statutory health functions to the new CDC, including key responses under the Biosecurity Act, the National Health Security Act and the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Act. This ensures the CDC starts its work with the right authority and expertise from day one.

We all remember what it felt like in 2020—the uncertainty. The COVID-19 inquiry found that Australia's pandemic response was often slow, fragmented and undermined by poor data-sharing between governments. It's not enough to say, 'We'll do better next time.' We need to build the systems now that make sure that we can. That's why this reform matters. The Australian CDC will give our country the tools to detect risk early, respond faster and provide clear and trusted information to the public. It will link health data from across states and territories so we can see the full national picture. It will help us understand how disease is spread, how interventions work and where resources are most needed. Better data means that better decisions and transparency will be at the heart of this new agency. The bill requires the CDC to publish, by default, any advice it provides to governments that contains recommendations to act or not act. That openness will build public confidence in the advice being given and ensure that public health decisions are accountable to the people they affect. The CDC will operate under a one health framework, recognising that the health of people, animals and the environment are all interconnected. This is a forward-looking approach that reflects the real-world causes of emerging diseases. It is how we will manage risks like zoonotic spillovers and the growing health impacts of climate change. The CDC will work with universities, hospitals and research bodies to provide high quality, evidence-based advice. It will coordinate national data systems and set standards to make health information more findable, accessible and secure. Strong privacy protections are built into this bill. Personal information can only be used or shared where it is necessary and proportionate to protecting public health. This is about using data responsibly to protect people, not to control them. (Time expired)

It is now 1.30. We shall move to two-minute statements.

Last year, we saw one of the most draconian bills ever presented to this parliament in the form of the MAD bill—that is, the misinformation and disinformation bill. Fortunately, that was roundly defeated. But those in support of new blasphemy laws have not rested. This week, we have seen the extraordinary revelation of international regulators coordinating to suppress free speech around the world. Renowned journalist Michael Shellenberger has revealed leaked documents from a conference at Stanford University. The conference was titled 'Compliance and enforcement in a rapidly evolving landscape'. The stated purpose of the conference was to bring together policymakers, academics and experienced Silicon Valley experts to discuss the state of compliance and enforcement of existing regulations related to online trust and safety. This might all sound very benign, but the attendees have been on the front lines of seeking to suppress speech online.

Our own eSafety Commissioner was the keynote speaker at this event, and she has recently sought to force social media companies to take down video of the violent murder of a young Ukrainian girl in a subway in the United States. Previously, she has sought to take down content globally that she does not like. Fortunately, this latter attempt was defeated in court. But her attempts have caused United States lawmakers to become concerned. On the release of the information about the Stanford conference, Congressman Jim Jordan, the Chair of the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary in the United States wrote to Stanford University asking them to explain the conference. He wrote:

… this roundtable brought together foreign officials who have directly targeted American speech and represent a serious threat to the First Amendment. The keynote speaker at this event was Julie Inman-Grant, the Australian eSafety Commissioner who has explicitly argued that governments have the authority to demand and enforce global takedowns of content.

The US House of Representatives has now asked Stanford for communications between it and foreign agencies about the conference.

It is also about time we look into the activities of the eSafety Commissioner ourselves. It has lost multiple court cases. We can't let rogue agencies escape parliamentary scrutiny, especially when they're threatening the rights of other citizens. (Time expired)

This week, we've had the great privilege of welcoming Major Tim Miller into our office as part of the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program. The ADF parliamentary exchange program provides valuable opportunities for parliamentarians to work alongside ADF personnel at all ranks and levels. The exchange increases awareness and knowledge among parliamentarians of the capabilities of the ADF, and it allows Defence Force personnel to see how our democracy operates in this place.

Major Miller—or Tim, as he's insisted on being known throughout the week—was born in Hobart and joined the military in 2001 at the age of 21. Major Miller rose through the ranks, being promoted to corporal in 2004, to sergeant in 2008 and to warrant officer class 2 in 2014. In 2021, he was commissioned to the rank of major. Major Miller has proudly served across the world, putting others before himself. Major Miller is a proud family man. He is married and has three children.

Throughout the week, it's been great having the major in the office with us. He has displayed a profound understanding and appreciation of politics, and he has enthusiastically engaged with many events throughout the building—including question time, where I'm sure everyone will agree that the tone in the place is probably much different to what he's used to in the Defence Force. Major Miller embodies the Anzac spirit, displaying the qualities of endurance, courage, integrity, good humour and mateship. We're exceptionally proud and thankful to have had Major Miller fronting our Defence Force and serving our country with pride, passion and integrity.

We do have the best defence force in the world, and people like Major Miller serve as proof of this. As part of the exchange program, I'm really looking forward to spending time with the ADF in the cyber and space domain operations centre in a couple of weeks time.

Israel's killing has never stopped. The ceasefire may have reduced the devastation, but the bombing continues. A ceasefire is meant to mean no more bombs. Palestinian families continue to mourn loved ones murdered by Israeli American bombs and the Israel Defense Forces. Mothers are still cradling children who will never wake up, and fathers are still digging through rubble with bare hands, searching for any trace of their families. Grandparents who remember the Nakba continue to live and die in this new Nakba. Israel has never stopped bombing Gaza. It's never stopped killing Palestinians, with an estimate of some 500 Palestinians killed during this 'ceasefire'. It's never stopped committing genocide. It's never stopped stealing land and killing in the West Bank.

Now, journalists are finally entering Gaza, but only under IDF escort—restricted to approved areas, forbidden from speaking to Palestinians and given the Israeli tour of the site of a genocide. When journalists cannot freely document atrocities, when they cannot speak to survivors and when they're shepherded like tourists through a tragedy, that's authoritarianism masquerading as transparency. The world must see Gaza through Palestinian eyes. We must hear their voices, honour their dead and demand accountability for every life taken. Justice must come, and, for our part, Australia must stop sending F-35 jet parts that fuel this bloody genocide. We must entirely end the two-way arms trade with Israel, and this government must treat genocide as a crime, not a messaging problem.

Sall Grover, an Australian entrepreneur, created Giggle, a women-only app, to give women a safe space free from online harassment from men. When a biological man sought to join, she said no. For that, she has spent four years and nearly $2 million in court. Her case is now before the Federal Court, not only for herself, but for every woman and girl who believes women deserve spaces of their own. This is not just about women. It is about any group with legitimate criteria for membership—a prostate cancer support group for men, a children's club for kids or a miscarriage support group for women. Each exists for a reason, and that reason collapses if membership can be claimed by anyone at will. Men cannot have miscarriages, women cannot get prostate cancer, and adults certainly can't be children. Yet our sex discrimination commissioner, Dr Anna Cody, paid $400,000 a year, recently told Senate estimates she did not understand the term 'biological man'. How can the nation's top official for women's rights not grasp basic biology? If she cannot define a woman, how can she defend one? I call on this government to sack Dr Cody immediately.

Since 2013, gender identity has overridden sex in the law. The result is the erasure of women's rights, and parliament must act to restore clarity to protect single-sex spaces, services and opportunities as lawful and necessary. This is not intolerance; it is reality and it is fairness. Without sex based rights, we cannot protect women. Gender identity must never override biological sex.

Today, I have a very clear and simple message: enough is enough. It's time for fairness, respect and dignity in the workplace, and that means equal pay for all adults, starting at the age of 18. The SDA's campaign for equal pay for 18- to 20-year-olds is underway. They deserve the same recognition and they deserve the same value for their capacity as young people working in retail, in fast food and in pharmacies. There are thousands of hardworking young Australians, 18 to 20, working those areas of retail, fast food and pharmacy, and they are denied a full adult wage, despite performing the same work as their older colleagues. These aren't kids; these are adults. They pay their rent. They have bills. They have university fees and contribute to their families and their communities, yet, for too long, they have been paid less simply because of their age. That's not the Australian way. At 18, you can vote and you can buy alcohol. If you're working at 18 to 20, you should then be paid the same wage. Adult age equals adult wage. So I congratulate the SDA for running this campaign, because I think it will be beneficial not only for those young people but for our community.

I want to do a big shout-out to Lachlan Bovill. I've spoken about him before. He's a young man from Legana in Northern Tasmania who won the Victorian-Tasmanian best Woolworths check-out operator. He's just won the national award, so a big shout-out to Lachie. It's fantastic. He's a great role model. He loves the work that he does. He's highly respected by his community and visitors alike for his fresh and friendly personality and for his knowledge of his local area, which he promotes at every opportunity. Congratulations, Lachie. Well done. He's also a member of the SDA.

Today, as part of Youth Voice in Parliament Week, I'll be reading a speech written by Sean, a 12-year-old Canberran:

Canberra's cyclists are vital to reducing our carbon footprint and supporting green energy goals, yet our current infrastructure is failing them.

With road conditions such as potholes and poorly designed bike paths, riders face serious safety risks.

Recently, over a three-year period, 321 cyclists were involved in crashes, and cyclists' lives are being lost every year.

Despite being confident riders, many cyclists are being forced to choose cars—often a financial burden—instead of bikes because of safety concerns.

This issue is not only a matter of health and safety but also equity. Low-income residents, who may rely on biking as their primary means of transport, are disproportionately affected.

If they are injured in an accident, they may struggle to afford treatment, exacerbating the problem.

Improving bike infrastructure in Canberra isn't just about safety—it's an opportunity to create jobs through construction and maintenance, benefiting both the economy and the environment.

By updating bike paths, fixing potholes, and designing safer crossings, we can make biking a more accessible and secure option for everyone.

We could create safer roads, better health outcomes, and a cleaner, greener future for Canberra, all while supporting local employment and offering a reliable transportation alternative.

Thanks, Sean, for writing this. It really is in line with what I hear from a lot of Canberrans, from way down south to the newer northern suburbs, about the need for better cycling infrastructure and for active travel so people can get around our beautiful territory.

We all know the feeling of tapping a card or waving our phone at the check-out. It's fast, it's convenient and it's become the norm. But, somewhere along the line, convenience has become compulsion. What happens when your card fails, when the power goes out or when the bank app crashes? Cash doesn't crash. Cash is absolutely king. Cash doesn't need an update. Cash works when the system doesn't.

Cash, our Australian notes and coins, is more than a payment method. It is legal tender in this country, backed by the Commonwealth, issued by the Reserve Bank and guaranteed by the Crown. It carries not only monetary value but sovereign values. It remains a symbol of trust between citizens and state. When that physical connection is lost, we surrender more than convenience; we surrender control.

In a cashless world, risk shifts silently. Once, banks bore the responsibility for safeguarding our deposits and ensuring access. Now the risk sits with the user—the consumer navigating outages, identity theft, data breaches, algorithmic errors and service fees. When your bank card is frozen, your e-wallet malfunctions or your app is hacked, you're the one that's left stranded. The system tells you to call customer service or wait for the investigation. But, when your hold cash in your hand, you've got a fail-safe.

Cash is also the great equaliser. It doesn't ask any questions about who you are, where you live, how good your credit rating is or what gender you are. For elderly Australians, those in remote communities and those who simply prefer privacy, cash remains a lifeline. Without it, millions are left excluded from everyday life, not through choice but through quiet coercion of no cash acceptance. Labor needs to protect cash.

I'm reading this speech on behalf of Kaleah, as part of Raise Our Voice:

Hello, I am Kaleah, I am 12 years old, and I am from the Mayo electorate.

Growing up I loved going to school, being with my friends, making art, having fun. I had no worries.

However, as I got older things started to change. I started having so many thoughts that people didn't actually enjoy my company and I wasn't focusing on my work because I was too anxious on other problems.

I was getting bullied and that caused me to miss many school days. I had problems in the morning, getting up was difficult. I started having days where my anxiety would make me think what was I even doing here.

I moved schools, but that is not enough for me. I want to change how schools do things. I want to build a stronger system to prevent bullying and I want schools to be able to help, or at least understand what a kid is going through. Creating a better system for all these kinds of things could really help people.

…   …   …

One way is to simply just check up on your students. I am not talking about all together as a group. Calling a kid out on that kind of thing would make them embarrassed or uncomfortable. Asking someone individually, and giving them the privacy from other people could make them feel in a more safe and not as scared to answer truthfully.

Giving a kid time is actually an amazing way to help. Do not push them, do not rush them. Let them go at their own pace. What they are talking about can be really difficult, and it can take time to even put the words together …

I have many more ideas, but I am sure you can all think of some together, as the people of Australia, we need to take care of young minds, help them grow. Thank you listening.

Kaleah, I would love to meet you. Please give my office a call.

I am honoured to deliver a speech today written by two young South Australians, Abel and Mitchell, as part of the Raise Our Voice campaign in parliament. They say:

To the Honourable Members of Parliament,

It is important for us young people to be able to speak up about things that concern us and what we would like to see happen to improve our living and wellbeing in Australia.

We think that the young people from around Australia should have the chance to have a place where they can call home.

Many of us are going to find it hard to afford this.

The cost of living is going up and our parents can't help us to get a deposit for a house because they are finding it hard to pay for all the living cost.

It will take us years to save up for a house deposit because we have to pay really high rents.

So, we are suggesting you could make houses and create loans so we can borrow money without high interest rates and slowly pay it back to the government.

Then we would be able to live the dream of having our own house.

All we are asking is to make some small houses to help those who don't have enough money.

Thank you for listening to our voice.

Thank you, Abel and Mitchell, for your thoughts. You are absolutely right. You deserve a roof over your head, and it shouldn't rely on your parents having to go without to help you to do it. Your solutions to build more homes are right on target. They will work; they have worked before. We could cap rents so you have a shot at saving towards that deposit you will need. You've named the problems well. There are solutions there. Thanks so much for bringing your ideas to the parliament.

I would like to share one of my constituents' stories:

'One chapter of my life will never leave me: the years my family spent fighting for our son, Felix. He was born with a rare genetic disorder, Coats disease. At six months old he was diagnosed blind in one eye. Every scan looked like something worse, retinal blastoma. For years we lived in fear of hearing the word 'cancer'. From that day until he turned four, our lives revolved around hospitals, tests and sleepless nights.

'The NDIS offered nothing. Medicare barely covered his care, and private insurance was useless because no private hospital would treat a child so young. We paid thousands out of pocket, juggled bills and made impossible choices. We survived only because my father stepped in when the system would not. When doctors finally removed Felix's eye, it was to save his life. The disease had become so aggressive they feared it might already be cancer.

'When it was over, we thought the worst had passed, but the trauma lingered. Felix still needed support, and still there was none. When we turned to the NDIS, we were told Felix was not disabled enough. It would take nine months to be assessed. After four years of fear and pain, that was the final blow. The system had failed us. Minister Butler, under your watch and those before you, the NDIS has been hollowed out in the name of savings. This isn't efficiency; it's neglect. It's moral failure.'

Unfortunately, Felix's story is not unique. I've heard from countless families across Western Australia facing the same cruelty—denied help, dismissed and left to fight alone. Their stories call for real reform, compassion and a supportive system.

This week, the Centre for Public Integrity released its integrity report card on the Albanese government, and it is absolutely scathing. This independent report shows that the Albanese government is the most secretive and unaccountable government of this century. This government is absolutely petrified of transparency. Just what is the Labor government so terrified of showing us? The Centre for Public Integrity assessed the government across a key range of transparency benchmarks, and this Labor government has failed on all indicators. FOI redactions are the automatic response of departments under these ministers. Cronyism is rife and lobbyists rule. Opposition staff designed to scrutinise the government have been drastically cut. Oversight has been stripped bare. We are on the slippery slope to authoritarianism, and it is by the design of this Labor government.

Review after review has now revealed that the undemocratic and secretive practices of the Albanese Labor government are unprecedented. What are those opposite so scared to reveal? Are they trying to hide that we are having a looming economic disaster? Leaked Treasury documents have already indicated so—that power prices will rise dramatically while blackouts from Bowen to Butler cripple our nation. The freedom of information system designed to make the government more accountable to the people who elected it has been absolutely trashed. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, but the more the Australian public see of this Labor government, the less they will like. No wonder they are trying to hide.

Today, I want to raise an issue brought to my attention by Mr Carlos Montoya. He reached out to my office to express a serious concern about the direction this country is heading, especially when it comes to mass immigration and the erosion of our national identity. Carlos is a migrant himself. He came to this country legally, worked hard and became a chartered accountant. He told me how much he values the opportunity Australia has given him and the principles that made this country great, but he's deeply concerned about what he is seeing occurring in this nation, particularly in his own profession. He wrote to me and explained that he has witnessed a noticeable decline in the quality and ethics especially involving overseas professionals brought in under special arrangements who don't meet the standards set by Australian bodies like CPA and CA ANZ. He also raised concerns about offshoring hiring practices that are undermining trust in our institutions and putting Australian jobs at risk, and this is something that does need looking into.

There is more. Carlos highlighted a deeper issue. He wrote: 'Australia is a nation that was built through the vision and effort of settlers. We need to stop repeating the false claim that we're only a nation of migrants.' As he put it: 'Settlers established the foundation of a nation. Migrants are invited to join and contribute.' I believe he is right. Australia is a Western nation, built on Christian, Anglo-Celtic values that underpin our democracy and institutions: the rule of law, our constitutional monarchy, individual responsibility, hard work, a fair go, freedom of speech, strong families and the English language. These values and institutions are the glue that holds this nation together. They bind our laws, culture and identity. They are what makes us Australian. They must be defended and protected.

I think that Carlos's message is clear. We are losing the expectation that new migrants integrate and uphold our standards. One Nation will not stay silent on this. That is why we will end mass immigration while fighting to restore pride and uphold the traditional values that make this nation great.

Cohealth is one of Victoria's largest community health providers. It is a lifeline for people who too often fall through the cracks. They deliver complex multidisciplinary care with GPs, nurses, social workers and mental health and allied health professionals working together to support those with chronic conditions or disabilities or who are experiencing homelessness. This vital care is being squeezed by a Medicare system that simply can't keep up. Medicare rewards short, repeat appointments, not the complex consultations for those with multiple health needs. Now, up to 12½ thousand patients risk losing care when cohealth's Collingwood, Fitzroy and Kensington clinics close. These people will face out-of-pocket fees at already strained private-billing clinics, fill overstretched urgent care and emergency departments or, worse, forego care altogether, worsening health inequities and driving up costs across the system.

We are in a primary health crisis. The small increase to the bulk-billing incentive next week does little when the Medicare rebate fails to reflect the real cost of comprehensive care. Cohealth has done the work in raising the alarm and making repeated federal budget submissions yet still faces closure. Why are we punishing what should be the gold standard of community primary care—accessible, multidisciplinary, bulk-billed services? Today I'll table a petition with over 6,000 signatures that calls on the federal and Victorian Labor governments to step in and save cohealth before it's too late. Medicare is a proud Australian legacy, but, under Labor, it is crumbling. Let's save cohealth and secure sustainable funding for the excellent, equitable care that Victorians deserve.

I want to talk about something that's hitting Tasmanians hard: the state of crisis in mental health support and the way it's being left to fall apart while governments argue about who's meant to fix it. In Tasmania, we came within a whisker of losing the Hobart Clinic, the service that people rely on when things are at their absolute worst. The federal government sat on its hands, and it was the state government that had to step in at the last minute to keep the doors open. That's not good enough. You can't just leave desperate people waiting while governments play pass the parcel over who's responsible. We know of families who have had to drive hours from the north-west coast because there was nowhere local to go when someone hit rock bottom. I've talked to care centre workers who are stretched to breaking point because there's no backup, no beds and nowhere to send people in crisis. And I'll tell you this: the system is only holding together because of the amazing people who keep showing up to help others, even when they're running on empty. But they shouldn't have to do it alone.

If a state government can find the money and the will to rescue a vital mental health centre, then the federal government should be right there beside them, not watching from the sidelines. We need to step up; fund crisis support properly, especially in rural areas where people are at significant risk; and make sure that, when someone reaches out for help, there's actually someone there to answer. It's tiring to see the separation and handballing of state and federal issues. This isn't about politics; it's about people. It's about supporting those who need it most when they need it most, and Tasmanians deserve better than silence.

Today, as part of Raise Our Voice's Youth Voice in Parliament Week, I'm proud to share a speech written by a Canberra student. This year, my office received more than 60 speeches from students across the territory. Every single one was thoughtful, passionate and impressive, and it was really hard to choose just one of them to read out. Thank you to all of those who sent them in. You should be incredibly proud of your work and your advocacy.

The speech I'll be reading was written by Jai, who wrote:

In this day and age, using technology and smart devices is very common for kids and teenagers alike.

Using these devices can also lead to online interactions on social media platforms, which can eventually lead to cyberbullying without proper restrictions from parents.

Hello, my name is Jai, and I am 12 years old.

And at this age, and slightly younger, a lot of kids receive their phones, and if not, their parents let their children use the parents' phones.

And then kids can use social media platforms on the devices, and then talk to other people.

And because a lot of children have devices, it's very common for them to interact with each other, and without proper restrictions, kids can also take pictures of other people and post them with insults.

This is a huge problem, and parents need to set restrictions on their children's devices or restrict their use of the devices because even with restrictions on websites, kids can bypass them.

After all, children are used to technology and know everything about it in and out.

Cyberbullying also doesn't just involve text; it can also involve pictures of kids without their consent.

So, in conclusion, I strongly believe that parents should take responsibility for their kids' device use.

Thank you, Jai. Thank you for participating in Raise Our Voice's Youth Voice in Parliament Week, and thank you to all of those other amazing Canberra students who sent speeches through to my office. I appreciate it. Thanks very much.

You could have knocked me over with a feather yesterday when I received an invitation from Senator Henderson. I don't get many, but it was an invitation from Senator Henderson and Drew Hutton, co-founder of the Greens. We know they vote together; now they're speaking at the same events together. What an outrage!

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Farrell. Yesterday the Senate exercised its power to extend question time to allow more scrutiny of this government. Reports suggest that the government intends to retaliate by stripping opposition committee deputy chair positions in the other place. Does the government seriously believe it has the right to punish senators for voting to strengthen accountability in this parliament, and will the Prime Minister immediately rule out these petty, vindictive threats?

I am advised, Minister Farrell, that the question does not go to your portfolio responsibilities, so I invite you to respond in whatever way you think fit.

I thank the Acting Leader of the Opposition in the Senate for her question. I'm happy to answer every question that I'm asked in my usual forthright and transparent way. I'm unaware of these reports that you're referring to. Certainly, from my point of view, I'm not a vindictive sort of fellow. Am I? I certainly don't bear grudges. But I will make this observation, Senator Ruston: if the coalition seriously intend to be a party of government ever again—I don't know whether that is in your contemplation—there has to be a degree of maturity and common sense in the coalition in the way they approach the way in which this chamber is governed.

Senator Ruston?

President, I raise a point of order on direct relevance. I simply asked the—

No. Senator Ruston, I explained at the beginning of the question that it was outside the minister's portfolio area and he was to answer it in any way he saw fit, so there is no point of order.

Senator Ruston is asking for clarification.

No. We're not seeking clarification. This is question time. You've put your question, I've ruled on it and the minister is answering.

I sought advice from the clerk. I'm not in a debate with you, Senator Ruston. I made it very clear at the outset that the question was outside the portfolio area. I have made that assessment on previous—

Senator McGrath, come to order!

The Prime Minister is bullying this chamber.

Senator McKenzie, come to order! You need to withdraw that, Senator McKenzie.

I withdraw.

Minister Farrell, I invite you to continue.

I am a little bit mystified by Senator Ruston's point of order given that I've offered to answer the question and I'm answering it in the only way I can, which is an honest answer in response to her question. But the point I'm trying to make to the coalition and to all of their colleagues—I know there's a degree of division within their groups, and I've read about a lot of that— (Time expired)

Senator Ruston, first supplementary?

Under our system of responsible government, the executive is accountable to the parliament. The government doesn't get to dictate to the Senate how it conducts its business. Why is the government so afraid of answering questions and so determined to keep Australians in the dark about how it operates?

Thank you, Senator Ruston, for your first supplementary question. We're here to answer the questions.

Well, answer them.

I answered your first question. I answered your first question very directly, and I'll repeat the message I'm trying to give. I'll repeat the message that, one of these days, maybe you'll be back in government, and you will understand just how important it is for the opposition to act in a responsible way. To engage in cheap tricks with Senator Pocock is not the way you are going to regain the trust of the Australian people. You're not going to get back. You're not going to get back into responsible government if you behave in this fashion.

Senator Ruston, second supplementary?

I seek leave to table Senator Wong's speech to this parliament on this very matter.

Courtesies that exist across this chamber are exercised—give notice of what you want to table.

Senator Ruston, I believe that the government is having a look at that document. We'll come back to that.

The Centre for Public Integrity report card released this week assessed the Albanese government's transparency and accountability as 'woefully inadequate'. Don't these extraordinary threats of reprisal prove that the Centre for Public Integrity's damning assessment of the government's secrecy and lack of accountability is correct?

I thank Senator Ruston for her second supplementary question. I don't accept the assessment that's been made about the transparency of this government. Can I give you one example in my own portfolio area. I sat down with the opposition and other parties in the course of the last parliament to make some changes to the electoral laws in this country.

It's not relevant to the question, Don.

It is absolutely relevant because, at the next election, for the first time, when Australians go in to vote, they will know exactly who has made a contribution to the candidate that they're contemplating voting for—for the first time in our history. Not only that, but the level of donation has been dropped from— (Time expired)

I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the gallery of a delegation from the Kiribati government led by the Minister for Health and Medical Services, the Honourable Bootii Nauan. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and in particular to the Senate.

Honourable senators: Hear, hear!

Minister Gallagher, is leave granted to table that document?

Leave granted.

The document's tabled.

My question is to the minister representing the Attorney-General, Senator Farrell. In February 1975, the then Labor attorney-general, Kep Enderby, introduced the Racial Discrimination Act. The act passed in June 1975, and tomorrow, Friday 31 October 2025, marks the 50th anniversary of the commencement of the act. As it's Australia's first piece of Commonwealth antidiscrimination legislation and the first to prohibit racial discrimination, how significant is this anniversary?

I thank the senator for that very important question and the great work that she does on behalf of her constituents in that great state of Victoria. The passage of the Racial Discrimination Act was a historic step, for the first time making racial discrimination unlawful in Australia through federal legislation. Back then, the White Australia policy had only recently been rightly completely abolished by the Whitlam government in 1973, removing race as a determining factor for immigration decisions.

The establishment of the Racial Discrimination Act created a right that had not previously existed in common law—that is, the right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of race. The act contains both a general provision making racial discrimination unlawful under section 9 and specific protections in areas including employment, the provision of goods, housing and accommodation. The act also provides the template for the states and the territories to follow, all of whom have since enacted their own antidiscrimination laws.

For the past 50 years, the Racial Discrimination Act has provided a standard to which we can aspire where all members of our community are treated respectfully without distinction to race, colour, descent or nationality. As Prime Minister Whitlam said in the statement on the proclamation of the act:

The purpose of the Racial Discrimination Act is … to set standards for the future, and build a climate of maturity, of goodwill, of co-operation and understanding at all levels of society.

Senator Darmanin, first supplementary?

Thank you, Minister. It's a very significant reform, and it's wonderful to see it reach 50 years. For 40 years, the Australian Human Rights Commission has helped to give practical effect to the Racial Discrimination Act. What recent work has been done by the commission to support the intention of the act?

I thank the senator for her first supplementary question. Yes, it is a very significant day to reach that 50-year milestone.

The Australian Human Rights Commission provides education and training, including to employers to ensure that workplaces are inclusive and respectful. They also work to resolve complaints made under the act. In the five years to 2024, the commission received over 2,200 complaints under the act, which accounts for about 14 per cent of total complaints. In October 2022, the government provided $7.5 million to the commission to develop the National Anti-Racism Strategy to tackle racism and promote racial equality in Australia. The commission has also helped to deliver the 'Racism. It Stops with Me' campaign, which has helped build community understanding of racism in Australia. (Time expired)

Senator Darmanin, second supplementary?

The Australian Labor Party is very proud of our record in introducing and defending the Racial Discrimination Act. How is the Racial Discrimination Act still ensuring that Australians who may experience racism are protected under this important federal law?

I thank the senator for her second supplementary question. As the senator has said, the Australian Labor Party is proud of our record of introducing and defending the Racial Discrimination Act. Unfortunately, there are still some people in our society who want the right to discriminate enshrined in our laws and who call for the repeal of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. To remind senators who are not aware of these provisions, section 18C makes it unlawful to 'offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person' because of 'the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person'. The Australian Labor Party has always understood and defended the importance of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Farrell. Yesterday this chamber responded to the government's continued refusal to comply with orders of this chamber and, in addition, its failure to deliver on a commitment made by Senator Gallagher to this chamber to release a document that is now two years old. It was a constructive and proportionate response seeking to get answers from a government determined to give no answers. Minister, can you confirm that the government respects and understands the resolutions and decisions of this chamber?

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order across the chamber! I'm waiting for order.

I thank Senator McKenzie for her question. Yes, the minister has said she will release the report, and, in my experience, when Senator Gallagher says she will do something, she does do it.

Not table it for two years?

Well, one day, if you ever get back into government, Senator, you may understand that sometimes, if you want to get things right—and I know so many times, in government, you got things wrong because you rushed them. We like to get things right. There are two things about this government. We're an action government. When we see a problem, we go in and we fix it. But, secondly, when we fix a problem, we make sure we do it correctly. We make sure we do it correctly, and we take the time to get it right. Now, I know that's a difficult concept for the coalition to understand—the idea of getting something right in policy terms.

But I make the point that Senator Gallagher has already said this document will be released at the appropriate time. It will be released when the appropriate consideration has been undertaken, and, when we release it and we make the responses, it'll be correct. (Time expired)

Senator McKenzie, first supplementary?

Minister, the independence of this chamber, of which you are a member, is protected in law, in the Constitution and by centuries of parliamentary convention, and that protection guards against heavy-handed tactics by a desperate executive seeking to wield its power to punish different views. Minister, can you confirm that the government executive will not seek to use the privilege of executive power to punish political opponents?

I thank Senator McKenzie for her first supplementary question. I don't think there's any government or any prime minister of this country who's been more receptive and cooperative with members of the parliament—with members of the opposition or, for that matter, the crossbench.

An opposition senator interjecting—

Senator, I'm not embarrassed by that, because it's the truth. It's the truth. I know this man—in fact, from that point of view, Senator McKenzie, I know him better than most. But we're a transparent government. I've spoken in my answer to the previous question that you asked me about many of the things that we've done in the transparency space. (Time expired)

Senator McKenzie, second supplementary?

Minister, the opposition has been made aware that the government does intend to take retaliatory action as a result of its decision to vote in favour of transparency. I'm advised that the Leader of the House in the other place has specifically threatened to remove parliamentarians from positions and has stated that this is specifically to reduce their remuneration as a result of a decision in this chamber. Minister, can you confirm to this chamber that the tactics of the CFMEU have now been revealed as the tactics of the Labor government in the workplace of the national parliament?

Order! Senator Ayres and Senator McGrath, if you want to chat, do it outside the chamber. Perhaps there will be fewer interjections if you do that. Senator McKenzie, I am advised that the management of the House of Representatives chamber is not within the portfolio area of—

It's not a debating point, Senator McKenzie. I'm simply advising that your question is not within the portfolio area of the minister. However, I am going to invite the minister once again to answer it in whatever way he sees fit.

I thank Senator—

The influence of the other place on this place's decisions is important.

With respect, Senator McKenzie, I've chosen to answer your question. I am totally transparent and will answer—

With me, Senator McGrath, what you see is what you get—nothing more, nothing less. I'm unaware of the suggestions that you make in your question, Senator McKenzie. Certainly, I haven't had any conversations with the manager from the other place. So many things are serious issues for the Australian people, whether it's the cost of living, interest rates or housing, and you're completely focused on your own issues. What about starting to focus on the issues that affect Australian people? Why don't you— (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. When it comes to defence, the Albanese Labor government has just promised Donald Trump another billion dollars for the US to build their own nuclear submarines, on top of the billion dollars Labor has already given them for that. Labor's building the US an $8 billion nuclear submarine base in Perth. Labor's building the US troops hundreds and hundreds of homes, and now Labor is planning to serve up Australia's critical minerals to US corporate and military interests. Minister, has your government ever said no to Donald Trump or the US? Are there any limits?

I thank Senator Shoebridge for the question. This is, of course, a key difference between our party and the Greens political party. It's been explored on many occasions, Senator Shoebridge. Fundamentally, your position, as I understand it and as has been articulated by you and many of your colleagues over time, is that you do not support the US alliance. That is not true for the Australian Labor Party. We consider that the relationship with the United States is of great significance to our national security. It's a relationship that is long, deep and multidimensional.

We were pleased the Prime Minister was able to meet constructively with the United States administration, with President Trump. We are pleased that we are able to come to an agreement with our ally the United States about the development of critical minerals resources, understanding the significance of that supply chain for our security and for our economic interests. We do think that the acquisition of conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines is important for our national security for a range of reasons, which we have explored many times in the estimates hearings. So we will continue, on every occasion, to contemplate the national interest in this relationship and in all of the international work that is undertaken by the Prime Minister and by the ministers who are sworn to the foreign affairs portfolio. It's a focus for our government, ensuring that we engage constructively and sensibly in the world, in accordance with our national interest.

Senator Shoebridge, first supplementary?

Just this week, Minister Wong said, in relation to proposed changes to the EPBC Act, for example:

… the US relationship matters more than some domestic politics about environmental reform.

Minister, is that why Australia's defence budget is so skewed towards US interests—because your government openly puts US interests before Australia's?

(—) (): I have regrettably learned that it is not wise to accept assertions from members of your party when you seek to characterise statements made by members of the government. In my experience, those characterisations are rarely accurate. However, I'll confirm the advice I provided to the chamber in my response to your primary question. We, on every occasion, consider our national interest, and we do frequently make the point that, when it comes to the relationships that we are pursuing with other governments in our national interest, from time to time, responsible political organisations might also wish to consider the national interest before seeking to weaponise relationships that we seek to establish with others. (Time expired.)

Senator Shoebridge, second supplementary?

When Minister Wong was standing right there, earlier this week, she also said:

… one of the rules of politics is that you try not to play the US relationship into your domestic politics.

Minister, is that the reason that you won't give a straight answer on how much Labor is planning to give the US under AUKUS—because of this rule?

The point that I would make—and, again, I don't accept the characterisation of Senator Wong's contribution—about the way we approach foreign affairs and our international relationships is that we consider our national interest. Now, in the time I've been in this chamber, I struggle to recall an occasion when the Greens political party actually accepted that any of the national security threats or challenges that have been brought into this chamber were real. I struggle to recall an occasion when any of you accepted that the measures that have been contemplated by this chamber were necessary in relation to national security questions—

Minister McAllister. Senator Shoebridge.

It's a question of relevance. My question was about this rule, the rule that Senator Wong referenced earlier this week, not about the Greens political party.

Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. The minister is being relevant to the question, and I'll listen carefully to the next six seconds.

I can sum it up this way. We will always put the national interest before petty party electoral interests which is— (Time expired.)

My question is to the Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher. Minister, the Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commissioner's yearly report was tabled in parliament today. The commissioner makes clear in her report that, while Australia has made significant progress through record investment, new programs and a strong national plan to end violence against women and children, domestic, family and sexual violence remains a national problem. Could the minister outline the key findings of the commissioner's report and how the report will inform the next phase of the national plan, to ensure we deliver measurable and real change for women and children in this country?

I thank Senator Polley for the question. It's an important question about a report that was tabled this morning in the other place. Before I answer, I would like to acknowledge the victims and survivors of domestic, family and sexual violence and remember that women and children have been killed too often by men who have been known to them and who have claimed to have love them. These are words that the Minister for Social Services said in the House earlier today.

We do thank Commissioner Cronin, her team and the Lived Experience Advisory Council for their thorough and thoughtful work on the yearly report and for their ongoing advice to government.

The report is important, and its recommendations, including some that are already in train, are important advice to government as we continue to deal with and seek to end violence against women and children in a generation, as the national plan sets out.

Just fund the services.

Thank you, Senator Waters. As a government, we have prioritised investment in services—more than $4 billion since 2022. But it's not just about the money, because the issues here are bigger than what government can fund. In addition to that ongoing funding for all of those important legal services that women often rely heavily on when they leave violent relationships and that weren't funded by those opposite in any ongoing sense—they have been funded by us in the order of another $4 billion. So we have prioritised important investments. We've also responded by implementing the leaving violence payment and making it permanent so that women have the financial support to leave, but we're also investing in perpetrator responses to break the cycle of violence. Today's report is an important part of that information, as is the rapid review, which we are responding to as well.

Senator Polley, first supplementary?

Minister, the report recognises the government's substantial investment of over $4 billion since 2022 and new initiatives like the Leaving Violence Program. What has the Albanese Labor government delivered to ensure that the scourge—and that's what it is; it's a scourge—of family and domestic violence is properly addressed?

I thank Senator Polley for the supplementary. Ending family, domestic and sexual violence has been a core priority for the Albanese government, and, as Senator Polley said, we have made those significant investments. We've invested more than any Australian government ever in frontline services, preventive programs, behaviour change and programs for children who have experienced violence. We've made the leaving violence payment permanent—$5,000 in financial help—as well as safety-planning support for women leaving violence. There is $1.2 billion for emergency and transitional accommodation. We've legislated 10 days paid domestic violence leave. We've expanded discretion for Centrelink so perpetrators can't use the social security system to leave survivors with tens of thousands of dollars of debt, and we are currently doing an audit of key Commonwealth systems to ensure that they aren't being weaponised by perpetrators of abuse. There is more to do, but this government has a number of measures underway to do what it can to end violence against women and children.

Senator Polley, second supplementary?

Looking ahead, the report calls for transformational action, especially through the development of the next action plan, stronger accountability and a focus on priority groups, including children and First Nations communities, and emerging challenges, such as technology facilitated abuse. What further steps will the Albanese Labor government take to continue to deliver this really important reform?

I thank Senator Polley for the supplementary and acknowledge all of the work she's done in advocating for support for programs in the state of Tasmania when it comes to ending violence against women and children. The commission's report points to the development of the second action plan as a crucial moment to align efforts to new evidence and changing contexts, and we know that, particularly in the area of technology and coercive control, we are seeing changing behaviour all the time.

Today, as Minister Plibersek said in the other place, the first thing that is done when a woman attends an emergency accommodation service is to have their phone, their vehicle and a lot of other electronic devices checked for tracking devices that may have been placed on them by their perpetrator. This is the way that we have to respond to the changing use of technology and its impact on women and children. This report will help guide some of that work, as will all of the other work that's been happening across the sector. We acknowledge those who have advocated for decades to improve the lives of women and children in this country.

My question is to the Minister representing the Attorney-General, Minister Farrell. Last November, the Race Discrimination Commissioner handed down the National Anti-Racism Framework. Built on extensive consultation, the framework presents a whole-of-society approach to getting rid of this racist nation, as it's known. A year on, the government has still not responded to the report or endorsed it; why not?

Senator Thorpe, thank you for your question. I of course started my first answer by referring to the fact that we're celebrating 50 years of the Racial Discrimination Act. This government does have a distinguished record in terms of dealing with—

I have a point of order on relevance. My question is: why has the report not been endorsed or responded to?

Thank you, Senator Thorpe. I'll listen carefully and, if the minister is not directly relevant to your question, I will remind him of your question. Minister Thorpe—I mean Minister Farrell.

She's not a minister yet.

I don't intend to be.

One never knows what can happen in politics. Senator Thorpe, can I make this observation: I'm obviously not the Attorney-General; I'm representing her in this place. Now that you've raised the issue, I shall consult with the Attorney-General and seek a response from her—

Why are you celebrating it? How can you celebrate it when you haven't endorsed it?

We're celebrating it because it was a milestone. It came in a couple of years after the White Australia policy was abolished by Gough Whitlam. It is worth commemorating. But you've asked the question. I am not the Attorney-General, but I shall seek a response as quickly as I can, Senator Thorpe, and I will come back to you with an answer to that question.

Senator Thorpe, first supplementary?

What has the government done, since the framework was first handed down, to progress any of the 63 recommendations—besides ignoring them?

Thank you, Senator Thorpe, for your first supplementary question. I reject the suggestion that we're ignoring the report. This government takes the issue of racial discrimination seriously. In a response to one of the questions that I was asked, I referred to the large number of racial discrimination cases that have been dealt with just in recent times. As I referred to earlier, we're an action government. Where there are issues to be dealt with, we deal with them. We have an excellent Attorney-General in Minister Rowland. I know she takes this issue—

A very fine Attorney-General.

Yes, she's a very fine Attorney-General. I know she takes these issues seriously—

A point of order—just before the clock ran out.

The clock has run out.

Before the clock ran out, President, is what I said.

Senator Thorpe, you're not in a debate with me.

You weren't watching the clock!

Senator Thorpe!

I had a point of order.

Which I'm entertaining—if you would just stick to the point of order.

We've run out of time now.

You stood up before the end of—

My point of order was on relevance. I don't want to hear about how great your Attorney-General is. I want to know when racism will stop in this country.

Senator Thorpe, the minister was being relevant to your question. In relation to your first question, he's taken it on notice, and he did go to points in your second question. Senator Thorpe, second supplementary?

Will the government endorse the antidiscrimination report as requested by the antidiscrimination commissioner?

I thank Senator Thorpe for her second supplementary question. The government is obviously preparing a response. I made very clear in my two previous answers, as well as in the answer that I gave to the other question that I was asked, that this government takes these issues seriously, and we seek to carefully deal with all of these issues and to prepare an appropriate response. Again, I shall forward your question to the Attorney-General and come back with a formal response.

My question is to the Minister for Industry and Innovation, Minister Ayres. In January 2025 the minister visited Tomago Aluminium to announce a $2 billion green-aluminium production credit, declaring, 'This is what a future made in Australia looks like.' Given Tomago now faces closure with the possible loss of more than 1,000 jobs, is this what the future made in Australia really looks like under this government—manufacturing closures and job losses?

Thank you for that question. I was interested to see whether at any point today, after all this fanfare about additional questions, there was ever going to be a moment where this self-absorbed circular Canberra club hopelessly divided amongst themselves would actually ask a question about this important industrial facility in the Hunter Valley. What it turns out we have is a question that is asked in precisely the same terms as a question that was asked three days ago over there. This show can't even make up their own questions.

Senator Ruston?

On a point of order of relevance, I was wondering whether you might direct the minister to answer the question.

I think the minister is being relevant, but if he's not directly relevant I will draw him to the question.

What you will find, of course, is that, in the period since I was appointed as the minister for industry, this is one of the questions that as the minister I have been very focused on. The truth is that this facility is facing a very uncertain future. That is the truth. It is facing markets that are very challenging because of over-subsidisation and overcapacity in certain markets, particularly in China, and tariff responses from economies around the world, not just the United States. It is facing a series of energy challenges largely brought upon, I have to say, by 10 years of inaction on the energy front, which means that there is less supply than there could have been. We'll see if the next question's original.

Senator McKenzie, first supplementary—I beg your pardon. Isn't it amazing that I think it's you, Senator McKenzie, because your interjections are constant. My apologies, Senator Collins; first supplementary.

The coalition called for aluminium, alumina and bauxite to be included on the critical minerals list in 2023, which would have allowed companies like Tomago and Alcoa's Kwinana refinery the ability to secure their production through a range of policy options. Why do you not see our aluminium sector and the thousands of workers as critical to Australia?

That is symbolism of the highest order. The question here is how we move to secure the future of this facility, and we will continue working on that very hard indeed, just the same as we are working on the future of the Boyne Island aluminium facility and the Bell Bay Aluminium facility that Senator Duniam took me to yesterday. All of these facilities are facing challenging circumstances—

That must have been a quick trip.

I don't mean he took me there literally, Senator Canavan, although I'm always up for a trip with Senator Duniam. This is going to require effort, and there has been no doubt about our capacity to intervene— (Time expired)

Senator Collins, second supplementary?

Minister, considering the abject failures of industry and resources policy under your government, how many more smelters, refineries or industrial facilities have to close before you take action?

We've demonstrated, over the last few short months, our determination to intervene when it's in the national interest. We've intervened in the Nyrstar facilities in Hobart and in the Nyrstar facilities in Port Pirie. We've acted with the South Australian government to protect our national interest in terms of the steel industry, and we've moved with the LNP government in Queensland to protect the interests of not just Glencore in Mount Isa but that whole industrial system, acting to secure thousands and thousands of jobs.

That stands in stark contrast to the approach that was adopted by those opposite in government, when 40,000 jobs in the auto sector in Victoria were offshored deliberately in a vengeful, wilfully nasty kind of way. We have acted to intervene, and we will continue to do that. (Time expired)

My question is to Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Minister Ayres. Electricity bills have soared 23.6 per cent over the past year, with an 8.1 per cent rise last quarter and another nine per cent rise this quarter. These price hikes are now spiking inflation and crushing Australian families already desperate for relief. The only thing keeping power bills from going even higher has been temporary rebates, and those are running out, and so is the government's supply of taxpayer dollars. One Nation warned this would happen. We warned your reckless net zero plan would hurt households and businesses. Why does this government continue to mislead the Australian people by claiming its so-called net zero energy transition is working when it's clearly only working to send power bills and the cost of living through the roof?

I will indicate for the new senator that we won't take his contribution as his first speech. The task that we're embarking upon, which we were working through in our first term and which is being led by the minister who I represent in this place, is to modernise and build an electricity system and an energy system that can serve the interests of Australian industry and Australian households. It occurs against the backdrop of—

Just not heavy industry.

And it includes our ambitions for heavy industry as well, Senator McKenzie, which was left in a parlous state after the miserable decade of industrial policy negligence of the Abbott and Morrison and Turnbull governments.

The truth is that the failure of that period was recognised, including by people among those opposite. Senator Canavan, on 4 February 2021, said:

Electricity prices for manufacturing businesses in Australia have gone up 91 per cent over the past decade.

That's what he said in 2021. The Abbott and Morrison and Turnbull governments allowed electricity prices for manufacturing to almost double. That's what happened. That's what happens when you allow 24 out of 28 coal-fired power stations to close down, Senator Canavan, and don't have a plan to do anything about it except send out a press release about a coal-fired power station in Collinsville that you never built. (Time expired)

Senator Bell, please ask your question.

Minister, speaking of your first term, I believe your government promised they would cut power bills by $275, by 2022 figures. Yet Australian families are watching as net zero policies drive power bills higher and higher. Your government's obsession is crushing households, small businesses and nationally important manufacturers like Tomago Aluminium. When will the minister be honest with the Australian people and admit that power bills will never come down unless we scrap net zero?

I'll deal with those questions in turn. It's good to see the architect of this longer question time arriving. First of all, there is nothing more calculated to deliver higher costs for industry or households—

Minister Ayres, please resume your seat. Senator Pocock?

Just on a point of order: I think there's some sort of standing order against talking about senators coming in and out of the chamber. I just ducked to the toilet quickly.

Thank you, Senator Pocock. It is a convention, but I will remind Senator Ayres not to name senators who are here and senators who may not be here. Minister Ayres, please continue.

I will endeavour as always not to hurt anybody's feelings. There is nothing more calculated to put up electricity prices than more policy uncertainty. What we saw over the period of the last government was a government that was determined to never land an electricity policy framework. As a consequence, as Senator Canavan pointed out, prices nearly doubled under the last government. (Time expired)

Senator Bell, a second supplementary?

Minister, inflation is now rising again, driven in large part by soaring electricity costs caused by Labor's net zero obsession, and everyday Australians are drowning. One Nation, Australian families and businesses are asking you: please, end your dangerous and damaging race to net zero oblivion before more people lose their homes, jobs and livelihoods.

I am not sure there was a question in there, but I would just observe that it has been very interesting to watch over the last couple of days that some of the characters amongst One Nation and their adjoining—

Senator Ayres, I'm assuming you are referring to elected officials, so please refer to them as 'senators' if that is indeed who you are referring to.

Senator Canavan himself has moved from complaining about net zero to proposing a solution. He's moved from that to proposing that we should build some more coal-fired power stations. That's what he's proposed. He proposed that when the Morrison government was in government. It was called the Collinsville Power Station.

Senator Ayres, I am going to draw you back to Senator Bell's question. I appreciate you can take interjections, but, on this occasion, Senator Canavan wasn't interjecting. So I am going to draw you back to the question.

The only thing—in response to your question, Senator Bell—that would be a worse idea in terms of electricity prices than building power stations powered by coal, which were never built but were just press releases, is the nuclear plan that these characters brought to the last election. They would have put household bills up sky-high. They would have put industrial bills up— (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator McCarthy. The Albanese Labor government is committed to improving health outcomes for First Nations Australians and supporting Aboriginal community controlled health organisations to deliver care in partnership with Indigenous Australians directly. How is the First Nations Health Worker Traineeship Program delivering on this commitment, and what is the progress of this program?

I thank the senator for her question. The Albanese Labor government is proud to be delivering practical programs that build skills, create jobs and strengthen the First Nations health workforce. Since the First Nations Health Worker Traineeship Program commenced in July 2023, we have seen more than 550 enrolments across the country. Of those, 152 trainees have already completed their studies. They are now armed with the skills to improve outcomes and help close the gap. This program is designed to address workforce shortages in Aboriginal health services and ensure the next generation of First Nations health professionals are supported, trained and empowered. It has been developed in partnership with NACCHO.

The training is being delivered by Aboriginal community controlled health registered training orgs and includes structured, on-the-job experience, ensuring that learning is grounded in community and not just in classrooms. That investment is contributing to greater access to vital Medicare services across the country and ensuring First Nations people have access to culturally appropriate and high-quality health care. It is delivering real outcomes, creating a skilled, culturally safe, First Nations health workforce that is improving access to care right across the country. It shows what can be achieved when government listens, works in partnership and lets First Nations leadership drive the solutions.

Senator Stewart, first supplementary?

Thank you, Minister, for that response. Supporting Aboriginal community controlled health organisations is key to closing the gap in health outcomes. Can the minister outline how the Albanese Labor government is supporting Aboriginal organisations to deliver long-term sustainable health services for their communities?

One of the key pieces of feedback from the sector has been the need for long-term sustainable and flexible funding so ACCHOs can focus on their core business of delivering high-quality, culturally appropriate care for First Nations people. That's why, from July 2024, we have delivered an additional $300 million to implement rolling funding agreements for ACCHOs, bringing total funding under the comprehensive primary healthcare program to $2.7 billion over four years, providing certainty and flexibility for their operations. That brings the government's total investment under the Indigenous Australians' Health Program to $4.7 billion. We are also investing in modern health infrastructure, upgrading and expanding clinics in the areas of greatest need. This includes $8.9 million for Moorundi Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Service in Murray Bridge and $1.5 million for Wuchopperen Health Service in Queensland. (Time expired)

Senator Stewart, second supplementary?

The Albanese Labor government's expansion of the bulk-billing incentive to all Australians is part of the largest investment in Medicare ever. How will the Aboriginal community controlled health organisations benefit from the government's new bulk-billing incentive arrangements?

Our reforms are strengthening both Medicare and the community controlled sector. From 1 November, ACCHOs will benefit directly from the expansion of bulk-billing incentives and the new bulk-billing practice incentive program. There are 129 ACCHOs currently participating in the Practice Incentives Program. Each of these services will be financially better off under the new arrangements. Together, these ACCHOs will receive an additional $3.8 million a year through expanded bulk-billing incentives and a further $8.8 million a year by joining the bulk-billing Practice Incentives Program. There will be $12.6 million in total in additional support for ACCHOs each year or almost $100,000 per organisation, on average. This will help ACCHOs to continue providing affordable, culturally safe care for their communities.

My question is to Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Senator McCarthy. Regional roads have been deteriorating under this government, which has cut the level of Commonwealth funding for regional roads from 80 per cent down to 50 per cent following the 2023 review of the infrastructure investment pipeline. Can the minister explain why the government is threatening to cut speed limits to 70 kilometres per hour on country roads instead of just getting on with the job of fixing the roads?

I certainly don't accept the premise of the question, given that it is our government that is providing for roads across the country—especially in the Northern Territory, for example. I drove out to Wadeye on the Port Keats Road. We have invested $70 million into that road, and not once have I seen—you may wish to talk to your colleagues in the Northern Territory. There was not one area where I saw that road being completed. Our government is very much contributing the funding for roads right across Australia, but it does come down to the relationships with the leadership of each of those state and territory jurisdictions. If you take places like the Northern Territory, who need to be able to work and actually roll those roads out when we have provided the funding, I suggest to you that you talk to your colleagues up there to assist us with that. I will say this—

Senator McKenzie, lower your voice. Seriously.

They're just not interested in roads, President. They're just not interested.

Or the regions!

Or the regions, for that matter. I'm a bit surprised at Senator McKenzie.

Senator McCarthy, I have Senator O'Sullivan on his feet.

On relevance: my question was about reducing the speed limits. The senator has not gone anywhere near reducing—

Your question had a preamble, Senator O'Sullivan, which you may wish to check, which went to regional roads. The senator is being directly relevant. If your colleagues don't intervene, perhaps I can listen more closely to the answer.

Reviewing speed limits on high-risk regional and remote roads has been on the road safety agenda since at least 2018, when the National Party held this portfolio. In fact, the first priority action under the National Road Safety Action Plan 2018–2020, agreed to by the member of Riverina, was to review speed limits on high-risk regional and remote roads in consultation with the community. The consultation currently underway on reducing default speed limits is being undertaken by the minister's department to inform a regulatory impact analysis. It does not constitute government policy, but it is a usual process we undertake on various issues.

Senator O'Sullivan, first supplementary?

I do have a supplementary question. The government has cut critical programs to regional roads, including abolishing the Roads of Strategic Importance initiative and the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program. With dozens of projects axed and regional road funding bogged down in bureaucracy, why won't the government restore these important programs to help country roads instead of cutting default speed limits from 100 to 70 kilometres per hour?

I do thank the senator for the question. It's actually not the first time he's asked it; he asked it in Senate estimates in the RRAT committee in terms of the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program. Let me repeat, as we did in our responses to these questions, that the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program was a COVID-19 stimulus measure to fund local projects that would support local economies and create jobs during the pandemic. The Albanese Labor government has continued to back this program.

See, they're not interested. We continue to back the program, but let's remember the genesis of this. While making sure councils are supported to deliver valuable outcomes for local communities, we extended construction timelines for the program in 2023 to help councils complete their projects—some important detail that you always seem to overlook.

Senator O'Sullivan, second supplementary?

Minister, isn't it the case that under Labor's plan the limits will stay reduced even if the roads are later fixed?

Under Labor's plan, we've doubled funding for the Roads to Recovery Program from $500 million to $1 billion a year permanently from 2027-28. But you're not interested in the regional roads. You're not interested.

Senator O'Sullivan?

My question was very tight, and I ask you to draw the minister back to the question, which is whether or not speed limits will stay reduced.

Senator O'Sullivan, the minister had just started her answer. I will listen carefully and, if necessary, draw her to the question. But I do need silence, particularly from your side, to enable me to do that.

I would have thought they'd be interested to know how much funding was going into the regions, especially the roads. Clearly the other side want to put their foot to the pedal and go as fast as they can, but we want to make sure that we do invest in the regions, that we do invest in the roads—

Answer the question! Please.

Please continue, Minister.

Thank you for saying 'please', Senator Ruston. I haven't heard much from you this week, so it is important to hear from you now. Between 2024-25 and 2028-29, Labor is investing $4.4 billion in safer local roads through Roads to Recovery— (Time expired)

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Order across the chamber. I have received the list for the next lot of questions from the government. I am assuming it has been negotiated across the chamber. So with that in mind, and that is the only piece of information I can add, I will call Senator Faruqi.

My question is to Minister Watt. Minister, on Tuesday we woke up to distressing images of a humpback whale, a species protected under federal and state laws, killed in a shark net off the coast of New South Wales. Whales, dolphins, rays, turtles, dugongs and endangered shark species are getting entangled almost daily in New South Wales and Queensland by these indiscriminate nets of death. While the shark net was killing that whale in New South Wales, dozens of bull sharks were feeding in the shallows at Snapper Rocks in Queensland inside the shark nets and drum lines. This irony proves again that shark nets are not a safety barrier. Minister, have you seen these awful images, and what have you got to say to Australians and indeed many around the world who are distressed and angry at this state-sanctioned animal cruelty?

Thank you, Senator Faruqi. I welcome a question from the Greens political party about the need for environmental law reform. My one suggestion for you is join with the government and pass environmental law reforms.

Senator Faruqi, a first supplementary?

Order! Senator McKim. I remind the chamber that this motion was agreed by the chamber yesterday. I am not entertaining interjections. I have called Senator Faruqi. I expect her to be able to give her question without interjections.

Thank you, President. That was just another example of what a farce this question time has become. Minister, we want you to answer the questions.

Government senators interjecting—

Senator Faruqi, please resume your seat. Order across the chamber! Particularly on my right! I had just finished saying that Senator Faruqi has the right to be heard in silence.

Order! Senator McKenzie, I have had to call you to order for the first 10 lot of questions. I would like some silence, particularly from you, but particularly from my right. Senator Faruqi, please continue.

Thank you, President. Perhaps for once you can try and answer the question. Minister, New South Wales and Queensland shark cull programs are enabled by a federal exemption. Will you today commit to ending this 86-year-old failed policy that doesn't keep our oceans safe for humans or for precious marine life?

Senator Faruqi, I find it rather ironic that you are complaining about question time given you supported the coalition as part of the 'no-alition' to make sure that question time continues to be happening. It is your choice that we're here. As I say, we have today introduced a bill to the House of Representatives to reform Australia's environmental law, and I invite you to work with the government to get it passed.

Senator Faruqi, a second supplementary?

Minister, at the most recent estimates, the Greens discovered that the Queensland government is in discussions with the federal environment department about expanding its shark cull program. This of course requires federal approval. Will you at least today rule out allowing this to happen? Will you do your job as the environment minister and protect whales and marine life? Because you are a failure at your job.

Senator Faruqi, withdraw.

I withdraw.

I always appreciate a bit of free character assessment from the Greens political party, who of course spent three years opposing environmental law reform and housing reform and lost almost every seat they held in the House of Representatives. So continue that approach, and we will get the last one you've got and then we will take some Senate spots as well.

My question is to—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! May I remind the Senate this is a motion you voted for. I said at the outset there is to be silence. Senator Smith, resume your seat. I've already called Senator Hume.

Senator Hanson-Young, you may leave the chamber if you can't stop interjecting. Senator Hume.

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. On Monday the Treasurer said that he would not be watering down the superannuation performance test and that he takes his responsibilities as a Labor Treasurer seriously as the custodian of super. Yet last night the Treasurer confirmed that he would be pushing ahead with changes to the superannuation performance test, to ensure the nation's retirement savings were available to invest in Labor's political priorities. So, Minister, which is true? Will you guarantee that the performance test will not be watered down, or will you be interfering in super rules that have worked so well, to tap Australians' hard earned retirement savings for Labor's election commitments?

I hope, Senator McKenzie, that that is the first and last interjection. I don't know how many times, since we got to question 11, I have reminded senators that this was your choice and I expect there to be silence. Minister Gallagher, please respond.

Labor is the party of superannuation. We always support strengthening superannuation. We support the superannuation funds to return good returns to their members, and the Treasurer's plan outlines our vision to do that.

Senator Hume, first supplementary?

Minister, the superannuation performance test does not stop superannuation funds from investing in any asset so long as the investment stacks up financially, and you know this. It only prevents super from becoming a vehicle for a political agenda. Minister, if Labor's political priorities are such good investments, why are super funds not investing in them already? Isn't it because Labor's priority projects are, in the opinion of the investment professionals, not in members' best financial interests?

No.

Senator Hume, second supplementary?

Minister, surely after three years of inflation driven bracket creep and high commodity prices generating record levels of taxation, you could use the Commonwealth's revenue to fund Labor's election commitments. Is the reason your government wants to tap superannuation for its nation-building projects that Labor and you can't manage the budget?

No.

My question is to the Minister for Industry and Innovation—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Sorry, Senator Tyrrell. Please resume your seat. Once again I remind the chamber that I've asked for silence. If you can't be silent in this chamber, please take up my invitation and leave.

This is for Minister Ayres. The Tasmanian Bell Bay aluminium smelter is at risk of closure by the end of the year. The smelter is a cornerstone of Tasmania's economy, employing over 600 people and supporting hundreds more through a supply chain of almost 300 local businesses, helping communities like George Town, west Tamar and Launceston. Not only that but it is also the only renewables powered smelter in the country. I wrote to you on 16 October, asking you to work with the Tas government to keep Bell Bay open. Consistent with your Future Made in Australia agenda, you must ensure sovereign metals manufacturing remains in Australia's future. If your government is so committed to sovereign manufacturing, will you stand up today and commit to funding to keep Bell Bay aluminium smelter open?

Thank you, Senator Tyrrell, for that question. It is an important question. I can confirm that this government and I are working very closely with the government of Tasmania. There are negotiations going on between Hydro Tasmania—the state government owned electricity provider in Tasmania—and the owners of that facility. I am very focused on making sure that those negotiations conclude with the best possible result.

It is absolutely my preference and the government's preference that—where these aluminium facilities have been established around the country, largely they have been there because there is a state owned electricity generator, apart from those states now where they've been privatised and the aluminium smelter owner is facing a private market. In Tasmania, there is a publicly owned facility. It's a proud Tasmanian asset. I've been engaged with the state government at all levels. My department has been engaged at an official level. I want to see proper accountability about that process. I've spoken to the Premier of Tasmania and the relevant ministers. I think I've even had a couple of chats with some of my colleagues on the other side here who've expressed an interest, and they should. I'm very open about that process. It's an important facility in the Tasmanian economy, as is the adjoining Liberty Bell Bay manganese smelter.

Senator Tyrrell, first supplementary?

The federal government has already intervened in other industrial closures on the mainland, including South Australia's Whyalla steelworks, Queensland's Mount Isa copper smelter and New South Wales's Tomago aluminium smelter. Do you treat Tasmanian metal manufacturers—oh lord, oh lord, oh lord!—differently to mainland smelters? Yes, it's long!

Yes, we will pay exactly the same amount of attention, exactly the same detail, to the facilities in Tasmania as on the mainland.

Senator Tyrrell, second supplementary?

Thank you, President. I promise I won't stutter this time. If you treat Tasmanian smelters the same as mainland smelters, you are running out of time and deliberately putting Tasmanian jobs at risk. As a party meant to support the workers, you are choosing to toy with their job security. Why won't you support Australian jobs and, today, commit to helping the nation's only renewable powered smelter?

We'll approach this in a very disciplined way, in the Tasmanian interest and in the national interest.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, Disability and Ageing. Minister, people across the country are struggling to access affordable health care right now. Out-of-pocket costs are continuing to rise, and community healthcare centres, including cohealth in Victoria, are closing their doors. Minister, why are community healthcare centres closing under Labor state and federal governments?

Thank you, Senator Steele-John, for the question. I am actually very pleased to speak about the approach that this government is taking to restoring the strength and the availability of Medicare funded services because I think, as everyone in this chamber will understand, it was a key focus for us in the last term of government, and it is an even bigger focus for us this time. You asked about the decision by cohealth, and we consider this decision deeply disappointing. It seems that cohealth have got themselves into a difficult financial situation. That is very concerning, especially for the local community that they serve. The finance, the governance, of cohealth is the responsibility of that board, and I am disappointed that they find themselves in this position. I understand that we have requested that the board reconsider its position.

But, more broadly, Senator, of course we intend to invest in Medicare, of course the $8½ billion package we are bringing forward will make a difference and it will be a focus for this government each and every day.

Senator Steele-John, first supplementary?

Many in our community need longer appointments to get wraparound care for complex health conditions, yet the government refuses to lift rebates to support this model of care. Minister, when will your government listen to GPs and lift the rebate for longer consultations?

Well, of course, the government is making very substantial investments to increase the availability of Medicare bulk-billed services. These investments, in fact, commence on 1 November, and we expect to see a significant increase in the availability of bulk-billed services in that time.

Senator Steele-John, second supplementary?

() (): Many in the community will find that kind of response frustrating, given that we know that longer consultations are the reality of what is required from so many general practitioners—particularly for mental health consultations, which are the overwhelming majority of consults done by GPs now. Will Labor commit to properly funding community healthcare centres, like cohealth in Victoria, so that they can continue to provide the care that is needed? (Time expired)

Thank you, Senator. As I indicated in my response to your primary question, increasing the availability of bulk-billed services and improving the access of Australians to universal health care is a core focus for this government, and very important initiatives commence on 1 November.

I seek leave to ask a question on behalf of South Australians regarding the Albanese Labor government's historic women's health package.

Leave not granted.

I move:

That so much of the order of the Senate agreed to on 29 October concerning the arrangements for question time be suspended as would prevent me asking a question of the Government.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Senator McGrath, you will withdraw those comments.

I withdraw.

Thank you. I remind senators that Senator Smith will be heard in silence.

Yes, please; thank you. We have held two Senate inquiries over the last term of parliament into women's health: an inquiry into menopause and perimenopause and an inquiry into women's health. Through those inquiries, we heard from hundreds and hundreds of women about how they'd been let down by a system which was failing them. They came into this building and shared their trauma. They came into this building and told how they had been dismissed.

A point of order on relevance—the contribution should be on the urgency and why we need to actually do it rather than your point. It's in the standing orders.

Senator Smith, it is a suspension of standing orders. We are now on the issue of urgency, I believe, so you do need to inform the Senate as to why the matter is urgent.

Well, these are the women I'm trying to ask this question on behalf of. These are the women who came in here and said the country needs to change—that we need to fund women's health properly. Our government listened. We responded. There are changes happening this weekend. I want to ask a question about it so I can inform the women in my community.

Honourable senators interjecting—

O pposition senator s interjecting

Senator Smith is trying to articulate a position. It is very difficult for her to do that with all of the bellowing that's coming from the fellas over there. I'd ask you to ask them again—I know that you've tried—to hear her in silence.

I am going to remind the Senate once again, particularly those loud voices on my left, that Senator Smith has the right to be heard in silence. If you don't wish to participate in the debate, you are free to leave the chamber. But you will listen and not interject.

There are important changes happening this weekend, which my community deserves to know about. I started my day on the radio in regional South Australia to spread the word of those changes. I have a democratic right as well. The only person who has a democratic—

O pposition senator s interjecting

Senator Smith, resume your seat. Once again, I—

Senator Bragg, may I remind you that I am the President in this chamber. I sat the senator down because you on my left are absolutely out of order. I repeat—no, Senator Dean Smith, I haven't finished yet—once again: if you cannot listen in silence, leave the chamber. But don't interject. You were interjecting so loudly that I could not hear Senator Marielle Smith. Senator Dean Smith.

Senator M Smith's position ignores the fact that the government has already had three—

No—resume your seat.

Senator Dean Smith, resume your seat. Senator Marielle Smith, I am going to remind you that you need to talk about why the matter is urgent.

It's urgent because there are 19 non-executive members of this chamber who are now having their right to ask questions curtailed in this place. There are 19 members of this chamber who have come in here today asking questions of the utmost seriousness, asking questions on the Racial Discrimination Act—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator Smith, please resume your seat. Once again, I'm going to call you to order. Order on both sides of the chamber to order.

Well, Senator McKenzie, quite frankly, I wish you'd take your own advice on that interjection. Minister Watt?

Thank you, President, for your efforts to try to bring some order to this passage of question time. I would invite the opposition members, in particular the male opposition members, to have a bit of self-reflection about the fact that they're yelling at a woman who's trying to ask a question about women's health. That might be something worthy of reflection.

Senator Smith, do you have a point of order? I have a number of senators standing up, so if you could resume your seat. I am going to try, once again, for order in this place. I had Senator Paterson and Senator Henderson standing. I don't know which one of you stood first but, perhaps, because you're on the front bench, Senator Paterson, I'll entertain—presumably it's a point of order and not a statement.

On the point of order raised by Senator Watt, even I am old enough to remember you sitting in these chairs screaming at female senators yourself.

Senator Paterson, that is a debating point.

Have some self-awareness, mate.

Order! Senator Henderson, if it is not a genuine point of order, I intend to sit you down.

On the point of order, I would ask that you ask Senator Watt to withdraw the unparliamentary reflection on male senators on this side of the house. It is most inappropriate to reflect in this way, and I think that, in good grace and good faith, he should withdraw that terrible comment.

Senator Watt, I invite you to withdraw.

I withdraw.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! There does need to be silence.

The senators who supported Senator Pocock on this motion are seeking to deny almost a third of this chamber the opportunity to do their jobs—to do their democratic responsibility on behalf of the people that they represent. We have a democratic right to represent our constituents as well. We have a democratic right to participate in this chamber too. I have a right to ask questions, and there has been a longstanding convention in this place which should have allowed me to. I have an important question to ask. I don't have a question to ask seeking to table Hansard into Hansard

Opposition senators interjecting—

Senator Smith, please resume your seat. Once again, I have to call the chamber to order, particularly those of you on my left.

Senator Watt, come to order! Senator Marielle Smith, please continue.

What is happening here is that this chamber is denying non-executive members of the government, like myself, the opportunity to ask a question which matters to the women of my state. There are big changes happening this Saturday which we fought tooth and nail for. Hundreds of women walked into this place and shared trauma, stigma and stories of being dismissed and silenced in the hope that our government would change the law, change the way women's health is funded and change their treatment. Things are changing for them this weekend, and I want to be able to ask about it.

Senator Smith, please resume your seat. Senator Duniam, if this is not a genuine point of order, I will sit you down.

I understand.

I'm over the statements that are being made in the guise of points of order.

My point of order is on relevance. The question before the chair is about the suspension of standing orders, and this doesn't go to that.

It does. The senator is required—

I haven't finished, Senator Smith. The senator asked for leave. Leave was not given. She moved to suspend. I have reminded her, and she has kept telling the Senate what is urgent about this matter. That is what she is doing. Senator Smith, I invite you to continue.

You may not think it is urgent, Senator Duniam, for the women of my community to be able to understand the changes which are happening to our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme this weekend and to understand the changes which are happening to Medicare this weekend. As I said, I've used every opportunity available to me to try and get this message out, and I don't think you would doubt that. I want to use my democratic right in this place—

Senator Smith, please resume your seat. Before I call you, Senator Henderson, I am going to take the interjection, Senator Duniam. It has always been my practice to hold firmly to the view that suspensions should be about detailing why a matter is urgent. You can check on the many times we've had suspensions in this place. When I am in the chair, I always draw senators back to the urgency of the matter, and I have drawn Senator Smith back a number of times.

On a point of order, I wonder if you could ask Senator Marielle Smith to direct her comments through the chair, please.

I think she is doing that, but I will remind her once again that that is what is required.

This is urgent. This is urgent for half the population. Half the population will go through menopause if they live to midlife. There are huge changes happening this weekend. This is an opportunity I should be able to have, as a non-executive member of this government to ask the question so that my community can hear from the minister about the changes happening on 1 November which will make a massive difference to their lives. For those women, this question is urgent. It is urgent that I get an opportunity to ask it, just as it was important for other non-executive members of this government to ask questions today about the Racial Discrimination Act, about family and domestic violence and about First Nations health. It is not only the crossbench who represents a community who has a right to be heard in here. As a non-executive member of the government, I also have a constituency, and you are tearing up convention which allows me to do my job as a senator, which I take seriously.

I respect the right of Senator Pocock to do his job, and I take that seriously. I respect the right of the Greens to do their job on behalf of their constituency, and I respect the right of opposition backbenchers to do theirs, but you are showing the utmost disrespect for my responsibility to my constituents. You should show more respect to non-government members of this place and to the convention which makes this place what it is.

I move:

That the question be put.

Question agreed to.

The question is that the suspension motion as moved by Senator Marielle Smith be agreed to.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Ayres. Minister, the Albanese government's National Climate Risk Assessment report claims that losses in Australian property values are estimated to increase to $611 billion by 2050 and could increase to $770 billion by 2090. During the recent Senate estimates, officials confirmed that these numbers, drawn from the 2019 Climate Council report, were not independently verified before being included in the government's assessment. Does Labor still stand by the claim, also made in the 2019 Climate Council report and contained in the climate risk assessment report, that Australian property values will fall by up to $571 billion within the next five years, or will you concede that this figure is inaccurate and misleading to Australians—yes or no?

No.

Senator Smith, a first supplementary?

Minister, will you remove these unverified, alarmist figures from your report or keep misleading Australians with the claim of a property collapse of more than half a trillion dollars in the next five years—yes or no?

I never want to disappoint Senator Smith. No.

Senator Smith, a second supplementary?

Minister, if no verification was done on the figures in question, how can Australians trust any of the other modelling or data contained in the climate risk assessment report?

I have lost the thread of his question a bit, but this government believes in science and we believe in the validity of the modelling.

I'm wondering whether it is possible to seek clarification from you, President, in relation to two issues during question time. On the primary question I asked and the second supplementary question asked by Senator McKenzie, you indicated that you believed that the questions were outside the ministerial responsibility of the minister who was representing the Prime Minister. I was just wondering if I could seek clarification as to who you believe the question should have been directed to.

I think 'believe' is the wrong term to use. I sought the advice of the Clerk. I was advised and I did explain, perhaps not as clearly when you asked your question but certainly when Senator McKenzie asked hers, that it is not within the portfolio of the ministers in this chamber to make comment on the management of the House of Representatives. Therefore, it was outside of their portfolios, and I advised you and Senator McKenzie at the time that I sought the advice of the Clerk.

I understand and I refer to this point on that matter. The matter that Senator McKenzie and I were trying to determine was an action that was taken by the Labor Party, the executive, the government of this country in relation to an action that had been taken in this place. Yesterday afternoon the Senate made a determination in relation to—

Is this a point of order?

I'm seeking clarification—

Senator Ruston, your question went to matters in the House. It went to matters in the House.

I'm seeking clarification. The matter actually related to an action that took place in this chamber yesterday afternoon. Could you give me some direction as to where we would direct that question?

I have given you direction, and this is the last time I'm going to do it because I have made my decision. You are either dissenting from my decision or accepting it. I was very clear that the matter that you were referring to was about the management of the House. It's irrelevant where a motion may or may not have been passed. Your question went directly to what you allege were threats made in the House. That is what I responded to. On the advice of the Clerk, it is outside their portfolio. Now, I have answered the question. If you have further questions, I would invite you to write to me.

Thank you very much. On the second point that I was seeking clarification on, I was just wondering if you would give us some direction about the practice that you're going to adopt in terms of the order of the call. It's been practice that the order of the call is provided to the Chair, which I believe was provided at the start at question time. Whether you intend for that practice in question time, particularly as it relates to questions 11 to 15, what is the practice you are going to adopt in this chamber?

Senator Ruston, I'm not quite sure I understand your question. At the outset I informed the chamber—

Don't argue with me. If you're seeking clarification, it's actually your turn to listen. I informed the chamber when we got to question 11 that I had received an email from the government setting out the order and that I had assumed that that order was agreed to by the chamber. I have not participated, nor is it my role to participate, in debates or discussions across the chamber. I was given the order by the government, and that's the order I went to. There were no objections, so I'm assuming the order I got was to the satisfaction of the chamber.

I seek leave to ask a question on behalf of Queenslanders regarding the Albanese government's commitment to net zero.

Senator Kovacic, I've called Senator Mulholland.

Honourable senators interjecting—

I do believe the call is mine to make. I've made it. Senator Kovacic, please resume your seat. Senator Mulholland is seeking leave. Senator Mulholland, leave is denied.

A government senator: You don't need to seek leave. Just ask the question.

Just ask the question.

My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Ayres—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Order across the chamber.

How does the Albanese government's real action on climate change—

Senator Mulholland, you were seeking leave. Leave has been denied.

Just ask.

I move—

An honourable senator: No! You don't have the call.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Senator Mulholland, please resume your seat. Senator Kovacic, take your seat. I have made my call. It is not up for debate. I have given the call to Senator Mulholland. There's not a debate about this. You can continue standing, but I am not giving you the call.

She has a point of order.

Senator McGrath! I've asked the senator to resume her seat—

No! Senator McGrath, resume your seat. Senator Kovacic, if you have a point of order at this point—you have been standing and making a claim that you stood before Senator Mulholland, so I'm not engaging on that point of order. I've made my decision. But, if you have a further point of order, I will entertain that point of order.

I'd like to understand on what basis, given what you have just noted in terms of the agreed list for questions, I'm not permitted to ask my question given I'm next on the list?

Senator Kovacic, I have a list that has 15 names on it. We've done question 15. That was Senator Dean Smith. Any senator, as you know, can jump at any time. Senator Mulholland jumped, and I gave her the call.

Senator Kovacic, that may be your view. It's not my view. I've given Senator Mulholland the call. She is in the process, I think, of moving a suspension, so please resume your seat.

I move:

That so much of the order of the Senate agreed to on 29 October concerning the arrangements for question time be suspended as would prevent me asking a question of the Government.

Those opposite have been an absolute rabble this week—an absolute rabble. Earlier this week we warned Australians that the 'noalition' was back and it was back again—

Senator Ruston, on a point of order?

I was just wondering whether you could rule on whether the commentary so far from the senator actually goes directly to the urgency of the reason that she's suspended?

Thank you, Senator Ruston. I was going to call the senator to order, but, as we were only a few seconds in, I was going to give her the benefit of the doubt. But I'm well alive to that question. Senator Mulholland, I remind you that you need to talk about the urgency as to why you are seeking a suspension.

It is disappointing that the opposition are seeking to prevent me, an elected senator for the great state of Queensland, to get up in this place. They didn't want to hear from my colleague Senator Smith about women's—

On a point of order, I don't believe that Senator Mulholland actually moved her suspension.

She did, Senator Kovacic.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! And that is exactly why I've asked for silence.

Earlier this week we warned Australians that the 'noalition' was back. The coalition has been voting with the Greens all week in this place. They were so far off the reservation—the Greens—they were over here before, caucusing with the coalition.

Senator Mulholland, I will again remind you that you need to be informing the chamber as to why this matter is so urgent that you are seeking to suspend standing orders.

We saw on Sunday my good colleague Senator Canavan on Insiders, breaking from his usual schedule of back-to-back interviews on Sky News to go to Insiders to spread misinformation to the people of Queensland—

Senator Ruston, on a point of order?

On the matter that's currently before the chair, in terms of the urgency of the suspension, I do not believe that the senator is actually respecting your ruling and that is that she needs to tell us why this matter is so important.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! We have so many people in here with so many opinions. Senator Mulholland, I remind you once again that you need to inform the chamber as to why this matter is urgent.

As I said, the urgency is complete misinformation being spread into Queensland and into Australia over the weekend by those opposite. I'm surprised they don't want to hear it. They've never met a net zero question or motion they don't like to hear about, so I'm surprised they don't want to hear about this one. I've spent a lot of time in regional Queensland recently meeting with farmers and meeting with industry, and they want a consistent position from this opposition on net zero. Canefarmers and sugar millers in Mackay have been part of the net zero transition.

Senator Mulholland, I need to remind you again that you need to inform the chamber as to why your matter is urgent and why you are seeking to suspend standing orders.

It is urgent that we protect Queensland jobs in industry. They rely on this government to correct the record that was being spread over the weekend—the misinformation about the modelling that is being completely made up over there. I've spent time with canegrowers in Mackay. I've spent time with millers. These are people who are not just worried about net zero; they've been leading the pathway. They're not worried about it. They've been leading the pathway on net zero for decades. They have been turning cane biomass into ethanol for years.

Senator Mulholland, I am really struggling to see what the urgency of your suspension is. You need to focus on why you are seeking to suspend standing orders.

You've had so many helps here.

Senator McKenzie, I might be able to hear a little clearer if you are quiet.

I understand that those opposite might be uncomfortable with a woman asking a question in this place. They seem to be so upset about that today. I know they want to silence me on this matter. They're trying to silence their own colleagues on this matter. Mr Kennedy, the member for Cook, said: 'I support net zero as a target, frankly. It's an admirable target.' Senator Hume, up the back there—I can see you up the back there—you noted, 'The electorate has told us time and time again—

Senator Mulholland, I have now lost count of the times that I have directed you to inform the Senate—

Opposition senators interjecting—

When the frontbench on my left has quite finished, you need to inform the Senate as to why your matter is urgent and you are seeking to suspend standing orders. It's not about farmers in your state, Senator Mulholland. It is about the matters—

Senator Mulholland, you are not in a debate with me.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order on my left! The behaviour in this place is absolutely disgraceful and disrespectful. Order! Senator Mulholland, please continue.

Farmers and industry in my state have a right to know. I have a right to ask this question on behalf of them.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Perhaps you could get your colleagues to be quiet, Senator McKenzie. They haven't noticed that you are standing on a point of order.

On a point of order, the senator has repeatedly ignored your request to come to the urgency of her motion that she's trying to debate, and I would ask that you rule because this is getting farcical, three minutes in to her contribution.

Senator McKenzie, what is also farcical in this place is my many, many, many attempts since 2 pm to get silence in this place. If it's farcical and people are disrespecting my authority, I would ask senators to reflect on their own behaviour. I was prepared to hear Senator Mulholland finish her sentence. I have reminded her that she needs to inform the chamber as to what is so urgent about her matter that it requires the standing orders to be abandoned.

It is important and urgent that the people of Queensland hear from the minister about what the government's plan for net zero is and to go to the fact that non-executive members in this place are being barred from asking urgent questions—

Senator Ayres?

It's a little bit before four o'clock. The penny might be dropping over there and maybe that's the reason for the behaviour.

Senator Ayres, you do need to get to the point of order. We're not making statements.

I'd ask you to draw them again. I know you've been trying. I know this is distressing for them. But I'd ask you to ask them to settle down a little bit.

Once again, I will remind the chamber to come to order.

I believe it is urgent and important that the people of Queensland hear this information from the minister, and I ask that the question be heard by the Senate.

Senator Ruston, is this on the suspension?

Yes.

We'll always remember your acting leadership.

Yes, hopefully.

It's going very well.

I just wanted to correct the record for a number of things that have been said in this chamber during the last two hours. First and foremost is the—

A government member interjecting

We'll start with the urgency motion. This is probably one of the most serious issues that has been confronted by this chamber in the time since I started here. In 13 years, I have never seen a government so contemptuous of the conventions of this place in my time.

Government senators interjecting—

Absolutely contemptuous.

Order! Order across the chamber! Senator Ruston, I am also going to remind you that you need to be putting a debate which opposes Senator Mulholland's request motion to suspend. I'm prepared to hear you out, but I do want to hear that perspective, and I need to hear it in silence.

The reason that I believe that it is very important that we do not suspend the Senate and we allow it to continue to operate the way it was intended to operate today is because the importance of holding the government to account is being undermined by the continuous activities of those that are opposite. I would remind those opposite about the importance of this particular provision, and, as I said, in the 13 years that I have been in this place, I have never seen a government more intent in avoiding transparency, avoiding accountability and, quite frankly, avoiding what needs to happen—

Order on my right! Minster Gallagher?

I have a point of order on relevance. The Acting Leader of the Opposition in the Senate should be relevant to the question before the chair, which is whether or not the suspension should be moved.

Senator Ruston, I do remind you to be relevant to the suspension order and why you believe it's not necessary.

The reason I believe that the suspension is unnecessary is because the actions of this chamber are determined by the majority of members in this chamber. The majority of members in this chamber yesterday determined what the order of business was going to be today. The one thing that, unfortunately, you seemed to have forgotten in the hubris of coming into government is the fact that the rule of this chamber is determined by the majority and not by the government that does not have a majority in this place.

To come in here and constantly suspend on the basis that you just want to make some silly point about the processes—and they're talking about really serious issues. The issue that Senator Marielle Smith raised is a very, very serious issue. But why didn't she ask the question during question time? If it was so serious, Senator Smith, why did you not choose to ask it in the three questions that you're always able to ask on a Thursday? Equally, Senator Mulholland, why, if your question was so important, did you not ask it in the three questions that you are always able to ask on a Thursday? There has been no more restriction whatsoever on the number of questions that the government has been able to ask this Thursday than on any other Thursday throughout the entire time of this particular parliament.

The reality is that we have got a very serious issue before the Senate. The very serious issue before this Senate is that you are still refusing to comply with the order of this Senate, as per the motion moved by Senator Pocock, to provide him with a document. So unless you are prepared to take seriously the will of this Senate—the majority of this Senate—then you continue to sit here in contempt of the Senate. There could be no more urgent or serious issue than the fact that the Labor government, the minority number of people in this place, are showing complete contempt for a decision of the Senate—absolute contempt. When you actually are prepared to come into this place and honour the greater will of this Senate, the majority of this Senate—when you're prepared to come into this place and actually accept that the will of the Senate should prevail—that will be when we accept the fact that you are not in contempt. But the reality is that things are different when they're not the same in this place, because, as I said, you come in here and you are contemptuous—

Minister Gallagher, a point of order?

On relevance—it sounds like the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate is about to embark on a new line of remarks and is not being relevant to the question before the chair, which is whether or not we should suspend. It sounded very much like she was about to quote something.

I will listen carefully. I did think you were starting to drift, Senator Ruston, but I'll give you the benefit of doubt, and I'll continue to listen.

Thank you very much. I think exactly what we just saw as a point of order is the point at stake here. That is that, every time anybody seeks to make any comment that would actually call the government out for their rank hypocrisy, their lack of transparency or their lack of accountability, they call the point of order and try and make sure they shut us down. Well, you can't shut the people of Australia down. We are sent here to do a job. This Senate has got a role to play, and the first thing that you need to realise is that the majority will of the Senate should prevail.

I welcome the opportunity to support the suspension that's been moved by Senator Mulholland and argued for very strongly. It is a legitimate point that both Senator Smith and Senator Mulholland raised, which is the right, when representing their states—the good states of South Australia and Queensland—in this place, that they be afforded the same rights as any other member of this place to ask a question. Yesterday—

Once again on my left—I ensured that your leader was heard in silence, and that respect will now go to Minister Gallagher. Minister Gallagher, please continue.

To continue there: the fact is that we have senators here who are being restricted, by a motion of this place, in their ability to ask questions—not only today but in an ongoing sense—including restricting Mondays to just two questions for government senators. So for everyone who turns up to work here and works hard here—not allowed anything more than two questions on a Monday and three on any other sitting day whilst everyone else is afforded the opportunity to ask a question. So we raise a legitimate point—raised by Senator Mulholland and Senator Smith.

You've had your 15 questions. We're moving into the next stage. They have every right to stand up and seek leave, just as you have a right to deny it, as you will continue to do, it seems, this afternoon. But we have a right for our senators to ask questions as well, and we will continue to argue for that through question time. We did not agree to and did not support the motion yesterday. Some come in here and talk about convention. Well, convention was ripped up yesterday. That's what happened. This chamber relies on a level of cooperation because it is a minority chamber. No-one has the numbers. It relies on cooperation; for a large part it does. Most people don't see those levels of cooperation, because it is done collegiately, just as it is done in committee systems. But yesterday that changed. And, of course, we have every right to defend our members, members of the government, and their right to ask questions through question time, which is what they're seeking to do. Moving a suspension, if that's the only way that that will be allowed—

Minister Ruston?

Maybe you could draw the minister's attention to explain why it's so urgent.

The minister is explaining why it's urgent, Senator Ruston. Minister Gallagher, please continue.

Senator Ruston, how embarrassing. I had just literally said the word 'suspension' when you jumped to your feet and said that I wasn't being relevant. I literally said that the reason why—

Senator Ruston, is this a point of order?

I wasn't talking about the speech; I was asking you why it was so urgent.

Senator Ruston, we're not in the committee stage debating across the chamber, although, quite frankly, it feels a bit like that. Minister Gallagher, please continue.

Yes. I think Senator Cash might have turned off the livestream by now. But—oh, God! What have they done? What have they done?

Senator Scarr, I'm sure you're aware that your voice is very, very loud. I would ask that you (1) not interject, but, if you are going to ignore my order, then do it quietly.

We did not support the motion yesterday. We didn't support the motion because, for as long as I can recall—and we can go back and check—the convention has been that the roster for question time is presented by the government but agreed across the parties, and yesterday that changed. Senator Smith wanted to ask a question on women's health—denied by this chamber. Senator Mulholland wants to ask a question about net zero—denied by this chamber. So we can seek leave and support our members and their right to ask questions, and we will make you deny them leave. Everyone will watch you—this shambles of an opposition that can't agree on how to handle a bill without requesting it to be split; everyone will watch you and see the shambles that you are and the way that you treat this chamber. That's what they'll see. That is the lesson for this week. We will support the rights of our team to ask the important questions that the people of Australia care about—not waste two questions about questions about themselves, which is how we kicked off this question time today. Questions about the economy, questions about women's health, questions about net zero, questions about industry—all across the board—questions about family and domestic violence and questions about the racial discrimination act. That's what this government does. It focuses on the issues that matter to the Australian people, while those opposite focus on themselves, fight themselves—disunity, division—the shambles that they are. We will ensure that our elected representatives get treated with the respect that they deserve, the respect that everyone else in this chamber expects, and they have their right to ask questions in this chamber. That is what we will do, and we will continue to do it.

I rise to speak to the suspension. The urgency of it, I would argue, is severely lacking. I would be calling Minister Collins, the agriculture minister, whose staff I'm sure will be watching in this chamber, to please reach out to Senator Mulholland, reach out to colleagues—

Senator McKenzie, you've been very quick on your feet to draw people to the issue of the suspension—

The urgency of the suspension—

You need to get there pretty quick because I haven't heard it yet, so please continue.

I'll start again. I rise to speak on the lack of urgency on this suspension, because having been the minister for agriculture of this great country, I can say that my door was always open to every single backbencher, every member of the Labor Party—had they ever chosen to come and talk to me about agriculture—and every member of the parliament if they wanted to actually raise an issue about agriculture. So to Minister Collins, who has the great privilege of being the agriculture minister, you've heard Senator Mulholland talk about Queensland cane farmers—

Senator Ayres?

On relevance to the urgency, I'm not sure what agricultural policy has to do with it.

Senator McKenzie, I am going to draw you to the issue of the suspension. The issue of the suspension is whether you believe it is urgent or not urgent. That is where your remarks need to go. It's not about visiting ministers or anything like that but about why it's either relevant or not relevant.

As I understood Senator Mulholland's request for urgency in her question, it was about concern for Queensland cane farmers and other farmers in regional Queensland that she's met. She had a question that was so urgent she needed to ask it today. My response to that is: she should be able to knock on the door of her own colleague Minister Collins and ask the question of her and not just for the cane farmers—they might want to get involved in biofuels with their cane waste—but the cattle industry up in northern Queensland—

Senator McKenzie you are drifting.

or, indeed, the importation of Philippine bananas.

You need to focus on the suspension.

I am on the suspension.

Senator McKenzie, you're not in a debate with me.

I'm not—

This is about the suspension of the Senate.

Yes—the suspension of the Senate which is being requested so a certain senator can ask questions about cane farmers in Queensland. I'm concerned that the tactics committee of the Labor government has not sought to prioritise Queensland cane farmers or, indeed, middle-aged women in Adelaide on behalf of Senator Smith, who lives just down the road from the Minister for Health, Disability and Ageing. She could literally just go and ask Mark Butler on behalf of her constituents. She could even run a forum next weekend in Adelaide on the issue she—

Senator Polley?

Through you, President, could you remind the good senator to use peoples' titles. As someone who was a minister, surely you would know you can't just go and knock on the door and see a minister when it suits you.

Senator Polley, I did not take note as to whether Senator McKenzie referred to ministers by their correct titles. She usually does. But I am going to remind you, Senator McKenzie, it is not about whether ministers are available or not available; it's about the matter at hand. It is the suspension of the Senate and whether the matter is so urgent—or not urgent, in your view—that is at debate, so please focus your remarks on that.

I will be laserlike in my focus.

Excellent.

When Senator Mulholland was talking about the types of questions she wanted to ask, she referred to 2050, I think, as a timeframe. That's a quarter of a century away. We have question time next week. If the Labor Party's argument is that it is so urgent—I would argue the Labor Party executive has discerned that it's not urgent, because their own question time tactics committee put other questions ahead of Senator Mulholland's Queensland farmers and Senator Smith's issues around health. It is not this chamber's role to do the tactics committee decision-making that Senator Gallagher and Senator Farrell are actually in charge of.

What we are concerned about in this chamber is that it's not a convention that's being broken. This question time was an order of the Senate, not a convention. It's an order of the Senate as of yesterday, and you are all in contempt of it, because how this question time was meant to be operating is not a convention. The executive branch of the government of this parliament is taking unprecedented steps to influence and coerce members of parliament. This chamber is sovereign, alright? It's sovereign under our Constitution. And you might not like the orders of the Senate, but you have to comply with them.

I am a former minister that had to comply with an order of the Senate to do something unprecedented: to appear before a Senate committee and answer questions. I respect this chamber, I respect its authority, and I respect its sovereignty and my responsibilities. I did that. The Labor Party's absolutely ridiculous response here today has shown they are not up for being accountable and transparent as a government. They don't want to release documents. They don't want to be subjected to FOIs. They don't want their ministers to turn up and make explanations.

Senator McKenzie, you're drifting off the point again. It's about the suspension.

The unprecedented action that this chamber took yesterday to change the way question time—

Thank you, Senator McKenzie.

I would argue that the motion is urgent. It is urgent because it's important. It's urgent because it's important, and it's important because it goes to a series of questions that go to the question that the senator was proposing to ask itself. It goes materially to the urgency of that question. It goes to the rights of senators, particularly backbench senators in this Senate, 19 of them, whom yesterday's resolution would disenfranchise entirely by deliberate design from a majority resolution of this Senate. It's important and it's urgent because it goes to the conventions and the kind of modes of behaviour and the modes of operation that a minority chamber demands. That's why it's important and it's urgent.

I can tell you that, in addition to that, it is urgent because what it does is expose the lack of political judgement and the lack of interest in the democratic institutions that are engaged and the democratic principles that are engaged in this place. It is not a majority chamber. It is a chamber where there are a series of parties, none of whom commands a majority themselves. What that means is that conventions really matter and that, if you adopt an approach which is all about trying to impose, by majority will, on the chamber to exclude people—

On a point of order—or maybe you could ask for a point of clarification—on 'enforce the majority view', I was wondering if the minister might—

Senator Ruston, you know very well that's a debating point. Please resume your seat.

Fundamentally, what has been exposed this afternoon is the lack of judgement of those opposite and the self-absorption of those opposite.

Point of order, Madam President: I have not heard the urgency that the minister is going to.

The minister is being directly relevant to the question. I will continue to listen very closely.

This is a series of parties who pretend to aspire to government and are entirely absorbed by themselves.

Point of order, President: this is just general abuse. It's not going to the urgency point.

I will listen very carefully to the remainder of this sentence, and, as you should have observed by now, if any senator is not being relevant, I will remind them to be relevant. I am listening very carefully.

As I said at the outset, this matter is urgent because it's important because it goes to the capacity of this chamber to perform its proper function. There have been some assertions made in this debate. I was listening to Senator McKenzie talk about the sovereign role of this chamber, and I was reminded of a question that was asked by one of the senators from One Nation, or a contribution earlier, where he quoted—

I've got Senator Scarr on his feet.

Again, Senator Ayres is now drifting off to questions asked by One Nation. It doesn't go to the urgency in relation to the matter before the President.

Minister Ayres started off, if you were listening, by referring to a contribution that Senator McKenzie made, which was directly relevant. He has just, as you indicated, mentioned One Nation. If that is not relevant, I will draw him to the point, but he is being relevant, and give me an opportunity to hear the rest of his contribution.

The senator referred to a constituent whose name, he alleged, was Carlos Montoya. I refer Senator McKenzie to the immortal words of Inigo Montoya, who said in The Princess Bride:

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

That is the wrong approach—

You are not being relevant to the suspension. Senator Henderson.

Another point of order. Could I ask that you ask the senator to direct his comments through the chair please.

Thank you, Senator Henderson. Minister Ayres, I remind you to direct your comments to me.

And I will. I simply think that, as I indicated, this matter has some importance. It is urgent that it is dealt with this afternoon. I'm entitled, absolutely, to respond to the contentions that are being made by others in this debate. We will continue to be here, available to answer questions, all afternoon, all night. We will be here all through next week answering questions, and, on that basis, I move:

That the question be now put.

You wish me to address the point of order, Senator Scarr? The minister has sat down.

He's talking about answering questions all evening. It's totally irrelevant.

The minister has now asked that the motion be put. I am going to move to that. The question is that the question be put.

Honourable senators interjecting—

I am just wondering how long I have to stand here.

Transparency warriors!

Oh, just continue on, Senator McKenzie, because we're all here for your benefit! I stood because this place was out of order. We are at adults, and, earlier this week, we passed a motion about respect. In the last 2½ hours, I have really struggled to see that. It is one thing to have a robust debate; it is quite another to ignore me when I call for order.

The question is that the question be put.

I believe there is one minute left, Senator Paterson.

On the question of urgency, I have empathy for Senator Mulholland and Senator Smith. We've all been there, as a government backbencher, hoping to get a question in question time, hoping the tactics committee will pick our question, but sometimes we don't get our question up. That can be frustrating; that can be disappointing. But when you're upset about that, when you're angry about that, you've got to direct your frustration to the right place. The people who decide who gets to ask the questions that you're allocated is not the chamber. It's not the opposition, it's not the crossbench and it's not even the Greens. It's your own tactics committee. It's your own leadership. If your colleagues agreed with you that your questions were genuinely urgent, they would have given you one of the many questions that you could've asked this week—one of the three questions that you had this week. As touched as I am by your efforts to fight for the ancient right to ask dixers, I can say they're not convincing anyone.

Order! The time for this debate has expired. The question is that the motion to suspend be agreed to. A division is required, so the matter will be deferred to next week because we are at the point where there are no divisions.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Farrell. Minister, the Building Industry 2000 slush fund was first exposed at the 2014 royal commission, more than a decade ago, as a CFMEU controlled slush fund worth over $1 million used to bankroll union and political campaigns. Today it still holds over $920,000. Under this government's watch, former CFMEU bosses John Setka and Ralph Edwards secretly transferred the fund's registration to Edwards's private home address, and the administrator appointed to clean up the union didn't even know it had happened. Given the administrator has known about this fund for over 10 years and it has been on the public record since the royal commission, how can the Prime Minister possibly have confidence in him when the same slush fund is being used to undermine his administration?

I thank the senator for her question. It's the Labor government that has been taking on the CFMEU. It's the Labor Party, particularly under Minister Watt, that took all the steps to put the—

Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. I remind senators of the motion passed in this Senate yesterday for extra questions. As I said at the onset of question 11, these questions will be heard in silence. If you can't maintain your silence, please leave the Senate. Minister Farrell, please continue.

Thank you for that protection. It's this Labor government that has been taking the action against the rogue CFMEU. You had all these organisations in place to try and deal with it, and none of them—none of them—did the job. It's the Labor government, led by Prime Minister Albanese—and I'll point out that it was Prime Minister Albanese who expelled John Setka from the Labor Party. Not only have we taken action against the union; we've taken it against the—

Senator McGrath, which part of my request for silence did you not understand? Please continue, Minister Farrell.

I totally reject the premise of your question. I've mentioned it before, and I'll say it again: this is an action government. This is an action government. Where we see a problem, we act.

Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator McKenzie.

On a point of order on direct relevance, the minister hasn't gone anywhere near the fund that the senator mentioned in her question. He knows that Premier Malinauskas—

That's enough. We're not having statements. The minister is being relevant to the question. I'll continue to listen carefully, and, if he isn't, I will draw him back to the question. Minister Farrell.

I've finished.

You've finished? Senator Kovacic, first supplementary?

There was no answer to my initial question. However, Minister, if the administrator didn't even know this transfer had occurred, how can Australians have any confidence that he is in control or that Minister Rishworth is? Does the Prime Minister still have confidence in his minister, given that she doesn't know what's happening under her watch or she simply does not care?

I thank Senator Kovacic for her first supplementary question. I would have no doubt that the Prime Minister has the greatest confidence in Minister Rishworth. I've known Minister Rishworth for a very, very long time. I also have the greatest of confidence in her. If anybody can deal with the issues of corruption and other issues in the CFMEU, it will be Minister Rishworth. She is full bottle on all of these issues, and I think she is absolutely the perfect person to be taking it up to the CFMEU. She will get to the bottom of all of these things—have no doubt. (Time expired)

Senator Kovacic, second supplementary?

Can the minister confirm that Mr Zach Smith is still a member of the ALP National Executive?

Senator Kovacic, I believe that is not a portfolio question. That goes to party machinery. But I will invite the minister to respond in whatever way he thinks is appropriate. Minister Farrell.

I don't know, but I'll find out for you.

I seek leave to ask a question on behalf of the state of New South Wales regarding smelting in the Australian manufacturing sector.

Leave not granted.

I seek leave to ask a question on behalf of the state of Victoria regarding the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

Leave not granted.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing. Yesterday the Minister for Health and Ageing, Mark Butler, revealed on the ABC that, if GPs cannot afford to fully bulk-bill after 1 November, the government will 'intervene in the market'. Can the minister please outline how the government intends to intervene in the market and what impact that would have on a small family practice?

The government is determined to defend the principle of universal health care. We believe that that is critical for Australians, and we want to make sure that as many Australians as possible can access bulk-billing. Minister Butler made some comments yesterday—I think they are self-explanatory—and he referred to some of the steps that have been taken here in the ACT, in consultation with Senator Gallagher, to make sure that those services are indeed available here.

Are you on a point of order, Senator Ruston?

It was on a point of order. I'm just wondering if the minister could actually address my question.

Have you concluded, Minister? Yes, she has. First supplementary, Senator Ruston?

Will the minister rule out compulsory acquisition of small family practices if they choose not to sign up to the government's program?

Our focus is very clear. It's on providing the investment that is necessary to restore bulk-billing after a decade of neglect which saw bulk-billing in freefall, according to the assessment of the College of GPs. We intend to deal with that because we understand that public health care and the universal availability of health care are part of our Australian tradition and in the interests of all Australians.

Senator Ruston, second supplementary?

Thank you, Minister. Can you confirm that the average out-of-pocket cost Australians are currently paying to see their GP is $49.14, which is $7 more than in May 2022?

What I can confirm for the senator is that next week we will see very substantial numbers of GP practices deciding to bulk-bill where this week they are not. And that is a good thing and in the interests of all Australians and their health care.

I seek leave to ask a question on behalf of the mighty state of South Australia regarding housing for all Australians.

Leave not granted.

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. The Treasurer blocked public access to documents exchanged between the superannuation industry and the government back in 2022 and 2023 concerning payment structures between Housing Australia and investors. Can you please explain why Assemble, a developer majority owned by AustralianSuper and HESTA, is now the biggest beneficiary of round 1 of the HAFF, receiving over $2 billion of taxpayers' money?

I thank Senator Henderson for the question—going back into the question archives to get that one from 2022, no less. On superannuation, there is no greater supporter of superannuation than the Treasurer, and, as the senator knows, all applications to the Housing Australia Future Fund and decisions about the fund and the first-round offers are all handled independently of government.

Senator Henderson, first supplementary?

Minister, can you please tell the Senate what the super funds told the government to do when you were consulting with them on the creation of the Housing Australia Future Fund?

There were a wide range of discussions with superannuation firms as part of the work that was done on housing in general. I can't summarise here in the chamber today what would be 3½ years of discussions across government, across departments and across relevant ministers.

Senator Henderson, second supplementary?

Minister, community housing providers have expressed significant concerns about for-profit entities like big super funds being involved in social and affordable housing, with an anonymous provider telling the ABC:

If you can make a 6 per cent return out of social and affordable housing, you can't be managing your tenants very well.

Does the government believe the super funds are the best landlords for Australians?

From my dealings with the community housing sector, they're pleased that they've got a government that actually cares about social housing, as opposed to those opposite, who did nothing and built no social housing for the entire decade that they were in government. We are using every lever available to us, be it working with superannuation funds, other investors, build to rent, help to buy—you name it—because we're serious about delivering housing to the people of Australia after a decade of neglect from those opposite.

I seek leave to ask a question on behalf of the people of my great home state of Western Australia regarding frontline service improvements.

Order! Senator Henderson, I am going to invite—

Because I've asked for respect in here.

Senator Henderson! I've asked for respect. I'm going to invite Senator Whiteaker to put her question again. You will wait until she's finished speaking.

I seek—

Opposition senators interjecting—

You've got to be joking.

Can't ask a question but also can't seek leave—okay.

Senator Whitaeker, just put your question.

I seek leave to ask a question on behalf of the people of my home state of Western Australia regarding frontline service improvements.

Leave not granted.

I've got a question for the Minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator McAllister, but could I also just say I think this is a really landmark question time, because—

Senator Pocock, no.

This is part of my question. I can say what I want.

Honourable senators interjecting—

The clock's running; I can say what I want. It's landmark because we have Labor senators actually asking questions on behalf of their state, not on behalf of the Labor Party!

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Senator Pocock, resume your seat. Order! Senator Watt.

Senator McKenzie interjecting—

In your own time, Senator McKenzie. I'm standing. Senator Pocock, I reminded the Senate at question 11 that questions would be heard in silence. I have reminded the Senate most of the afternoon that I want respect in this place in line with the motion that we moved earlier in the week. You stood up to ask a question and you had to have a go. If you have a question, ask it of Minister McAllister as you outlined.

I thought I was pointing out a fact, but—

Senator Pocock, please resume your seat.

I would ask Senator Pocock to withdraw his remarks, given that, due to his actions, Labor senators were prevented from asking questions on behalf of their state. Perhaps he could withdraw his imputation.

Senator Watt, that is a debating point. Senator Pocock, please continue with your question.

Minister, how many GP practices in the ACT have signed up to MyMedicare and expressed interest in bulk-billing all services from 1 November?

I thank Senator Pocock for the question. As you know, I think, Canberra has quite longstanding issues with GP availability, and it is in fact on that basis that the government has acted to try and establish arrangements so that Canberrans and people in the ACT can attend bulk-billing services. Indeed, Labor's healthcare plan for the ACT will deliver a $24.3 million package to deliver three new fully bulk-billed GP practices with a $10½ million bulk-billing GP attraction initiative to attract new general practitioners to Canberra to address these issues, which are, as you know, longstanding.

Senator Pocock, first supplementary?

Thank you, Minister. I really appreciate the additional investment in GPs and the acknowledgement that we have one of the lowest bulk-billing rates in the country. But I'm interested in how many GP practices in the ACT have signed up to MyMedicare and expressed interest to fully bulk-bill from 1 November.

As I've indicated, we are determined to restore bulk-billing for Australians, and we recognise the challenges in the ACT. It is why we are making the investments that I referred to in my answer to your primary question. We understand that this matters.

Second supplementary, Senator Pocock?

Again, Minister, I really welcome the additional investment. Maybe I can take from your answer that no clinics have signed up to MyMedicare to fully bulk-bill from 1 November. Can the government explain why bulk-billing for ultrasounds, MRIs and CTs has roughly halved in the ACT over the past year?

In relation to the first part of Senator Pocock's question, no; he cannot assume that. He should not assume that on the basis of my answer. Again, I refer Senator Pocock to the challenges that we are facing right across the country, but particularly in the ACT, in relation to access to bulk-billed services. We, on this side of the chamber, understand that that requires a response. It's on that basis that we went to the election with an $8½ billion investment to lift bulk-billing and to lift access to bulk-billing services. There is a great deal to do to restore the damage that was done by those opposite over their period in government when they sought to rip the heart out of funding for Medicare.

I seek leave to ask a question on behalf of the people of the great state of Tasmania regarding restoring trust in the Australian Public Service.

Leave not granted.

Senator Ruston?

I'm seeking some direction from you as the chair. In the motion that was moved yesterday in relation to the changes for question time as a result of the government refusing to comply with the orders of the Senate, part (d)(ii) said:

… the maximum number of primary questions that may be asked by government senators is two on Monday and three on any other day …

Today the government has asked three questions in question time, and I'm seeking your direction as to why you are continuing to give the call to the government.

Senator Ruston, I am very surprised you would ask that question, because any senator is free at any time to seek leave, and that is what they are doing. I believe Senator Dolega sought leave. He's been denied.

I seek leave to move a motion that the Senate does not adjourn until the Leader of the Government in the Senate asks that further questions be placed on notice.

Leave not granted.

I'm going to give the call to Senator Henderson.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order across the chamber! I've got Senator Hanson-Young on her feet. I remind senators that I said at question 11 there would be silence. I remind senators of the motion we passed earlier in the week about respect. I don't mind robust debate. That is what we are here for, but it will be respectful, and that includes not interjecting and not interjecting across the chamber. When I ask for order, you need to come to order.

I seek leave to give a notice of motion. The reason I'm asking for this, if I could just let you know, is that I would like to give notice of this motion before 5.30, given that that's the adjournment time, and earlier today there was a confusion over the timing of when notices of motion were called. I would like to be able to give a notice of motion for another day.

Leave granted.

On the next day of sitting, I will move a motion relating to the hearing dates for the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee.

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Following yesterday's confirmation of a shock rise in inflation to 3.2 per cent, economist Saul Eslake said:

Today's September quarter #inflation numbers were an absolute shocker, and have ruled out whatever chance there was of the Reserve Bank of Australia cutting its #cashrate at next weeks' Monetary Policy Board meeting.

The ABC's Alan Kohler said yesterday's numbers were 'generally seen as a very ugly report', noting that the annual rate for the last six months was actually 4.2 per cent and that the odds of a November rate cut were now zero. Minister, do you agree with RBA governor Michele Bullock that these numbers, fuelled by out-of-control government spending, are a material miss which will hurt Australian mortgage payers?

I appreciate the question from Senator Paterson at five o'clock. Some three hours in, we get to dealing with the shadow finance spokesperson on matters of the economy. I do agree that Senator Paterson routinely verbals the Reserve Bank governor, and he's done that again today. As Senator Paterson knows, we've got inflation down and debt down, real wages are growing, unemployment is low and interest rates have fallen three times. There is more work to do, and this is a government that's rolling its sleeves up and doing it.

Senator Paterson, first supplementary?

Yesterday's figures confirm electricity costs annually have risen 23.6 per cent. KPMG's chief economist, Brendan Rynne, said:

We knew there was going to be an uptick in inflation once electricity rebates were wound back but unfortunately today's spike is much higher than any of us anticipated.

Will the minister finally admits the government's promise to reduce power prices is now in tatters, causing more pain to Australian households?

The government will always support Australian households with cost-of-living pressure, and those opposite are the ones that have voted against it time and time again.

Senator Paterson, second supplementary?

Since the government brought down its high-spending, high-deficit budget, annual inflation on food has jumped to 3.1 per cent, housing to 4.7 per cent, health to 4.2 per cent, education to 5.3 per cent and even pet services to five per cent. Citibank economist Josh Williamson said, 'All major expenditure groups barring one rose in the September quarter, suggesting price pressures were being felt across the economy.' Will the government change its reckless spending policies, which are driving up prices across all essential aspects of life? (Time expired)

We know what those opposite want to do. They want to cut Medicare. They want to cut payments to people. They want to cut pensions. They want to cut the Public Service. Nothing has changed from the shambles of an opposition that went to the last election. They keep going on about out-of-control spending; what they don't say is Medicare, pensions and payments will all be cut if they ever get back into government again. This government takes a responsible approach and will continue to do so.

I am aware that there are at least two Greens senators at the airport despite wanting to be in question time instead, but I seek leave to move that the Senate does not adjourn until the Leader of the Government in the Senate asks that further questions be placed on notice, because, if people are so insistent about doing question time, we are here all night.

Leave not granted.

On a point of order: Senator Watt reflected on the absence of two Greens senators. He should withdraw that reflection. He really should.

He didn't name anyone. The custom is that you don't name senators if they are absent from the chamber. They were not named. Senator Hanson-Young?

We are partly in this mess because there's a particular senator who is not here, and it's Senator Wong, who isn't at the table. Let's not get into pettiness right now.

Honourable senators interjecting—

I'm going to wait for silence. That is what I have requested since question 11.

She's actually representing the country, like you swill.

What was that?

Senator Ruston, which bit did you miss? I requested silence. I'm waiting for it. Senator Ruston?

I was just wondering if you might ask Senator Sterle to withdraw.

I didn't hear what was said.

He called them swill.

Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. If I need your intervention, I will ask for it. Senator Sterle, I'm sure, will withdraw.

I certainly will. There were a number of things that I said, but I'll withdraw the whole lot.

Thank you.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Minister, as highlighted in Crikey today, your government decided to breach the standard payment terms of 30 days to rush through a $798 million payment to the US under AUKUS in May. Why did your government abandon Commonwealth procurement rules to rush through this payment to Donald Trump in May in just 24 hours?

As I indicated in answer to the question you asked earlier, the government is wholly committed to advancing the AUKUS arrangements, particularly in relation to the acquisition of submarine capability. As we have canvassed on many occasions in the estimates hearings, that includes an agreement that we have formed with the United States to uplift their industrial base. We don't step away from those agreements, and we don't step away from our commitment to AUKUS, because we believe it is in the nation's national interests.

Senator Shoebridge, first supplementary?

Minister, thank you for reiterating your commitment to spending $375 billion of public money on nuclear submarines we won't get, but could you please answer the question as to why your government—in this case the Australian Submarine Agency—decided to breach Commonwealth procurement rules to rush a $798 million payment through to Donald Trump in just 24 hours?

The schedule of payments and the fact of those is well established and well understood as part of the arrangements with the United States, and indeed we have arrangements with the United Kingdom as part of the AUKUS framework overall.

Senator Shoebridge, second supplementary?

Minister, that's a fascinating statement—that the schedule of payments is well known. Your government has refused to publish the schedule of payments, refused to provide them to the public and refused to tell us when the next payment will be made. If the schedule of payments is so well known, why won't you produce them to the public, and why won't you tell us when the next payment's due?

As I indicated to you in my answer to your first supplementary question, the fact of the schedule is well known and the fact of our arrangements with the United States' dimension of the AUKUS agreement is well known.

Senator Shoebridge, you may have missed it. I said from question 11 onwards that in this place, questions and answers would be heard in silence. That applies to you.

I seek leave to ask a question on behalf of the engine room of our nation and the economy and a state that brings five brilliant Labor senators here, Western Australia, regarding Commonwealth government procurement and the Buy Australia Plan.

Leave not granted.

My question is for the Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Science, Senator Ayres. As I'm sure he's aware, this week the operators of Tomago Aluminium smelter were told they might be imminently closing as higher power prices destroy the viability of this great facility. On this news, Tomago's operators said:

… we have enjoyed the benefit of affordable coal based contracts for the last 40 years of operation, actually, from Tomago's perspective …

Minister, cheap coal fired energy has powered this facility for forty years, and, just four years into this government's renewables obsession, they are looking to shut down. When will this government admit that its obsession with renewable energy targets over everything else is destroying Australian manufacturing jobs?

Senator Canavan has indeed mischaracterised what the owners of that facility said. They said this week that they were unable to secure power contracts—coal, renewable or otherwise. I know that you will continue to do that. How much can a koala bear, Senator Canavan? This government will keep working on this issue, as you would expect that we would.

Senator Canavan, first supplementary?

Minister, the thermal coal that Tomago relied upon to power its smelter is the best and cleanest coal in the world—in the Hunter Valley. Near Tomago is Newcastle. It's the world's the biggest coal port, from which we send that coal to the world, including to China who produces 60 per cent of the world's aluminium. Minister, why is it okay for us to send Australian coal to China to create aluminium jobs there but not okay for us to use Australian coal here to create Australian jobs in our country?

Because we're for blue-collar jobs and for maintaining the cheapest possible electricity in Australia—

Opposition senators interjecting—

and your plan would mean fewer jobs and would smash blue-collar industry in this country.

I remind those senators on my left that, since question 11, I have asked for silence. That is what will happen in this chamber. Minister Ayres, please continue. You've finished. Senator Canavan, second supplementary?

Earlier this year you, along with the Prime Minister, travelled to Tomago and told the workers there that we're switching to reliable energy electricity from Gladstone to Portland and Bell Bay to Tomago. Minister, the Bell Bay smelter risks closure, Tomago is knocking on death's door, and the Portland and Boyne Island smelters are battling against skyrocketing power costs too. The government's reckless renewable energy plan has failed; it's sending manufacturing jobs offshore. When will you change course and protect Australian jobs?

We'll always protect Australian jobs. We've demonstrated over the course of just the last few months how hard we'll work on behalf of jobs, including in Queensland, including at the Boyne Island smelter—which is out there now underwriting wind contracts and solar contracts. It's being supported by the LNP Queensland government too.

Senator Cox?

I seek leave to ask a question on behalf of my constituents from the state of Western Australia regarding environmental law reform.

Leave not granted.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Farrell. The government has publicly described the incident on 19 to 20 October in the South China Sea in which a Chinese Su-35 fighter jet released flares dangerously close to a Royal Australian Air Force P-8A Poseidon maritime surveillance aircraft as 'unsafe and unprofessional', yet the PM still labels China as friends. What is the government's view of the incident, does the PM truly believe China is a friend, and how is Australia ensuring its aircraft and crew are safe in the region?

I thank the senator for her question. The Australian government places the highest priority on the protection and defence of our military, whether they're at sea, on land or in the air. There's no greater responsibility that this government has than to ensure that our defence forces are protected. The issue that you referred to has been raised by the Prime Minister with the relevant officials of the Chinese government, and we have made our position very clear, as you have spoken about.

Senator Blyth, first supplementary?

How does the government balance maintaining trade with its friend China versus regional security concerns?

This government can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Senator Blyth, second supplementary?

What steps is the government taking to reassure Australians, including the families of ADF personnel and the Australian public more broadly, that our maritime surveillance and freedom-of-navigation operations will continue safely?

I thank the senator for her second supplementary question. Well, Senator, we are spending $365 million to build submarines to do exactly that, and they're being built in your home state of South Australia.

My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, Minister Farrell. On 8 October 2024, in response to my question on the progress of the National Housing and Homelessness Plan, you said:

We are working with the states and territories as we speak. The new minister, Clare O'Neil, is working very hard to get movement on that project.

I, again, asked for an update in February this year. We're now in October, and the plan has still not been released. Can the minister tell the Senate when the plan will be released.

Senator Pocock, I think you directed your question to Senator Farrell. I'm happy to ask the senator to—

I may have got it wrong. Is it Minister Ayres?

It's Minister Ayres.

Thank you very much.

Minister Ayres.

This government has an ambitious program for housing. It's worth many tens of billions of dollars. It's focused on supply, and it's also focused on supplying people with the opportunity—young Australians—for five per cent home deposits, and we're getting on with it.

Senator Pocock, first supplementary?

I appreciate the many things that the Labor government is doing in terms of housing, but one of them that we haven't seen is the National Housing and Homelessness Plan, which was promised at the 2022 election. I was hoping the minister could give an update to the Senate as to when that will be finalised.

The minister is working hard on that process. There was a consultation process, which is ongoing, with 1,700 participants, and that process will continue until we're confident that we've got the cooperation across the economy and with the states and territories that's required to deal with the challenge.

Senator Pocock, second supplementary?

Minister, I've heard from stakeholders who are concerned that there may never be a national housing and homelessness plan. Can the Labor government commit today that there will, in fact, be one by the end of this term?

Well, that's a document. Our plan is to get on with $43 billion to address housing availability and affordability, helping people with lower home deposits, smaller mortgages and 100,000 new homes just for first home buyers.

I seek leave to ask a question on behalf of the great state of South Australia, noting I will be the third person to have an attempt at getting a question asked on behalf of the good people of South Australia this afternoon. My question, should leave be granted, is related to Digital ID and how it will assist renters.

Leave not granted.

My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. Minister, your EPBC changes will negatively impact our mining sector. It will delay approvals, it will undermine our economy and it will not deliver better environmental outcomes. How many current mining approvals will be forced to comply with new conditions, or do you guarantee no retrospective changes?

I thank Senator McDonald. I might make the point that it should be very clear to all watching that it is the opposition and the Greens who have prevented this parliament from continuing to sit and answer questions this afternoon. We're prepared to stay as long as anyone wants us and as long as anyone has got questions. Twice we've attempted to move to not adjourn until the Leader of the Government in the Senate asks that further questions be placed on notice. It would appear that Senator David Pocock, for all of his posturing; the opposition, for all of their posturing; and the Greens don't want to stay and ask questions.

Senator McDonald?

Relevance.

Have you finished answering, Minister?

He hasn't started!

Opposition senators interjecting—

Senator McKenzie, I have reminded the Senate since question 11 that these additional questions came from a motion of the Senate yesterday, which was agreed to by the chamber, and I have said since question 11 that questions and answers will be heard in silence. I also remind all senators of the motion that was passed earlier in the week, which went to respect. I should not have to call individual senators to order. I should not even have to call, 'Order!' You can have the robust debate in the answer to your question, but, in the intervening time, you will listen in silence.

Senator McDonald, you made a point of order. I will draw the minister to your question. Minister Watt.

I'm very pleased that from day one, when we introduced the bill into the House of Representatives, we've seen support for the reforms from the Ai Group—who, of course, represent many businesses in the mining sector—from the Clean Energy Council and from the housing industry of Australia. Just like they're on board, you should get on board too.

Senator McDonald, first supplementary?

Given that the minister has just refused to guarantee that there will be no retrospective changes—Minister, it takes 16 years on average for a mine to progress from exploration to production. Will you guarantee that the stop-work orders proposed in the EPBC changes will have clear time limits imposed?

I've got a really good suggestion for Senator McDonald for how to speed up approval times, and that's to vote for the government's legislation.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! There are a number of people jumping. I'm assuming that you are seeking to ask questions, rather than raise points of order, because we are still with Senator McDonald. Senator McDonald, second supplementary?

Just to be clear, the minister, the government, has failed to answer two very specific questions that industry is asking. You can pretend as much as you like that they're not asking, but that is the question on their lips. Minister, will you rule out a climate trigger in the EPBC reforms?

I did that already.

I seek leave to ask a question on behalf of the state of Western Australia concerning Junior Rangers.

Leave not granted.

I seek leave to table a non-conforming petition. It was agreed to earlier.

Leave not granted.

My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Senator Walsh. Minister, on 28 July, in response to a question from me, you said:

We are implementing the findings of that report—

that report being the Productivity Commission report on child care. How many of those recommendations have been implemented, and when will that work be completed?

The Albanese Labor government believes in quality, universal early childhood education. We commissioned the Productivity Commission to do a report. We are implementing the recommendations of that report, starting with our historic decision to award a 15 per cent pay rise to our nation's valuable early childhood educators.

Senator Colbeck, first supplementary?

Recommendation 5.3 of the Productivity Commission's report recommended supporting multisite services. The Abracadabra family day care centre in Latrobe caters for 33 children over 25 families. The Addisons childcare centre in Spreyton caters for 50 children over 37 families, and the nonimplementation of recommendation 5.3 means those centres will have to close. (Time expired)

The matter that you've raised, which you've raised before, pertains to a decision of the Tasmanian regulator.

Senator Colbeck, second supplementary?

That is not correct. It's a federal regulation that covers that matter. The future of those two childcare centres lies at the tip of your pen, and your implementation of recommendation 5.3 would save those two centres from closing. When are you going to complete that work?

Our government is aware that there are regions in the country that are underserved and unserved with quality early childhood education. That is why we are investing a billion dollars in our Building Early Education Fund to increase supply of quality early childhood education to those regions, which is a billion dollars more than you ever put into early education.

I seek leave to ask a question on behalf of the beautiful state of Tasmania regarding the nutrition workforce.

Leave not granted.

As a senator from the beautiful state of Queensland, my question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Minister Watt. The Illicit Tobacco National Disruption Group was finally established to combat the explosion in criminal activity, including in my home state of Queensland, surrounding the illegal tobacco trade in Australia. The illegal tobacco underworld hoovers up approximately $10 billion a year in Australia and is linked to numerous murders, firebombings, robberies and other criminal activities. Can you guarantee that the establishment of this taskforce funded in the 2023-24 budget will see a reduction of illegal tobacco entering this country undetected?

I can certainly guarantee that the Albanese government is taking strong action against illegal tobacco.

Honourable senators interjecting—

I remind the Senate once again that, since question 11, I have demanded and ordered that questions be heard in silence and that answers be heard in silence. Senator Scarr, first supplementary?

Earlier this year, a 27-year-old woman was killed in her home in Melbourne after a failed attack by gangs involved in the illegal tobacco trade targeted and burned down the wrong house. Will no further lives be lost, businesses be firebombed and robberies occur now that this disruption group is finally in place?

I think all of us have immense sympathy for those who pay a price for these terrible crimes, and that's why our government is taking strong action to crack down on illegal tobacco.

Honourable senators interjecting—

I'll wait for silence once again. Senator Scarr?

Criminal activity has exploded under your government's watch, with people living in fear and small businesses having to close their doors after robberies and firebombings. Given that you cannot assure Australians that this taskforce will ensure their safety or stop the importation of illegal tobacco into Australia, how many firebombings, robberies and killings will now take place, and how many tonnes of illicit tobacco will now enter the country in the next six months? Do you have an estimation?

Thanks, Senator Scarr. As is very much on the record, additional funding has been provided to the Border Force to support frontline resources to tackle illegal tobacco. We've committed $188.5 million to the ABF over four years, among other investments. We remain committed to tackling illegal tobacco, and we'll do everything we can to crack down on it.

My question is to Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Farrell. Does the Prime Minister stand by his commitment—

It being 5.30. The Senate will now adjourn.

Today we've seen 10 senators trying to ask a question, representing their state, and those over there have shut them down, every single time. They are doing the work to shut down question time for government senators in this place. We've also seen all of the 'noalition'—all of them filing in behind Senator Pocock to ensure that the conventions in this place were torn up yesterday. They were absolutely torn up yesterday. That is what happened.

We've just had a 3½ hour question time, and I don't think a blow was landed. I could be biased here, but, honestly, you had every opportunity. You were talking about transparency, talking about all the questions that we needed to answer, and we gave you 3½ hours. I think we saw the results of that. We saw what happened. They didn't have lots of questions to ask. Their first two questions were actually about themselves and whether or not they were going to be able to ask questions. It was absolutely unbelievable what we have just seen. There was 3½ hours of the opposition flailing about—the shambles that we know they are—and they were not able to land really anything on the government.

We've sat here for 3½ hours answering questions, and all you've done is shut down the ability—those great transparency warriors, those great warriors of, 'Oh, everyone has a voice.' Everyone has a voice in this chamber except for the voices that those, the 'noalition', want to silence. That's what has happened today, when we wanted to sit. We would have sat right through the night. We moved twice to sit through the night to keep question time going so that every question could be answered, and you voted it down. The Greens voted it down; Senator Pocock voted it down; the opposition voted it down. What has this all been about? There are all these questions we've got to answer!

We’re coming back on Monday!

Senator Smith, I will not entertain interjections.

Now look! Everyone is racing out to get their little trolley bags and head off to the Chairman's Lounge. They couldn't they believe they've been delayed. They're frustrated that they have had to sit in here—some of them who sat in here this afternoon—and they didn't land a blow. It was 3½ hours, and that was your A team that you brought today?

There were 10 senators with important questions on health, infrastructure, defence, national security and women's health—questions on behalf of their community, and what did we see? We saw a great big stitch-up. It was: 'No, no, no; you're not allowed questions. We're the only ones that are allowed questions.' Then, what did you do with it? Honestly! We said: 'Let's keep going. We're here; we can stay all night. I'm here. I've got my question time folder; I've got my helpful information. Everyone is ready to go. We're all locked in.' What did you do? You said: 'No. It's 5.30; I've got to go get my trolley bag and get out of here.' That's what we've just seen.

The biggest wet blanket that the Senate has ever had to endure just happened right now. There was all the anticipation—we're going to get government; we're going to get them; we're going to make them answer questions! Yet, here we are, and what do you do? Oh, it's 5.30. There's a nice riesling somewhere, isn't there? There is a nice riesling somewhere and some chilled wine glasses, and you don't want to do any work. Look—you couldn't get out of here quick enough!

Not me! I'm waiting for my turn.

Senator Smith, I accept that you're here and that you're regularly here in an adjournment debate, as are many of our colleagues. But there was a stampede out of those doors. 'Thank god—3½ hours of question time! Thank god it is over.' The great anticipation of winding up and getting all the—'God, we're going to teach that government a lesson,' then look what happens! You couldn't even—

I wanted to give my speech.

Senator Smith, just be quiet please.

We saw Senator Duniam handing out bits of paper. We saw questions dating back to 2022. I think someone got the wrong draw! They got the draw from the previous parliament. What a wet blanket. I'm glad we showed up for it.

Can I just say that I take what has happened today extremely seriously, despite the fact of the comedy and theatre that we just had presented to us by the five-minute contribution from the Manager of Government Business in the Senate. We are here for a really, really serious issue today. We made changes yesterday because this government continuously refused to be transparent and provide information that this chamber had asked the Senate to deliver and asked the government to provide.

The minister comes in here and talks about conventions being torn up. I think the most important convention in this place is the accountability and transparency of the government. This was a government that came to power in 2022, promising a new way, promising accountability and transparency, and they have been about as transparent as a brick. They have no respect for the institution of the Senate. They have no respect that the result that came from yesterday was that you didn't answer the question that was put before you to deliver a document so that not only the Senate could scrutinise what was going on but the Australian public, who have the right to see this document, could scrutinise. It was the will of the Senate that that document be delivered. To come in here and be so dismissive and so theatrical is actually a reflection of the contempt which this government holds of the institution of the Senate.

We also saw today, in the other place, the lengths that this government is prepared to go to in order to wreak retribution on anybody who dares to disagree with it. For the executive of the Labor government to think that it is okay to threaten members of this parliament in the ways that they have attempted to do—not just over this latest incident but in previous incidents as well—shows a vindictive government that is prepared to do anything to get its own way. The simple answer for the government—it's a really simple answer: all they need to do is release the document. Release the document that the minister herself promised to release in the middle of 2023. We're not asking the government to release a document that came into their possession last week, last month or even, for that matter, last year; we are asking the government to release a document that came into their position 2½ years ago, and, at the time, the minister said that she would release that document.

Don't get me wrong. In terms of the questions that were attempted to be asked by the government today, they could all have been asked if they had been important enough to the government for them to actually put them on the list for question time. They all could have been asked. Every week in this place, under convention of the agreement between the parties, the government gets at least two questions on Monday, three on Tuesday, three on Wednesday and three on Thursday. And guess what? This week, they got two questions on Monday, three on Tuesday, three on Wednesday and three on Thursday, so there was no restriction whatsoever from the normal, accepted number of questions that the opposition got. What we sought to do by our motion yesterday was to try and attempt to hold the government to account to allow us greater scrutiny, because the very act of why this motion was moved was your lack of preparedness for any scrutiny at all. We talk about this one particular document which was the reason for the actions of yesterday. This is just a chain of behaviour that we have seen from this government in their refusal, time after time, to release documents that the majority of this chamber, with the will of this chamber, has asked them to release. They came in here with some of the most incredibly spurious reasons as to why they shouldn't answer those questions.

So what I would say to the government is: if you really are serious about the transparency and accountability that you said that you were going to bring to this new parliament, then release the document that was the subject of this particular motion but consider into the future that it is your responsibility as the government to make sure that you do not withhold information from the Australian public that they have every right to see. Under our system of responsible government, the executive is accountable to the parliament.

I was going to make a contribution tonight about the chaos of those opposite and the new relationship—well, it is a continual relationship, really—between the Greens, the crossbench, the Nationals and the Liberals. I'm not sure how many Liberals and Nationals are still on the same team. I was going to talk about the chaos and the undermining that's going on with their leader. I think that was so evident today in question time, but in fact it started yesterday. I missed that yesterday. I thought: 'Why would they do that? Why would they want to prevent government senators from being able to ask questions about issues that impact their communities? After all, we take very seriously our roles as senators in representing our states.

We know this weekend the result of the largest investment in Medicare is going to be rolled out. There are changes to ensure greater access to GPs and bulk-billing. We also know that this government, the Labor government, has actually invested more money in women's health than any previous government. These are things that we need to talk about, and we need to ensure that Australians—particularly in my home state of Tasmania—know about them. We know that the largest investment in aged care is being rolled out this weekend as well to ensure older Australians get the support they need to stay living at home for as long as possible.

We know that when people on that side were in government they did nothing in terms of investing in women's health—nothing. We know that in the 10 years they were in government they had five failed ministers for aged care. Not one of them actually had an interest. They did nothing except undermine and run aged care down in this country. We also note that it is in their DNA. They don't care about Medicare. They don't care whether people can see a doctor when they need to. They did nothing.

We have introduced this under probably one of the best ever health ministers, Minister Mark Butler, who not only has overseen greater investment in aged care and the foundations of building a better future for older Australians but has done exactly the same thing with the government to ensure that there is greater investment in women's health. These are good things. We know he is a great protector, just as everyone on this side of the Senate and in the other place is. We will fight every day for Medicare and investment in it because that gives us universal health care. It gives Australians an opportunity to see a GP when they need one.

We've also introduced urgent care clinics. What an amazing success they have proven to be. The urgent care clinic in Launceston is one of if not the very best in the country, with the number of doctors that work there, the continuity of service and the number of people that are using it, keeping out of accident and emergency.

This is another demonstration. It's not just when their shadow ministers, such as Mr Hastie, resign to put pressure on the Leader of the Opposition; it is also the fact that they've split on a bill. They will not accept the science of climate change. They will not accept that there needs to be a reduction in emissions. This opposition is the worst opposition ever, and do you know why? Because they cannot come to terms with the Australian people's rejection of them at the last election. Why did the Australian people do that? Because those opposite had no policies. They had 22 energy policies while they were in government, and they delivered not one, yet they come in and lecture us about being the gurus of financial management and the economy. How many surpluses did you deliver in those 10 years? None—zero. How many have we delivered since we've been in government? It's a very stark difference.

So don't come in here trying to lecture us about transparency when you have now entered into your 'no-alition' with the Greens—when it suits you. You're in bed with the Greens and the crossbench, and, on a good day, when the Nationals are together as one National Party and when you're together as one Liberal Party, you actually get together. The Australian people see you for what you are, and that is that you were a failure in government and you're a failed opposition.

When Australians finally saw the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water's incoming government brief for the Albanese government, after months of resistance and Senate pressure, they saw confirmation of what they already suspected: Labor's energy and emissions policies are costing more, delivering less and pushing Australia further from its own targets.

Behind the 97 per cent of pages that were redacted partly or in full sits a clear truth. The brief warns:

… the draft Default Market Offer points to a further significant increase in retail electricity prices next financial year.

It also concedes:

Emission reductions need to accelerate rapidly …

And it concedes that a strong push is now required to meet the government's 2030 target. In reference to the government's recently released 2035 target, the former Treasury official Stephen Anthony has called Labor's work the 'most appalling bit of policy analysis that has ever come out of Treasury'. In other words, it's higher prices, slower progress, no transparency whatsoever and deepening policy failure.

Labor went to the 2022 election promising cheaper power, more renewables and lower emissions, and on every account it is failing. Electricity prices have risen more than 30 per cent on Labor's watch. The AER's default market offer on 1 July showed residential bills rising by up to 9.7 per cent and small-business bills by 8½ per cent, around $228 a year extra for Australian households that are already struggling. That's after the Prime Minister promised savings of $275 by 2025, but, instead, Australians are paying up to $1,300 more.

Just yesterday the latest ABS data showed that inflation is once again surging under the Albanese Labor government, increasing by 1.3 per cent over a single quarter to 3.2 per cent annually, outside the upper limit of the Reserve Bank's target band. Fuelling this increase was one household bill: electricity prices soared by 24 per cent over the course of the year, including by nine per cent in the September quarter and eight per cent in the June quarter. The ABS itself stated this was 'primarily related to households in Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania having higher out-of-pocket costs' than during the same period last year. The government no doubt will try to blame this on the end of the temporary energy rebates. But, even without those sugar hits, electricity prices rose by five per cent in the September quarter. This is what Labor's energy policy looks like in practice: higher bills, higher inflation and higher interest payments.

The debate on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Energy Regulator Separation) Bill 2025 revealed the same thing. While the bill itself dealt with governance, evidence confirmed that the regulator now operates in a market distorted by poor policy and rising costs. Labor's own former advisor Professor Ross Garnaut has warned the government will miss its renewables target by a 'big margin'. He noted that there are virtually no investment commitments for solar and wind generation without government underwriting through the Capacity Investment Scheme. This is not market confidence; it is market retreat, and, when governments must prop up private projects with taxpayer guarantees, consumers and taxpayers pay the ultimate price.

The Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner's 2024 report warned that Labor's approach of net zero at any cost is leaving regional Australians behind. It found that communities are not being informed, not being respected and, at worst, being patronised. It highlighted growing concern over inconsistent planning and the absence of any plan for project decommissioning and recycling. Landholders feel they've lost control of their property, and over a thousand complaints have now been lodged since the office was established. Australians support emissions reduction, but they expect honesty, consultation and affordability. None are being delivered. This is not the transition that Australians were promised. It is an experiment conducted on their power bills.

The heavily redacted incoming government brief confirms the truth: Labor's energy and emissions policies are failing households, failing the economy and failing the environment. We now have rising emissions, slowing renewables investment and inflation once again being driven by soaring electricity costs. Australians deserve transparency not redactions, reform not rhetoric and a government that understands that affordability and reliability must come first if sustainability is to follow.

Today I rise to address an urgent and growing threat: cybercrime and, in particular, the surge of cryptocurrency investment scams targeting Australians. Cybercrime is no longer a distant danger; it's pervasive, sophisticated and devastating. Both international syndicates and local offenders are preying on everyday Australians, leaving behind financial ruin and deep emotional scars. One victim recently wrote to my office describing how she and her friend were deceived by a cryptocurrency platform that appeared legitimate. She wrote:

I'm writing as a victim of an online cyber scam that is currently under investigation. My friend, who is also a victim, purchased an $8,000 package, and began seeing what appeared to be daily profits. She was even able to move money around and withdraw small amounts, which gave the impression the platform was legitimate.

Encouraged, she invested further … around $55,000 in total. However, her funds were then locked in what the platform calls a 'Profit Wallet.'

She has been told the only way to access these funds is through an 'agent.' We now believe these profits are fake numbers designed to trap victims. Our friend is a single mother and has been left devasted, even expressing that she doesn't want to go on living.

These scams are becoming more convincing and are targeting vulnerable people.

My family and friend are victims, but I fear many others will be caught as well if nothing is done.

These are not just financial crimes; they destroy hope, trust and lives. The rise of cryptocurrency has brought opportunity but also new avenues for exploitation. Scammers use convincing, high-tech schemes to manipulate and entrap victims. Our response must be strong and coordinated. First we need tougher regulation and enforcement, giving our agencies the tools and reach to act swiftly against offenders at home and abroad. Second we must strengthen victim support through accessible financial counselling, mental health services and clear reporting pathways. Third we need stronger public awareness campaigns to help Australians recognise and avoid these scams.

Government, industry and the community must work together to stay ahead of these evolving threats. No Australian should live in fear that their savings and futures can be stolen by criminals hiding behind the scenes. To the victims who reach out to us: we hear you. We must respond with urgency, compassion and action. Let us commit today to protect Australians, bring perpetrators to justice and build a safer digital future for us all.

Senate adjourned at 17:53