If there is no objection, the meetings are authorised.

by leave—I move:

That—

(a) the questions on all remaining stages of the Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya's) Bill 2025 be put at 1 pm today;

(b) paragraph (a) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142; and

(c) divisions may take place between 1.30 pm and 2 pm until consideration of the bill has concluded.

I want to make some brief comments. This is yet another guillotine, another cutting of debate, by the Labor government—so much for transparency—yet again. You're denying a voice to an emotional issue that troubles millions of people. You're stopping debate on stillborns. The government doesn't want the experiences of people with stillborns told in this parliament. Shame! We should have a full debate.

This is a very regrettable move by the government because it's a very sensitive issue. It's an extremely sensitive topic, the birth—or in some extremely tragic cases, the stillbirth—of what could have been a potential human life, a potential human being. I think it would be best, particularly for this chamber, for this house, to take a deliberative approach to an issue of this sensitivity. This bill has only just been introduced to this place, and my understanding of the motion now before this chamber is that the government is intending to move the bill without any form of consideration, deliberation or debate. We are in effect not doing our job as senators to only make laws after a considered deliberation of the issues.

May I also add that, in this case, there was a motion last week that sought to refer this bill to a Senate committee. That was refused. That sometimes happens, but again it seems a little unusual for a bill of this sensitivity—that goes to a lot of different opinions in the broader public—not to have a proper airing of all of those issues. I could only conclude that the reason the government is seeking to silence debate on this issue is because it has been on the receiving end of thousands of people who are upset and concerned about this bill. We've all received that correspondence, and some of us would agree with it—some of us wouldn't; some of us would have a different opinion. But because there has been such an outcry of concern over this bill in the past week, the government has simply decided, in my view, that instead of having to respond to those concerns—and I think there are some legitimate concerns that I'll come to—it is simply going to silence them. Its approach to engaging with the Australian public is to treat them with contempt and say, 'Talk to the hand.' That is the approach being taken here by the government, through this motion, and it should be condemned. It should be absolutely condemned to act in this way.

There are some very, very legitimate issues with how this is being approached, and I would have liked to have made a contribution on the substantive issues of this debate. Some may be surprised at how I would have approached these issues. I don't think it is black and white. I think there is a very, very difficult and sensitive topic to deal with here. Fundamentally, I do believe—as, I believe, the Liberal and National parties do, some people in the government do and most people do—that the law should be changed to ensure that parents that have to go through the tragic event of a stillbirth are not disadvantaged when it comes to their workplace or other entitlements associated with parental rights.

I know many parents who have gone through this situation, and they are no less parents simply because their child has unfortunately suffered an untimely end before birth. That child is a human being. That child has been loved and cherished by their parents, and the loss those parents feel is as great as that of any parent who loses a child. It is a problem with our current laws that such loss is not properly reflected in our workplace laws or in the entitlement rules for the paid parental leave system. So I fully support all of that and would hope that we legislate to get to that position.

There is an issue that's been raised—and, as I say, it's what the government wants to silence—and it's that the bill, as drafted, would appear to extend these additional rights to situations where a pregnancy has been terminated on the decision of the parents. This is a very difficult situation. I recognise that it's a relatively rare situation, in terms of late-term interventions. It does, however, happen, and I think there are legitimate issues here. As I've said, I don't think it is black and white, because the decision that a parent would take to do that in those circumstances comes in a myriad of forms, and it is quite difficult to write laws around this to capture all of those different human experiences. In particular, I am very mindful of situations where, in the late term of pregnancy, the health of the mother can be put at risk. It's an extremely difficult question for any parent or any family to have to face, and I wouldn't want our laws to impose an undue burden on parents in that situation deciding how they balance the health of the mother against the health of a child. It's a terrible ethical dilemma and ultimately one I firmly believe that each parent, each mother and father, is best placed to determine themselves.

I just want to be clear. I've received the correspondence that I referred to, but I don't want to see us amend this bill in anyway that reduces the rights of mothers to make a decision to protect their own health. However, I also don't want a situation where, if in the event there aren't any health risks, we would extend entitlements where there has been a decision to terminate a pregnancy at late term. These examples are very confronting situations.

A few years ago I moved a bill, the Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2022, to provide care to babies when they are born alive in these situations, and, when I first introduced that bill, I was under the impression that a baby born alive in these circumstances is an unfortunate, unexpected outcome of a termination procedure. I apologise for bringing this up—the government has brought this on. I didn't intend to speak on this right now, but you've brought it on, and I want to make sure I have my chance to speak. I've just been told that 1 pm is still the guillotine, and, on an issue that goes to conscience, it would be much better for the government to have a conscience and let other senators express their conscience, their views, on this matter. A few hours is simply not good enough to deal with these issues.

As I said, I was under the impression that, in the event of a late-term termination, a baby born alive is an unexpected, unfortunate contingency that sometimes happens. Unfortunately, for some termination procedures, the baby being born alive is, in fact, an outcome of the procedure; the procedure is, in some circumstances, simply to induce pregnancy, and the baby is then born and is, effectively, left to die. It's very, very sad and very tragic. The problem is that other techniques that can deliver a late-term abortion in some states involve the use of chemicals that inflict enormous pain on the fetus and that are, in fact, banned for use in euthanising animals in this country.

I don't know. When I learnt that—obviously, I'm pro-life—I was shocked. I was shocked that we simply leave babies to die and that there's no care provided to them. That's why I introduced my bill. It's something, I think, most of us haven't perhaps confronted, but it's what happens. Just like there's a problem here that we're trying to fix, that, to me, seems like a major problem. Surely, every human being deserves care, but we're not providing that right now. These late-term terminations are extremely confronting, and we should be much more considerate in dealing with these issues. That's why I would very much like to see a proper Senate inquiry into this, where we don't seek to yell and scream at each other but seek to actually confront the details of what occurs and how we should best legislate for those contingencies, which is what good lawmakers should do.

As I said, when I introduced my bill, I wasn't even aware of this. It wasn't until we had a Senate inquiry into that bill—I think it was the first Senate inquiry into abortions for many decades in this place—that we had experts and doctors come forward and actually explain how a late-term termination works. I think all senators in the room, whatever their views, were a bit shocked by the description of the procedure. I apologise again for having to go through this again, but I need to make this point right now because these sorts of facts, these confronting truths, should be given an appropriately sensitive airing through a deliberative process in this chamber.

Instead, the government has come in here and blindsided the Senate this morning. I was ready to speak on the bill, as it has been listed—the government listed it for the agenda this week, which was circulated—but instead the government decided to come in and, through an early morning intervention into our deliberations here, say: 'No, that's it. We're going to make sure this is dealt with today.' As I said at the start—I've been in this position a lot of times in recent years—we really let people down in this place. We do this all the time, guys. I don't know if this is a newsflash to anybody, but everybody out there hates us. They really don't like us. The reason they don't like us is games like this, these silly little games that political parties play to get their way—to use the raw force of their numbers to get a decision to go their way.

That's not our job. We're paid really good money. We get great privileges. Our job is to debate. Our job is to consider. Our job is to listen to the Australian public. But, instead, time and time and time again, at an increasing rate, may I say, this chamber—and it has been all sides of politics, but there's no doubt about the fact that it's getting much, much worse—comes in here and simply silences everybody and puts a cone of silence over us, and none of the public can then penetrate that cone. They can't have their voice heard. They can't get a response. They don't even get an airing of their concerns in their assembly. This is their place, not ours. We're just tenants here. All of our careers will pass, but we are here as servants to the Australian people. We are meant to be, but, instead, by moving motions like this, we are acting like their masters. That is the wrong way around, guys. If you keep acting like this, you will continue to get a level of frustration and anger in the political system in this country. It is why the primary vote of the major parties is at its lowest level ever. That's absolutely why it is—no doubt. It's us that do this rubbish, and we cop the backlash for it.

Okay, you can do it. You've got the numbers. You can do it, but there are going to be consequences for actions like this. There is going to be a backlash from the broader public and not just on this issue. This is just another shocking example of us not doing the jobs we are paid to do, of us simply deciding that it's all too hard and it's all too difficult to handle these tough questions that people in emails and on social media bombard us with and of us saying: 'So let's just knock off early. Let's knock off early, and we can all go home at 1.00 pm'—apparently—'and then no-one will email us again, because a decision was made and there's nothing they can do about it.' They might not email us again, but they will come and vote in a few years, and a lot of us might not be here. I tell you what, if the polls keep going the way they are, there are not going to be many senators from the major parties left. That's the hard, cold reality of this and what we're doing. Keep at it, guys. Keep making a mockery of this house, and maybe you won't be here in the future to keep acting like this.

Just to be clear about why we're moving this motion, it's to allow for the passage of Baby Priya's bill by one o'clock today. If we hadn't had that 15 minutes, we would have got into the bill. We're allowing for three hours—

Minister Wong?

Senator Canavan was heard in silence by this side of the chamber. I request that Minister Gallagher be afforded the same courtesy.

I remind senators—Senator Canavan, you were heard in silence, and Minister Gallagher will be heard in silence as well.

To allow for three hours of debate, allowing all senators to participate in that on this important bill—just to be clear, this bill is actually about amending the Fair Work Act, and it only relates to employer funded paid parental leave if a child is stillborn or dies. Its origins are in the parents of Baby Priya, who lived for six weeks after her birth, and, when she passed away, her mother's parental leave was cancelled by her employer. She had worked there for 11 years, and her father's parental leave continued. Those very brave parents felt that it was unfair that the mother lost her parental leave, and this bill responds to that. It recognises that the loss of a baby is devastating for parents and that, if there's a way to respond, in Baby Priya's name and with the bravery of her parents, to seek legislative reform that would allow a mother, in the exact same experience as what's Baby Priya's mother endured, to grieve and to have an entitlement to grieve through that period of what would have been her parental leave—that's what this bill is about. We believe three hours is plenty of time for senators who would like to participate, just as Senator Canavan and others have, but let's not lose focus on what the bill actually is.

I know there has been a fair bit of attention about what this bill is not. But this bill is about amending the Fair Work Act so that where parental leave exists for parents in the private sector—not related to Commonwealth paid parental leave, which doesn't cancel in those circumstances—parents will be entitled to continue to receive parental leave. That's what the bill's about. And, if passage isn't completed by one o'clock, that still will have been three hours of debate for this chamber. I move:

That the question be now put.

The question is that the motion moved by Minister Gallagher—that the question be put—be agreed to.

The question is that the motion moved by Minister Gallagher be agreed to.

I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

The loss of a child is a tragedy. Parents should not have to deal with uncertainty about their employer-funded paid parental leave entitlements on top of their grief.

This Bill will ensure there is greater clarity regarding employer-funded paid parental leave for parents dealing with the tragedy of stillbirth or the death of a child. By providing this certainty, we hope to take some stress away from parents during an inconceivably difficult time.

This Bill is named after Baby Priya—who died when she was just 6 weeks old.

And I want to acknowledge that Baby Priya's parents and grandparents are here with us in the Gallery today. We thank you for your bravery and advocacy that has led to this essential reform.

Parents should have certainty and time to grieve after the loss of a child. Their pain should not be compounded by uncertainty about whether or not they have to go back to work while they're recovering not only from immense grief and trauma, but from childbirth itself, and the physical toll it takes on the body. They deserve clarity about the impacts of such a tragic event on their financial position, providing one source of certainty as they cope with the loss of the future they had imagined with their child.

Baby Priya's parents did not have that clarity or certainty and no parent should ever have to go through what they did.

We know these are incredibly difficult circumstances for workers and managers to navigate. Being able to work through such circumstances in a dignified and humane way depends on there being shared expectations by employers and employees about how these tragic situations are managed.

As a government, we share this belief and it's why we've acted to provide certainty in these circumstances.

This Bill introduces a new principle into the Fair Work Act. Unless employers and employees have expressly agreed otherwise, employer funded paid parental leave must not be cancelled because a child is stillborn or dies.

Parents should be able to rely on their employer-funded paid parental leave entitlements operating in the way they would have expected on the basis of their terms of employment, regardless of the outcome of the pregnancy or birth. This Bill ensures that.

The clarity this Bill provides aligns with the clarity provided in existing unpaid parental leave entitlements, ensuring consistency across the workplace relations framework.

It will not interfere where employers and employees bargain and agree conditions in good faith. The ability to bargain for pay and conditions above the safety net is central to our approach to workplace relations. It leads to mutually beneficial conditions for employers and employees, and builds constructive social dialogue.

As such this Bill will not interfere where it is clear that employers and employees have agreed what should occur if a child is stillborn or dies. For example, I am aware that many employers offer express stillbirth leave entitlements and this reform will not interfere with those entitlements. Instead, it encourages employers and employees to continue negotiating clear, compassionate policies that address these situations.

As a government, we recognise the benefits of paid parental leave. It encourages parents to retain a connection to the workforce. It also offers a wealth of benefits for employers—including better staff retention and ability to attract a talented workforce. In recognition of these benefits, we have acted to strengthen government-funded Parental Leave Pay so parents now receive 24 weeks of government-funded paid leave including superannuation contributions.

This Bill does not introduce any requirement to provide employer-funded paid parental leave if it is not already provided.

I thank those employer representatives who have reached out to me to support this important reform.

The loss of a child is devastating. It has a profound and long-lasting impact on parents, families and their communities.

Australia is one of the safest places in the world for a baby to be born. But sadly stillbirths and child loss do happen.

On an average day in Australia, more than 6 babies are stillborn and more than 2 die within the first year of their birth. In 2022, this resulted in over 3,000 families losing a child.

This Bill addresses a gap that some parents of these babies, have fallen through. It gives employees and employers alike certainty in these tragic and emotional circumstances. It ensures managers do not have to make discretionary calls on whether a leave provision applies in difficult circumstances. It makes it easier to handle difficult situations in the most sensitive of times.

As we've heard today, this reform is vital. It protects employer-funded paid parental leave entitlements at one of the most difficult times a parent can face.

I once again commend Priya's parents for their advocacy and hope, as I know they do, to prevent parents in similar circumstances experiencing what they did, in future.

I commend the Bill to the House.

I rise today to respectfully support this bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya's) Bill 2025, and to honour the coalition's commitment to bipartisan support on matters of compassion and family welfare. The coalition gave bipartisan support to this bill, and, as I said, that support still remains. However, in relation to the guillotine that's just been put in place by the vote of this chamber, I'd like to make a couple of comments before I make a contribution on the bill.

Firstly, I understand that there will be amendments moved to this bill, and those matters are likely to go to matters of conscience. I'd just like to say that it is quite unusual for matters of conscience to be put under guillotine. I'd also say that the government has failed in its contribution on the guillotine to put the case as to why debate on this bill needs to be cut short. There is no reason why senators shouldn't be allowed the opportunity, as is their right in this place, to make a contribution, particularly on matters that they feel very strongly about. For that reason, we did not support the guillotine, but, as is the will of the chamber and the majority, we now see that it is under that guillotine.

As I said, I rise today to speak respectfully in support of the Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya's) Bill 2025 because it reminds us that our duty as legislators goes way beyond just policy; it goes to understanding and compassion. It's about making sure that the law stands with people during their darkest times. In amending the Fair Work Act, we introduce a new consistent principle that employer funded paid parental leave must not be cancelled because a child is stillborn or passes away shortly after birth. It aligns with the Fair Work Act and with the government's paid parental leave scheme, and it ensures that, when families endure the unimaginable loss of a child, the law does not add burden to that tragedy. It guarantees that grieving parents are not forced to fight for recognition and respect or kindness in the workplace. Importantly, it ensures that women have time to heal, both physically and emotionally, after what would be the most devastating of losses. The bill honours Priya's memory, and I want to express my deepest sympathy to Priya's family for their unimaginable loss but also my gratitude for their courage in leading this change through their grief. Of course, that sympathy extends to all families in similar circumstances.

As the Minister for Families and Social Services, I was proud to lead the reforms that recognised the grief and dignity of parents who experience stillbirth or a child dying shortly after birth. In September 2020, the Morrison government committed $7.6 million to improve bereavement payments for families after suffering a stillbirth. We ensured that all eligible families who experienced stillbirth or an infant death received support payments, helping 900 families every year. We recognised, in 2020, that the loss of a child is truly devastating and that no amount of money could ever deal with the grief these families experience. Our reforms introduced a single stillborn payment rate, ending inconsistencies that treated first and subsequent losses differently. Our 2020 reforms were guided by a fundamental principle. By introducing a single-rate stillborn payment, we addressed inconsistencies in levels of support to better recognise all bereavements. Every child matters. Every loss is devastating. The law should never discriminate between first and subsequent tragedies.

Today's bill continues that work from 2020 by extending these same principles of equal recognition and dignity in the workplace. Where we ensured that the social security system treats all bereavements equally, this bill ensures the Fair Work system does the same. It is the natural and necessary next step in recognising that parents of stillborn babies deserve the same support and protection in their employment as any other parent.

I want to address some comments made by my colleagues in the other place during the debate on this bill. Some colleagues raised concerns about the wording of this bill in relation to late-term pregnancy terminations. I understand they spoke from conscience, and I respect that. However, I want to put on the record that I disagree with any suggestion that some women might somehow exploit their grief to access an entitlement that they don't deserve. Late-term pregnancy losses, whatever their circumstances, are rare and occur in the most tragic and extreme circumstances. They involve decisions made by women, their partners and their doctors in situations of profound difficulty. This bill is about recognising that any woman who endures the physical and psychological ordeal of losing a child late in pregnancy, at birth or soon after deserves the time to heal.

I want to acknowledge and thank Bears of Hope for their advocacy and support of this bill. Organisations like Bears of Hope provide essential support to families experiencing the loss of their baby. They help families navigate unimaginable grief while advocating for systemic change. Their work reminds us that behind every statistic is a family, a loss and a need for compassion.

This bill is not just about one case or one family. It ensures that, when Australians face grief, workplaces and laws reflect the best of our national character: fairness, respect and compassion. It reminds us as legislators that the true measure of a society is how we treat people in their moments of vulnerability. By passing this bill, we send a clear message: in Australia, no family grieves alone, and no parent should face indignity on top of that loss.

As the Minister for Families and Social Services, I heard stories of parents who, in addition to unbearable grief, faced bureaucratic obstacles, workplace discrimination and financial strain. These experiences reinforced my conviction that our social security and employment systems must be underpinned by compassion. This bill continues that work, ensuring our laws recognise the humanity of every family's loss. This bill enshrines compassion and dignity into our workplace and employment framework. It validates the experience of every parent who has lost a child. It clearly says: 'Your grief matters. Your loss is recognised. You deserve time to heal.' This reform reminds us all that compassion must be at the heart of every law we pass. I commend this bill to the Senate.

I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya's) Bill. The loss of a child is a profound tragedy. It has been described as a palpable, cascading grief that is linked to an equally palpable yearning—a longing that stretches into the infinite. It is everlasting—a grief for what has happened and what could have been of a life cut short. In this situation, in this period of grief, what we aim to do is prevent it from morphing into, or becoming, a trauma. This, unfortunately, was the scenario that faced Baby Priya's mother. Baby Priya died at six weeks of age to a mum who had been employed in an organisation for 11 years. This mum then faced the situation where her paid parental leave was unilaterally cancelled by her employer, yet this was not the situation for Baby Priya's father.

As a result—thanks to their courageous advocacy—we now have this bill before us. We are here in this parliament to right this injustice. We want to, by bringing forward this amendment, reduce the distress of both parents and employers, who really shouldn't be in this position with a lack of clarity around what to do in these circumstances. We want to allow, with this amendment, parents the time and space to grieve and to provide clear guidance to employers as to what they should do in these rare scenarios. Stillbirth is rare. Australia is a country that has one of the safest records for women in childbirth. But in Australia six babies a day are stillborn. They're not viable when they're born. We also know that two babies die within 28 days of birth per year. That totals over 3,000 families who are affected every single year. So it's not negligible. It is rare, but it is certainly not negligible. In moving this amendment, we will be attempting to alleviate some of that distress for those families, giving them the time and space to grieve.

I do want to say that it has been beyond disappointing to hear some of the arguments peddled in this chamber linking this bill in some way to late-term termination of pregnancy. Late-term abortions are not trivial matters. They are not done on the whim of a mother or father. They are a medical decision made by doctors and a wider medical team, usually in a specialist hospital for women. It is a multidisciplinary decision, and it's usually done due to a severe fetal abnormality or if the mother's health and wellbeing are at risk due to psychological or psychiatric problems. This is an extremely rare scenario. It is beyond disappointing to hear some of the misinformation—and disinformation, I would argue—being peddled in this chamber by some members of parliament who, frankly, should stick to their lane.

I will also flag that there are disturbing reports in the media of women who are not listening to their trained midwives or doctors but are instead choosing to be influenced by doulas or social media influencers around having homebirths or freebirths. This has led to numerous deaths both of babies and of women in Australia, and there's no need for this. I would urge the women of Australia to seek their advice from trained professionals—either midwives or obstetricians. We have universal health care; these people are accessible. Don't rely on social media influencers.

I say this because, in medicine, we reserve the word 'catastrophe' for only one specialty. Only one specialty uses the word 'catastrophe', and that is obstetrics. It doesn't appear in the lexicon of any other specialty in medicine. In medicine, our language tends to be very dispassionate because, in an emergency, doctors, nurses and allied health professionals are trained to operate under immense stress in order to alleviate a situation. Emotion is taken out of it, unlike in this place. It's completely taken out of it. But the term 'obstetric catastrophe' is absolutely enshrined in obstetrics because, when things go wrong, they go wrong quickly, and it's often too late to wait for an ambulance to come to save the day—just too late. I won't go into the graphic details, but it gives an indication of how important it is to, in that antenatal period, seek your advice from the professionals.

Back to this bill—in the situation of a stillbirth or an infant death, we want families to have certainty. We want employers to have certainty as well. This bill will provide that kind of clarity by preventing the unilateral cancellation of paid parental leave. And it builds upon the other supports that this Labor government has introduced for working parents, principally the expansion of paid parental leave, which currently sits at 24 weeks and will go up to 26 weeks next year, and the numerous reforms we are making to early education and care to better support working families.

It's important to understand what this bill does not do. It does not interfere with existing bargained entitlements. There are many employers who already offer express stillbirth leave entitlements, which will be unaffected by this reform. It does not prevent employers and workers from bargaining and agreeing to conditions in good faith. It does not create a requirement for employers to begin providing employer funded PPL, paid parental leave, if it is not already provided. The bill also prevents employers from undercutting this reform by unilaterally changing the existing terms and conditions of employment after commencement.

I want to conclude by thanking the courageous advocacy of Baby Priya's mother and father—for bringing this to the attention of our government and our parliament. Baby Priya is not here to see this, but this bill will preserve her memory. I commend this bill to the Senate.

The Greens support the Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya's) Bill. It's a relatively small change that will make a big difference to families experiencing the grief of stillbirth or the loss of a baby. Stillbirth, miscarriage and infertility are issues that affect so many families. According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's data, six babies are stillborn each day and two die within 28 days of birth. Sadly, these are issues which are still not talked about enough. That silence can compound the grief, trauma and isolation experienced by families. The Pink Elephants Support Network's recent report, Not just aloss, found that 75 per cent of women coping with stillbirth and miscarriage feel unsupported and abandoned, particularly in rural and regional areas without specialist support services.

The profound grief caused by the loss of a child can be as all consuming for parents as the experience of having a child born healthy. Some parents will choose to go back to work quickly to try and regain some normalcy, but, for many grieving parents, including Baby Priya's mother, returning to work when you were expecting to be on parental leave is a trauma that they are simply not ready for. If leave is unavailable, parents end up taking long periods of unpaid leave, dropping down to part-time work or quitting—all while facing medical costs and counselling expenses. Employers need to provide flexible, sensitive workplaces that support staff through these challenges.

This bill would ensure that parents affected by stillbirth and infant loss can continue to access their employer related paid parental leave if they wish to. The government funded scheme already extends to stillbirth and infant loss, and this bill grants the same support to private sector employees. All parents deserve the security of paid leave while they grieve and adjust. This change was recommended by a Senate inquiry into stillbirth research and education in 2018, chaired by Senator McCarthy and my former Greens colleague Senator Janet Rice. But it's before us again today because of the bravery and courage of Baby Priya's parents. Ten days after the tragic loss of their daughter, Priya's mum was told to come back to work. They turned their heartbreaking loss into a call for action so that other parents didn't have to experience what they went through, and I'm so grateful to them for their advocacy. I want to acknowledge the support of the Australian Services Union, of which I'm a proud member, for the support that they provided to Priya's mother and for their campaign for reform, and also my New South Wales Greens colleague Abigail Boyd for continuing to raise this issue. We need to talk more openly about stillbirth, miscarriage and infertility; and provide support to those affected, including partners and family members.

Beyond this bill, we should consider introducing premature birth leave, currently provided by the Australian Public Service and the New South Wales public sector, so that parents don't have to eat into their paid parental leave before a baby even comes home. We should provide paid reproductive health leave for miscarriage, terminations and infertility treatments; and make it easier to access counselling and support after pregnancy loss. We should extend paid parental leave to 52 weeks, in line with international best practice. We should do all of this because stillbirth and infant loss is a public health issue. It's a mental health issue. It's a compassion issue. It is not an opportunity for conservative men to perpetrate and perpetuate their culture wars.

The bill clearly and clinically defines stillbirth and infant loss. It seeks to support parents experiencing this loss. Any claim otherwise is simply a stalking horse against women's reproductive rights. To suggest that any parents in this situation did not want to be parents is hurtful, disrespectful and out of touch. It ignores the evidence that terminations post 22 weeks are extremely rare, are traumatic and often involve pregnancies that are incompatible with life. These are private decisions supported by medical advice. Using the shield of 'unintended consequences' and 'seeking clarity', a few conservative men in the coalition have taken a bill that is about grieving parents getting dignity and certainty and used it to attack bodily autonomy. Australians are not interested in this antiwoman, antichoice nonsense. Using this bill as a vehicle for their Trump-style talking points, while doing absolutely nothing about women's rights on any other issue, is utterly shameful.

As I said at the outset, this is a bill to extend support to parents at one of the worst times imaginable, and it is the right thing to do. Once again, I thank everyone involved in bringing this bill to parliament, and I hope that having Baby Priya's name associated with such a profound change is something you can feel really proud of.

The Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya's) Bill 2025 is about compassion, fairness and some clarity for parents facing the most unimaginable of circumstances. It fulfils a commitment we made at the election—to ensure that employer funded paid parental leave cannot be cancelled if an employee's child is stillborn or dies in the early part of their life. It removes the distress of having to negotiate a return to work while a parent is grieving. It ensures employers aren't left to make discretionary decisions in deeply emotional circumstances.

Our country is one of the safest in the world to have a baby, but stillbirths and infant deaths tragically still occur. In 2022 more than 3,000 Australian families lost a baby through stillbirth or within the first month of life. The loss of a child has profound and lifelong impacts on parents, families and communities. Until now, some parents have fallen through a gap in our workplace laws, losing paid leave entitlements just when they need support the most. This bill closes that gap.

This bill applies to national system employees entitled to employer funded paid parental leave the right to continue their paid parental leave in the event of a stillbirth or the loss of a child. It prevents an employer from cancelling paid parental leave in those circumstances. It introduces a principle to the Fair Work Act that employer funded paid parental leave must not be withdrawn unless an agreement already provides for it. It prevents employers from undercutting these protections by changing contracts or policies after commencement.

Importantly, this bill does not create a new obligation for employers who do not currently offer paid parental leave. It does not override or reduce existing bargained entitlements, and I know that many employers across the country do already have strong provisions for families impacted by stillbirth. It does not interfere with good-faith bargaining or flexibility for employers and workers to agree on additional supports.

This bill is named after Baby Priya, who died at 42 days old. Her parents' employer-paid parental leave was cancelled following her death. Their courage and advocacy has brought this issue into the national spotlight, and I want to thank them for taking the time to teach us all about the importance of this issue. They turned their grief into something incredibly important that I hope will spare other families some of the trauma they experienced. Their story has brought compassion to this parliament and has shaped a lasting reform.

This reform builds on Labor's record of strengthening support for working parents. It sits alongside our government funded paid parental leave, with the adding of superannuation contributions. We know that paid parental leave gives parents the support that they need to navigate the challenges ahead, and that support should not be taken away when parents face the most unimaginable of circumstances. This is a measured and compassionate reform that might cost little but means everything to the families that are affected. It brings decency to our workplace laws. It honours not only Baby Priya but every family who has faced this unimaginable loss. In this place today, we have the opportunity to act with compassion by passing this bill, and I urge all of us to do so.

I rise to speak in support of this bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya's) Bill 2025. I want to start by recognising Baby Priya's parents, who experienced the devastating death of their six-week-old daughter last June. I'm sorry for your loss and I'm sure that no words can describe the heartbreak of losing a child. We know the story now, thanks to their advocacy. Rather than being met with care, time and support to grieve, Priya's mum was asked, just 10 days after her daughter passed away, to start negotiating her return to work with her employer. Her parental leave was cancelled and replaced by one month of personal leave.

From this experience, they have advocated selflessly to ensure other bereaved parents never have to go through the same uncertainties as they did while they were grieving. This bill ensures that paid parental leave cannot be cancelled in circumstances where a baby is stillborn or dies, and it's because of their advocacy that the right for parents to grieve in their own time—supported by paid parental leave entitlements and a return to the workforce when they're ready—will now be protected.

This is a very good bill. Again, I want to thank and recognise Priya's parents for their work in pushing for it, and I want to commend Minister Rishworth and the government for bringing this bill to the parliament. I also want to thank those among my colleagues who have debated this bill with empathy and respect. Embedding compassion into our workplaces is something we should be striving for in Australia.

I believe this bill represents the type of common grace that people want to see extended to their fellow Australians. No parent mourning their child and the future they had imagined for their family should be forced to return to work sooner than expected or face financial pressures to do so. Someone's parenting journey does not end because their baby was stillborn or died early. This bill recognises that truth and moves to bring protections for employer funded leave entitlements in line with those for the government paid entitlements. It is an important step to ensuring compassion and fairness for all parents, no matter where they work.

On a final point, it's worth mentioning that six babies are stillborn every day in Australia. It's something that we need to talk about more. We need to recognise that there are many, many parents living in our community who are missing their baby every day. Hopefully, this bill will make it a little bit easier for parents going forward. But there is still more to do in this space. I commend this bill to the Senate.

I rise to speak to the Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya's) Bill 2025 with incredibly mixed emotions. I thank those other members of the Senate who have spoken on this with great care. As somebody who has also lost a child, the idea of not recognising, in any way, the pain and difficult times that a family goes through then is abhorrent.

This legislation is being guillotined, and I can't let that go past because this is not just about the tragic circumstances of losing a child for a family. There are more issues to be examined. We had a very comprehensive speech this morning from Senator Canavan, and I thought he did a terrific job in that regard. I want to raise another issue, though. Small businesses across Australia are under incredible pressure. When the minister spoke to this legislation earlier this morning, she made the point that this is not about there being a definition around stillbirth or losing a child during maternity leave; it is about fair work. And this is the bit that I think we've not had the opportunity to examine.

In this country, around 10 weeks of leave is provided by small businesses to their employees. Small businesses have that relationship with their employees. Their employees are an incredibly important part of that broader small-business family. Yet, with the guillotining of this legislation, with the lopsided discussion, there is no ability for the employer groups to be a part of this discussion. They are removing the ability for the employer and the employee to have this relationship that I have enjoyed as an employee over many years. In fact, during the sad time that I referred to at the beginning, my employer was extraordinary. But we will remove that. We will once again move to legislate every part of our lives. I don't think this helps to provide respect to that relationship or to allow a robust and successful relationship. Imagine if we start legislating for what can happen in a marriage or in other sorts of relationships in our society. I think this legislation, whilst incredibly worthy at its heart, is not dissimilar to the domestic violence leave legislation that we passed last year. We have removed a societal cost to a small business cost. There are those on the other side who talked about the price of this being small. Well, if you're a small business with only a small number of employees, the price that you pay for providing all of these benefits that we desire under our modern society is significant. In the AFP, I understand, the leave entitlements are something like 14 weeks a year. Small business, as I said, is 10. These are genuine costs for people who are doing it incredibly tough at the moment. The inability for those people to be able to have a relationship and a discussion with their employees seems incredibly heavy handed.

There will be those who think that I'm missing the point of this legislation, and I acknowledge that. I understand what it's trying to achieve. I certainly sympathise to the bottom of my heart with Baby Priya's family. The sadness must seem at times to have no limit. But I do caution that when we guillotine legislation like this, without allowing everybody to have a say, without proper debate and discussion, we deny real people in our society who should be involved in this. Senator Canavan made the point this morning that we undermine the trust and the respect and the responsibility that is given to this parliament and this Senate. I think the guillotining of legislation, particularly important legislation, is unparliamentary. It's undemocratic. Australians expect better and more. The more difficult the topic, the more important it is that all Australians get to have a say. We cannot be righteous and say, 'This is the only way,' in this regard. That is what healthy democracy is about.

So I rise to represent the other half of this relationship, being the employer groups—the employers who have for so long been able to make generous and appropriate arrangements with employees who have all sorts of different requirements. Will we move next to legislating for greater leave if one of your parents dies? What about a sibling? I think that's currently three days. Where are we going to start requiring that employers should take on the financial responsibility? If the government believes that this is important legislation, did the government consider that the government would pay for it? Of course they didn't, because this is a government that will always shift the cost to small business—the very group that, at the moment, is going into liquidation, administration and closure faster than at any point in our history. I think we should care about that.

I think this is an incredibly important group of people. They provide the apprenticeships to our young people. They provide the opportunity for school attendees to work part time in their businesses. They give a go to people who would not fit into a bigger corporate structure. Particularly in the places where I am from in regional and rural Australia, it is small businesses that turn up and continue providing services, often at cost to themselves. They don't pay themselves. They instead pay their employees, their workforce, their suppliers and all the government fees and charges that continue to grow.

The point that I seek to make is that guillotining this legislation is bad for Australia. It's bad for our democracy. It's bad for the standing that this parliament has in the minds of those people that we come here seeking to represent. It is bad for a sector of our community and our economy because, as we seek to make good a harm, we have not had any ability to look at what that price is. I don't think that's fair. I think it really diminishes the government in my eyes, but, worse, I come here to represent people who provide jobs to thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of Australians, and their voice has been completely lost and disregarded in this. I don't think that's right.

I rise to speak in support of this profoundly important legislation. The Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya's) Bill 2025 is more than a piece of workplace legislation; it is a human and moral imperative born out of tragedy, compassion and commitment to justice for grieving parents. This bill delivers on a key Labor election commitment. We promised to legislate to guarantee that working parents who experience stillbirth or early death of a child can continue to access their employer-paid parental leave where such leave aligns with the employee's terms and conditions of employment. This promise was made in response to the tireless advocacy of Priya's parents, who have courageously shared their story to prevent other parents from enduring what they had come to endure.

Baby Priya tragically died at just six weeks of age. The loss of a child is one of the most profoundly devastating experiences any person could face. In such moments, grieving parents need certainty and stability, particularly regarding entitlements that allow them time and space to mourn. This bill ensures that parents are not left to navigate a legal grey area during what is already an unimaginable period of grief. I want to take a moment to acknowledge Priya's parents for their courage, because their courage has brought this issue to the forefront and will have a tangible, long-lasting change to workplace laws. No parent should have to go through the heartbreak that Priya's mother experienced, and the government's response reflects our shared view that grieving parents deserve both dignity and certainty. To you, Priya's parents, I extend my deepest gratitude and admiration for your strength.

Under this bill, an employer cannot, because of the stillbirth or death of a child, refuse to allow an employee to take employer-paid parental leave to which they would have otherwise been titled, nor can they cancel any part of that leave. This principle, however, respects the terms of employment. It does not override arrangements where an employee's contract explicitly allows the employer to refuse or cancel leave, or provide for alternative entitlements in these circumstances, or where the employee requests the cancellation of leave. Employers will know clearly what their obligations are, helping to avoid unnecessary disputes and distress. This clarity benefits everyone, promoting a fair, predictable and compassionate workplace.

This bill is about more than legal definitions and workplace entitlements. It's about humanity. It's about acknowledging the parents who have lost a child and are facing an unimaginable pain. None of them should ever have to endure this alone or ever be caused additional stress over employment entitlements. It's about saying unequivocally that the Labor Party and the Labor government believe in protecting and supporting families in their darkest hours. The strength that Priya's parents have shown by allowing this story to be told is why we've named this legislation after Priya and has reminded us all of the power of lived experience to drive policy change. This bill is a testament to their courage, their determination and their refusal to let Priya's life, however brief, pass without making a difference. By naming this legislation after Baby Priya, we honour her memory and ensure that her story changes the lives of countless parents into the future. This bill also demonstrates the Labor government's commitment to fairness and decency in our workplaces. Employment laws must be about more than productivity and economics. They must reflect our shared values, our empathy and our respect for human life. By guaranteeing employer-paid parental leave in circumstances of stillbirth and early infant death, we are creating workplaces that recognise grief, compassion and the fundamental rights of working parents.

I urge all senators across the chamber to consider the human cost of failing to act. To hesitate would be to send a message to grieving parents that their suffering is a matter for uncertainty and negotiation, rather than protection, compassion and respect. This bill ensures that no parent must question whether they can access leave they're entitled to during one of life's most tragic circumstances. I fully support this legislation.

I rise in support of the Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya's) Bill 2025. I want to start by acknowledging—like many others in this chamber have—the heartbreaking circumstances behind this bill. This bill was named after Baby Priya, who died tragically just 42 days after birth. I extend my sympathy to Priya's parents on their terrible loss.

Only a few days after her loss, Priya's mum informed the company that she worked for—and she'd worked for them for over 10 years—that her baby daughter was gone. What happened next only compounded her grief and distress. They unilaterally cancelled her maternity leave, informing her via text message soon after, and gave her just one month of personal leave. This was cruel beyond belief, but it was also legal. The Fair Work Commission told her there was nothing they could do about the cancellation of her maternity leave. Legally, employers can cancel paid maternity leave, even though they cannot cancel unpaid leave in the event of an infant death or stillbirth.

Priya's parents knew the law had to change. When Priya's dad got three months of paid paternity leave under the New South Wales industrial system while Priya's mum had to go back to work, she mum realised that our federal industrial relations system needed to catch up. The cancellation of her maternity leave forced her back to work, despite her immeasurable grief. Priya's mum deserved that maternity leave, just as any other mother of a living baby would. I commend Priya's parents for their advocacy. No parent should have to go through what they did. This bill amends the Fair Work Act to make entitlements to parental leave in case of stillbirth or the death of a child more consistent, whether the leave is paid or unpaid parental leave. It will prevent employers from unilaterally cancelling periods of paid parental leave in cases of stillbirth or infant death—in cases like Priya's.

While the previous Liberal government made amendments to previous periods of unpaid parental leave to stop them from being unilaterally cancelled by employers in these cases, no such rules apply to periods of paid parental leave. This is a serious problem, and the Greens support this bill's amendments to the Fair Work Act to fix this. As someone whose academic and professional life has been committed to understanding the relationship between work, life, care responsibilities and the birth of new children, along with fairness in employment, I know the current system is far from adequate. It can fail parents in the moments they most need it to support them. I thank Baby Priya's parents and the Australian Services Union for their strong campaign to change these laws.

This bill also aligns squarely with the Greens' longstanding commitment to make work fairer and more caring. The bill is a welcome step forward, but, let's be honest, it's still nowhere near enough. Australia's Paid Parental Leave scheme remains one of the weakest within the OECD. The average across developed countries is around 52 weeks paid leave. Yet, here, even after this bill, families will have less than half that. The Greens believe every family should have access to 52 weeks of paid parental leave by 2030, and it should be paid at replacement wages—because caring for a new child shouldn't mean falling behind financially. It shouldn't mean widening the gender pay gap and super gap that already disadvantage so many women, and it shouldn't mean perpetual exhaustion for having to go back to work way too early after the birth of a baby.

As chair of the Senate Select Committee on Work and Care, I heard much about the importance of paid parental leave and its many benefits for carers and families. We know that longer, better paid parental leave improves child health, strengthens attachment, boosts maternal wellbeing and supports parents to stay connected to work. Yet too often our system pushes mothers out and locks fathers out. Parents shouldn't have to choose between spending the precious first year with their baby or paying their rent or mortgage.

Expanding paid parental leave is not just about supporting families; it's about building gender equality into the foundations of our economy. As I've said before in this place many times, around a third of the gender pay gap comes from time spent caring for family and stepping out of full-time work. Today, the Australian Centre for Gender Equality and Inclusion @ Work are launching their Gender equality @ work index report. The report finds that inequality persists in the total hours that men and women work due to women carrying the brunt of unpaid care and the paid parental leave load. It also found that the low uptake of parental leave by men continues to be a major cause of gender inequality at home and in the workplace. When we underpay or undervalue care, we entrench inequality that lasts a lifetime in wages, superannuation and retirement security. A full year of paid leave with super paid on every dollar would begin to change that story. It would recognise care as real, essential work—work that makes all other work possible, work that underpins productivity in our economy.

Currently, our national scheme falls short of global best practice by a long way. The Greens recognise that giving families a full year of security on the arrival of a child will strengthen maternal health, promote greater workforce participation and reduce the gender pay and superannuation gaps that follow years of unpaid care. Recommendation 16 of the work and care report agreed to by Labor, the Liberals and the Greens recommended that the government should consider ways to reach the international best practice of 52 weeks of paid parental leave. Labor has the numbers in this place to be bold and to build a world-class system that values care as real, vital work—a system that values women and fathers in the care of their kids and family. Labor, don't just tinker at the edges. Use your majority to bring Australia into line with the OECD average and finally deliver the fair, flexible, year-long leave that families need.

The Greens support this bill as it's a step towards a more caring, equitable industrial relations system—a system that protects workers in crisis and affirms the essential link between work, care and community. We will continue to push for broader reform, including for 52 weeks of paid parental leave, stronger protection for carers for their jobs, and fairer rights for all workers balancing paid work and unpaid care. This is a legacy that will touch countless lives. I'll conclude with some words directly from Priya's mum:

To every grieving parent, I want to acknowledge you with the deepest respect. You've endured the greatest pain imaginable, yet you continue to take one step at a time, day by day … For the working parents of stillborn babies and infant deaths … my hope—

Priya's mother's hope—

is that this law will grant you the time, support and financial assistance that are rightfully yours so that you can have that time … to take care of yourselves.

It's rare to see tri-partisan agreement in this chamber, but this is such an important bill to so many in our community, and I commend this bill to the Senate.

I also rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya's) Bill 2025. The bill before us is named in honour of Baby Priya, who tragically passed away just 42 days after her birth. It is an immeasurable loss and grief for any family to endure, but for Priya's family it was a turmoil that was compounded, as Priya's mother, in her grief, was forced to negotiate with her employer about returning to work. This is something she never expected to face, and yet it is an experience that is not unfamiliar to too many bereaved families in our community. No parent should ever have to go through what Priya's mum experienced, and yet it's a story we know exists too often.

It's certainly something that was experienced by a close friend of mine, who has given me her permission and blessing to share her story as part of my contribution. When my friend's son was stillborn at 32 weeks, she was forced to negotiate with her employer and was advised that her return to work should be just five weeks after the loss of her son. During those five weeks, she was in and out of public hospital no fewer than seven times, including a two-night admission because of retained placental products. This was hardly the grieving period my friend required to mourn the loss of her son.

As she returned to her work in a diverse retail management role, she told me she felt as though she was going to cry or vomit every time a healthy newborn baby entered her store. She was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. If she had had the time to grieve, she could have received a diagnosis for this and the support she then required, but she didn't. This was the reality for my friend. It is the reality for so many women like her.

While my friend was forced to take medication to suppress the milk that she would never be able to feed her baby and as her body was recovering, she was forced back into a role where she was instructed to meet key performance indicators, manage staff performance, oversee payroll and write rosters. My friend had no time to experience the grief she needed to. At this time she found tasks like grocery shopping truly overwhelming. Her grief was just so consuming that making those decisions each week became overwhelming. The most meaningful gifts she received during this time weren't flowers but groceries because they spared her from having to make those decisions and do those tasks in daily life. If these things felt impossible for my friend, how can we expect bereaved parents to navigate complex negotiations with their employers about when to return to work?

This system is failing due to a lack of understanding of what these women and these families are going through. Ambiguous workplace policies fail to acknowledge a devastating public health issue that impacts more than six Australian families every day. If paid parental leave schemes do not acknowledge the lives of babies born without breath or babies who pass away shortly after birth, they help nobody, but they sure as hell have traumatised too many women.

As a government we have the opportunity and the responsibility to remove this ambiguity by strengthening the Fair Work Act to support bereaved parents in their most vulnerable moments. In doing so, we legislate for clarity, for certainty and for compassion. This bill will ensure that employer-funded parental leave cannot be cancelled if a child is stillborn or if a child dies shortly after birth. It introduces a new principle into the Fair Work Act that, unless employers and employees have agreed otherwise, employer-funded paid parental leave must not be cancelled because a child is stillborn or dies shortly after birth.

I want to acknowledge, as many senators have done, Baby Priya's parents, who, through bravely telling their story, brought attention to an issue not adequately addressed in existing workplace laws. After their baby's death, her parents advocated to ensure no other parent would have to face what they did. Baby Priya's loss is an absolute tragedy, and this bill honours Baby Priya and it honours her parents by creating a legacy that will touch countless lives. I want to thank them for their advocacy on this essential reform. Parents must have certainty about their entitlements at such a difficult moment. They need time and they need space to grieve.

This bill provides transparency for parents and employers. It means bereaved parents will not have to deal with the stress and uncertainty about their entitlements during one of the most traumatic times in their lives. Likewise, for managers, it doesn't place them in the position of having to make a potentially fraught discretionary judgement call on such a delicate matter—a call which could compound grief and trauma for their staff.

The loss of a child is a profoundly traumatic event. While Australia is one of the safest places in the world for a baby to be born, in 2022 more than 3,000 families lost a child to stillbirth or within the first 28 days of their birth. I want to acknowledge and recognise every family who feels this grief and every family who lives with this loss—those families and those mothers who hold their babies not in their arms but only in their hearts. Stillbirth is a public health issue shrouded in stigma, but through awareness, education and policy change, we can actually save the lives of our littlest Australians—Australian babies who are so deeply longed for. In recognition of those babies who are so deeply missed, we can create better systems for those who experience stillbirth or neonatal loss to support them in their grief.

I am deeply proud to stand in support of this bill as a friend of someone who has experienced the most traumatic of losses and as a representative of the women in my community who have felt and experienced that too. This is why we must pass this bill with the utmost urgency and importance. I acknowledge the contribution of every senator who has come and spoken in support of this bill with sensitivity and with care and with compassion. I commend the bill to the Senate.

The Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya's) Bill 2025 amends the Fair Work Act 2009 to extend entitlements to paid parental leave in the case of stillbirth or death of a child. Stillbirths or deaths of a child are crushing—heartbreaking to parents. My wife, Christine, and I have two children and one grandchild. Nothing else comes close, as I'm sure every parent feels. Nothing else comes close to having a child, except possibly losing a child. One Nation supports the bill's core intent for the very reason I've just mentioned.

The bill only deals with paid parental leave; it does not alter the existing provisions around unpaid parental leave. The bill will prevent employers from unilaterally cancelling periods of paid parental leave in cases of stillbirth or the death of a child during the paid parental leave period. The bill will not prevent employers and employees from agreeing between themselves to cancel such periods of leave, usually so the employee can return to work early for sound reasons. And the bill does not change arrangements for payment of allowances to parents who are not employed. The bill does not impose any requirement on employers to provide employer-funded paid parental leave, because the employer does not pay parental leave; the government does, at a cost of $2.9 billion a year. Some companies pay parental leave at a higher rate. Often, they pay the employee's regular pay and top up the government payment themselves. In this case, the bill will make those employers pay this higher rate to an employee who voluntarily terminated their pregnancy when their child was delivered stillborn. I will say that again: in this case, the bill will make those employers pay this higher rate to an employee who voluntarily terminated their pregnancy when the child was delivered stillborn.

Why has One Nation submitted an amendment to the Baby Priya bill? Why have I submitted an amendment to the Baby Priya bill? The bill requires employers to provide paid parental leave to employees who have a stillborn baby, or where the baby dies during the parental leave period. One Nation do not oppose this measure in principle; we support it. Our amendment does not change the outcome of the bill for most women, including the situation Baby Priya's parents, very sadly, found themselves to be in.

The definition of a stillborn baby in the bill relies on section 77A(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009, which defines a stillborn child as one:

(a) who weighs at least 400 grams at delivery …; and

(b) who has not breathed since delivery; and

(c) whose heart has not beaten since delivery.

Yet here's a key concern of many constituents across Australia and my state of Queensland: nothing in this definition takes account of a voluntary abortion resulting in a stillbirth, which is most late-term abortions. These involve injecting the human baby with a drug that stops their heart and then is delivered as a stillbirth. In the bill as it was introduced, a mother in that situation would qualify for 26 weeks of paid parental leave. This is the very specific issue One Nation's amendment seeks to correct. We do not believe it is right for a woman who deliberately terminates her pregnancy to then qualify for 26 weeks paid parental leave at taxpayer expense.

I must emphasise that neither this bill nor One Nation's amendment changes anything around emergency terminations in the event of serious health issues affecting the mother. Nothing changes. That's already protected in legislation; I want to make that very clear. For example, early delivery without killing the baby first is normal obstetric practice for emergency health conditions late in pregnancy such as high blood pressure, liver or kidney disease or cancer that requires chemotherapy.

Here are some more important facts on abortion that have informed One Nation's amendment. There is no upper gestational limit on abortion in any Australian state jurisdiction—none. In each jurisdiction, abortion is permitted until birth with the approval of two doctors after a certain gestation. In some jurisdictions such as Queensland, the second doctor who approves the late term abortion is not even required to examine the pregnant woman. A late term abortion is an abortion at 20 weeks or more in gestation. This is consistent with the definition provided by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in its practice guideline on late term abortion.

How many late term abortions are performed in Australia every year? We don't know because only Victoria, Queensland and South Australia publish the figures. The other states are obviously ashamed of how many they perform. The total number of known late term abortions in 2024 was 5,559. Of those, 75 per cent were for non-life-threatening conditions. This makes a complete mockery of the leftist talking point that women don't abort their babies on a whim. Some do.

There is a strong case for the productivity benefit of paid parental leave though, including in cases of natural death of the child. One Nation quite clearly supports this. It's only the extension of this benefit to women who deliberately kill their baby, murder their baby, that One Nation objects to. I ask the Senate to support this amendment.

I appreciate having the opportunity to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya's) Bill 2025. Just to be clear, this is not a minister closing the debate on the bill. I rise to speak to this bill, a bill that enshrines compassion, fairness and dignity for parents who endure one of life's deepest tragedies—the loss of a child. The bill is named in the memory of Baby Priya, who heartbreakingly died when she was just 42 days old. Her short life and the courage of her parents have led to this important law reform. When Priya's mum told her employer that her baby had passed away, she not only was grieving the unimaginable loss of her child but also was asked to negotiate with her employer about when she would return to work. At that moment when she needed care, she instead faced uncertainty.

This bill changes that. The Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya's) Bill 2025 includes a clear principle in the Fair Work Act that, unless an employer and employee have expressly agreed otherwise, employer funded paid parental leave cannot be cancelled because a child is stillborn or dies. This guarantees protection for grieving parents, ensuring the leave that they were granted remains theirs even in the event of unimaginable loss. It provides certainty, stability and space to grieve, recognising both the physical toll of childbirth and the trauma of a loss of a child. It ensures consistency across the system, bringing employer funded schemes in line with the government's own paid parental leave program. It also makes it easier for workers and managers to navigate these difficult circumstances while allowing flexibility where both parties agree.

Many employers already act with compassion when a situation like this arises. This bill provides a clear legislative foundation to support those good practices, ensuring compassion is not dependent on the goodwill of an individual manager. When the Albanese government became aware of this gap in workplace laws, we committed to ensuring that no other family would have to go through what Priya's parents went through. Australia is one of the safest countries in the world to give birth, but, sadly, stillbirth and infant loss do happen. In 2022 more than 3,000 families across our nation lost a child to stillbirth or within the first 28 days after birth. Every one of those numbers represents a much-loved baby, and parents who must find a way to live through their grief. We know that losing a baby has a profound and lasting impact not only on parents but on siblings, extended families, friends and communities. In those moments, no-one should have to worry about whether they'll still be paid or whether they'll be expected to return to work before they're ready. This bill is not only about consistency; it's also about what kind of workplaces we want in Australia—workplaces that recognise the humanity of their people, and workplaces that show kindness when it matters most. This bill provides certainty for parents and clarity for employers.

I want to pay tribute to Priya's parents, who, during their grief, showed extraordinary bravery and generosity. In their grief, they spoke out so that others would not have to face what they did. They demonstrated their advocacy and willingness to relive pain so that other parents in similar situations do not have to experience what they did. This is the reason the bill bears their daughter's name. Baby Priya's legacy will live on in this legislation.

I also want to acknowledge Minister Amanda Rishworth for her leadership on this reform. She's worked closely with parents, employers and unions to ensure this bill gets the balance right—compassionate, fair, and practical. Employer groups and business representatives engaged constructively, recognising that supporting employees through grief is both the right thing to do and good for workplaces. I thank them for their cooperation and empathy.

This reform also forms part of our broader effort to modernise and strengthen the fair work system to reflect the reality of people's lives. We're already expanding paid parental leave to 26 weeks, making it more flexible and accessible for modern families, and Baby Priya's story has added to this. Her parents' courage has inspired a national conversation about how we support families through the unthinkable. No law can take away their pain, but this bill will give other parents certainty and time to grieve, which is a legacy worth honouring.

It is an opportunity for the Senate to come together and show compassion and empathy for the situation that has led to this bill being brought before it. I know from other speakers, and from some of the contributions that were made in the other place, that there have been some comments reflecting concerns about the bill which don't directly relate to this bill at all. Indeed, with some of the comments that Senator Roberts made, the government will not be supporting his amendments. In fact, the concerns raised—which I accept Senator Roberts holds dearly in his heart—are not issues that are enlivened by this bill. I would also like to say that, when it comes to the loss of a baby, whether it be a loss through pregnancy, stillbirth or termination, these are things that weigh very heavily on parents' hearts. In particular, these are very difficult decisions for women. I think that some of the comments made today about women and their decision-making are deeply offensive to the vast majority of women across Australia. I don't want to focus my remarks on other things that are being said around this bill, but I do want to place it on the record. I share the concerns that I imagine many women are feeling when they hear comments made like those that Senator Roberts made in his contribution.

The Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya's) Bill 2025 ensures that our workplace laws meet a simple standard—that we do care for one another in our darkest moments, that we look after each other and that, where gaps are identified, they can be addressed through legislation, and that that flows on and benefits families into the future. That is something the Senate should support. On behalf of the government and on behalf of Baby Priya's family, who, of course, are the motivation—the moving force—behind this bill, I commend the bill to the Senate.

I rise to speak in support of the Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya's) Bill 2025, a bill that I believe is grounded in compassion and common sense. This is a good bill, but I believe it does not go far enough. It is a compassionate and practical reform that corrects a cruel inconsistency in our laws. It ensures that when a baby is stillborn or dies soon after birth an employer cannot unilaterally cancel paid parental leave that has already been approved. It brings basic decency into line with existing protections for unpaid parental leave. But this bill is only a very small step in addressing a far bigger problem. Australia's workplace laws still fail to properly recognise and support the reproductive health needs of women. As the Australian Council of Trade Unions has pointed out, reproductive health is not a niche concern; it's a universal one. ACTU president Michele O'Neil has said:

Reproductive health can impact all workers and will affect most workers at some stage in their life.

Too many workers have been penalised or forced to bow out of employment because of reproductive health issues.

We need universal paid reproductive leave so that women as well as men can balance work and care and stay in their jobs. That is the larger conversation we must have. This bill is a compassionate fix, but it must be the beginning and not the end of a broader effort to recognise reproductive health as a legitimate part of workplace life.

The origins of this legislation are heartbreaking, and I commend all my fellow senators for making contributions. It's named after a little girl, Baby Priya, who lived for just 42 days. I extend my deepest condolences and sympathies to her family and her parents. Priya's parents loved her deeply, and when she passed away her mother, who was prepared for months of parental leave, was told she was no longer eligible to take it. Her employer cancelled the leave on the basis that her baby had died. Her husband could take his leave, but she could not. This bill ensures that no parent will ever face that injustice again. It amends the Fair Work Act to prevent employers from refusing or cancelling employer-funded paid parent leave in cases of stillbirth or early infant death. It closes a gap in the law that left parents vulnerable to both grief and financial harm.

In the past week, like many senators in this place, I've received correspondence misrepresenting this bill. Some claim it incentivises late term abortions or that women will kill their babies for profit from taxpayer money. These claims are false. This bill deals only with employer-funded paid parental leave, leave that comes from an employment contract, a workplace policy or an enterprise agreement. It does not affect the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010, which governs government funded payments. It does not involve taxpayer money. It simply provides that where paid parental leave already exists under a workplace agreement, an employer cannot revoke it simply because of a tragedy.

The Fair Work Act already defines a stillborn child as one who weighs at least 400 grams or has reached 20 weeks gestation and shows no sign of life after birth or after delivery. That definition does not include pregnancies that have been lawfully terminated, and this bill does not alter that definition in any way. A woman who undergoes a termination is not and will not become eligible for paid parental leave or stillborn payments under this legislation as I understand it. For some people in this chamber to suggest otherwise is quite misleading and disingenuous to the Australian public. The claim that anyone could profit from ending pregnancy is very, very harmful. It dismisses the suffering of women who have experienced miscarriage, stillbirth or early infant death, and it fuels this dangerous narrative that distorts compassion into controversy. Each of the 76 senators in this place have either personally experienced or know of someone experiencing the realities of pregnancy, and let me tell you that it's not a simple walk in the park. It is a physical and emotional marathon requiring strong mental fortitude and a safe support network. For many families, it begins with years of fertility treatment, IVF cycles, hormone therapy and heartbreak. For others, it brings complex conditions, such as endometriosis and polycystic ovarian syndrome, and high-risk complications.

When a pregnancy ends in stillbirth, the loss is devastating. No-one chooses the pain; no-one experiences it to gain access to leave or payment. The grief of losing a child cannot be offset by a policy or a pay slip. I speak as a woman who's seen, through family, friends and countless constituents reaching out to talk about it, the profound physical and emotional labour of bringing life into this world and the devastation of losing it. It is highly insulting and very offensive to suggest that women would endure the emotional and physical suffering for financial gain.

This bill recognises that grief should not result in financial insecurity. It ensures that the leave a parent has already earned is protected, and it prevents the cancellation of that leave because of a stillbirth or an early infant death. Fairness and productivity go hand in hand. We've heard it multiple times: workplaces that treat people with decency retain skilled staff, improve morale and continue building that trust. Who would have thought that we'd be here debating and questioning the merits of compassion in building a stronger workforce?

As I alluded to earlier, this debate raises that broader issue of how our workplaces support reproductive health and women's continued participation in the workforce. Across the country, unions are campaigning for 10 days of paid reproductive health leave to cover IVF treatments, menopause, endometriosis, miscarriage and other reproductive needs. Women currently retire, on average, seven years earlier than men do, often not by choice but because workplaces fail to accommodate for their health needs. The General Secretary of the Queensland Council of Unions, Jacqueline King, put it plainly: 'For too long, generations of working women have had to show up to work in pain or juggle demanding treatments because of stigma and inadequate leave.' She said workplaces must recognise that 'people have families' and that 'they also have reproductive health'. This bill belongs in that same continuum of reform. It recognises that family, fertility and loss are not private inconveniences that need to be hidden from public discourse and policy but part of the human experience of working life.

As mentioned earlier by Senator Gallagher, there has been far too much moral panic about this legislation, obviously turning the compassion that we're seeking into a culture war headline. No, this bill does not fund abortions. No, it does not expand eligibility for government payments. No, it does not invite abuse. It simply closes a loophole that allowed employers to cancel paid parental leave after a stillbirth or an early infant death. We may hold personal beliefs about the ethics of pregnancy and birth, but this parliament must legislate on facts, not fear and misconceptions that are running rampant like wildfire. Many employers already act with compassion when tragedy strikes—they keep jobs open, they provide time to grieve and they check in long after the flowers have faded. This bill sets that compassion as a national standard for all. To those who still worry that such kindness might be exploited, I would say that the greater exploitation is to punish people for losing a child.

Colleagues, we cannot undo the pain that Baby Priya's parents have experienced, but we can ensure that no-one else endures the same bureaucratic cruelty. We can ensure that no mother is ever told: 'Because your baby didn't live, your leave doesn't count.' This bill says to every parent who has faced the unimaginable: 'Your grief will not be compounded by paperwork. Your dignity will not depend on your employer's discretion. The law will treat your loss with the respect it deserves.'

If we are serious about equality and the retention of women in the workforce, we must create workplaces that recognise life in all its forms, even in its loss. I commend the Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya's) Bill 2025 to the Senate.

I rise to speak in support of the Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya's) Bill 2025. This bill makes a small but deeply meaningful change to our workplace relations framework. It ensures that, when the unthinkable happens—when a parent loses a baby through stillbirth or early infant death—their right to employer funded paid parental leave cannot be cancelled simply because of that tragedy. This bill is about compassion. It responds to the experiences of Baby Priya's parents, who, after the loss of their daughter at six weeks old, were told that their employer funded parental leave would be withdrawn. No parent should ever face the stress of negotiating their leave entitlements while grieving their child. I'd like to place on record my thanks to Baby Priya's parents for their advocacy in this area.

Until now, the Fair Work Act did not clearly set out what happens to employer funded paid parental leave in these circumstances. While unpaid parental leave and government funded paid parental leave already provide certainty for parents experiencing loss, employer funded schemes—those negotiated directly between employers and employees—have existed in a grey area. This bill closes that gap. It introduces a clear principle into the Fair Work Act: unless an employer and employee have expressly agreed otherwise, employer funded paid parental leave must not be refused or cancelled because a child is stillborn or dies. It provides reassurance for the parents, clarity for employers and consistency across the workplace relations system. Managers will no longer be placed in the position of making difficult and deeply personal decisions at a time of immense grief. Instead, there will be a clear, fair rule that supports everyone involved.

The legislation also respects the integrity of existing arrangements. It does not require employers to provide paid parental leave where none exists, nor does it override terms that have been negotiated in good faith. It simply ensures that, where paid parental leave is provided, it cannot be withdrawn in the face of tragedy unless that outcome has been clearly and fairly agreed. Importantly, this reform applies equally to adoption and surrogacy arrangements, recognising that every family deserves the same protection and dignity. It also prevents employers from unilaterally changing workplace policies, after the law takes effect, to remove these entitlements.

This is a practical, compassionate reform that gives families time and space to grieve, to heal, and to rebuild. It honours the memory of Baby Priya and the strength of her parents, who turned their heartbreak into a legacy that will help others. I commend the bill to the Senate.

The Greens support the Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya's) Bill, which is the result of a tireless advocacy campaign by Baby Priya's family and the Australian Services Union. We know that this bill, which extends paid parental leave to parents who have had a tragic stillbirth or lost an infant within the leave period, will make a huge difference for families who have suffered unimaginable losses. To go through this loss and then to be expected to immediately return to work is unfair, it is unjust, and it is unnecessary. This is an important step forward in doing our bit to support families and parents who are suffering tragic losses.

The fact that this bill has been weaponised by those on the Right in their awful campaign to police women's bodies is despicable and disgraceful. But I'm not surprised at all. They do this every time; they use the antichoice, anti-abortion playbook to push their far-right agenda. This is not a new tactic. It is old, it is tired and it comes straight from the US antichoice, far-right lobby.

The passage of this bill should be an important milestone and achievement for grieving families like Baby Priya's parents, who have stood up and shared their immense trauma to ensure that other parents don't have to go through what they have been through and that others can have the security of paid leave while they grieve and adjust. It should be a straightforward passage, where all sides of politics can feel proud. Instead, some have made it another battleground for hateful misinformation that seeks to control and shame women.

The MPs who are using this bill as an opportunity to demonise and shame women should themselves be utterly ashamed. Firstly, these men have no right to tell us what we can and cannot do with our bodies—absolutely none. Secondly, it is extraordinary that the harmful myth, the really harmful myth, that somehow women are lining up to have their pregnancies terminated the day before giving birth keeps being peddled by the Right. How utterly vile. Only a very small percentage of abortions occur after 20 weeks, and they are associated with severe medical conditions, such as the presence of genetic syndromes or major fetal abnormality, or situations where continuing the pregnancy would severely harm the mother's mental and physical health, as Dr Kirsten Black, Professor of Sexual and Reproductive Health at the University of Sydney, has explained. But that doesn't stop these MPs from politicising a deeply personal matter. They don't really care about facts. They just want control.

Well, we will not have a bar of it. Our rights are not up for debate. I have been fighting this fight along with so many in the community for a long time. I introduced the first bill to decriminalise abortion in New South Wales in 2017, and, when the archaic laws that criminalised abortion in New South Wales were finally thrown into the dustbin of history two years later, it was a proud moment for all of us who had been campaigning for decades for this change. These rights, women's rights, are always hard fought for and something we can never really take for granted in a patriarchal society, where some still want to control our bodies and our choices. Abortion is health care. Importantly, it is an issue of reproductive rights and body autonomy, and we must be unapologetic about fighting for women's rights, for human rights and for any person who needs access to reproductive health care having full and unambiguous bodily autonomy.

The MPs who have used this bill for perpetuating their barely guarded misogyny should just sit down and shut up. We have had enough.

I would like to start by reading out a statement from the woman who has brought us all here today to pass this bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya's) Bill 2025, a bill that is about compassion and care and nothing less. This is a statement from Priya's mum: 'The Baby Priya bill is deeply special and important to me. Over the past few days I have watched the parliamentary speeches with tears, gratitude and love. I want to sincerely thank every speaker who has supported this bill wholeheartedly, with such compassion, sensitivity and care. Your words have moved me beyond measure, and each speech and story, and each acknowledgement of Priya and our journey, has moved me to the core. I am especially thankful to Minister Rishworth for honouring what this bill truly represents, which is my love and legacy for Priya, and the hope that no other bereaved parent will ever be treated unfairly or unjustly again. The Baby Priya bill is more than legislation. It is my symbol of love, strength and devotion to my daughter. I am proudly grateful to everyone who has embraced and supported this legacy of love. From the depths of my heart, I thank you. With love, Priya's mum.'

From the depths of all of our hearts, we thank Priya's mum for the courage that she has shown in advocating not just for herself but for all of the women and all of the families who find themselves in these devastating circumstances of facing the loss of a child and then facing the loss of employer paid parental leave that should be there to help them get through, that should be there to help them grieve, that should be there to help them heal and that, with the passage of the bill, will be there.

Australia is one of the safest places in the world for a baby to be born, but, sadly, stillbirths and child loss do happen. 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 incredibly difficult circumstances for workers and managers to navigate. This bill will ensure there is greater clarity regarding employer funded paid parental leave for parents dealing with the tragedy of stillbirth or the death of a child. The changes made by this bill align employer paid parental leave with existing arrangements for unpaid parental leave entitlements and the government's Paid Parental Leave scheme, neither of which can be cancelled in the event of stillbirth or the death of a child, ensuring consistency for working parents and employers. This bill will not interfere where employers and employees have expressly agreed, including via an enterprise agreement, what should occur if a child is stillborn or dies. Provisions that refer generally to circumstances of pregnancy, such as some reproductive leave entitlements, will not be enough to override the protections in this bill.

I am disappointed to hear the contributions of a very small minority who have tried to say that this bill is about something that it is not about. What this bill is about is giving certainty to grieving parents at the most difficult time of their life. That's what it is about. As we've heard from the vast majority of members of all political colours who have contributed to this debate, this bill will make a positive difference. It will provide much-needed comfort and clarity to parents who are dealing with unimaginable pain. We cannot lose sight of the purpose of the bill or how important it is for these workers and for these families.

This reform is vital. It protects employer funded paid parental leave entitlements at one of the most difficult times a parent can face. Again I thank Baby Priya's mum, dad and grandparents for their fierce advocacy to ensure that no parent ever goes through what they did.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I've explained my amendment, so I don't need to again. I move my amendment on sheet 3479:

(1) Schedule 1, item 5, page 5 (after line 16), at the end of section 333X, add:

Exclusions

(7) Despite subsection (1), this section does not apply if the child:

(a) is stillborn because of an intentional termination (other than by child-birth) of a pregnancy; or

(b) dies because of an intentional termination (other than by child-birth) of a pregnancy (whether the death occurs before, during or after delivery).

Note: An intentional termination of pregnancy includes, for example, a medical termination involving the administration of a drug.

The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 3479 be agreed to.

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3477 in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 15), after item 3, insert:

3A At the end of subsection 77A(2)

Add:

; and (d) whose delivery does not occur because of an intentional termination of the pregnancy.

Note: An intentional termination of pregnancy referred to in paragraph (d) includes, for example, a medical termination involving the administration of a drug or the use of a medical instrument, but does not include child-birth, or medical intervention required to deliver a child who has died in the womb of natural causes.

(2) Schedule 1, item 5, page 5 (after line 16), at the end of section 333X, add:

Interpretation

(7) To avoid doubt, a reference in this section to the death of a child does not include a reference to the death of a child that occurs because of an intentional termination of a pregnancy (whether the death of the child because of the intentional termination occurs before, during or after delivery of the child).

Am I able to move an amendment on the floor to this amendment? I was told 1 pm for circulation, but I haven't got that done. I presume I have to seek leave?

Senator Canavan, perhaps for the benefit of the chamber you might indicate how substantive the amendment is.

I seek leave to move an amendment that seeks to exclude the event where a mother's health is at risk.

Senator Hanson-Young, are you seeking the call?

I'd like it if you could get the clerks' advice on the restrictions around moving amendments within the two-hour period when a guillotine has been put in place.

I will do so. I'm advised that, as long as leave is granted, it is acceptable. Senator Hanson-Young?

Senator Canavan is seeking leave because the amendment period is closed. Could you explain clearly, Senator Canavan, what the amendment is to so that we can work out whether we're going to give you leave?

That's a reasonable request. I would seek leave to move an amendment to add to the words at the end of proposed subsection (d): ', unless the termination is to protect the health of the mother.'

Just to be clear, is that to the bill itself, not to somebody else's amendment? So Senator Canavan cleaning up Senator Antic's mess? Is that what's going on here?

That is a debating point. Is leave granted? This is the last time I'm going to ask.

Leave not granted.

Can I just seek clarification? If the mover of an amendment accepts another senator's amendment, does that then become the amendment?

Senator Canavan would still need leave of the Senate. Leave has been denied. So I will put the amendment, unless there are further contributions. The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3477 together be agreed to.

A division have been called and the bells being rung—

I am seeking further advice from the Clerk concerning Senator Canavan's amendment. It may be that division will need to be cancelled. I will seek that advice now.

I am going to cancel this division. There was conflicting advice to the chair. The advice is now that Senator Canavan did not need leave to move his amendment. So I am going to give Senator Canavan the chance to move his amendment. We will then vote on it.

I move an amendment to amendment (1) on sheet 3477:

At the end of paragraph 3A(d) add "unless the termination is to protect the health of the mother"

The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Canavan to Senator Antic's amendment be agreed to.

Unless a senator indicates otherwise, I will put the amendment as moved by Senator Antic.

I wonder if we could ask the President to come back and provide the chamber with a ruling or some advice about what just occurred. I think there was a lot of confusion about the need to seek leave, and I think that it would be useful for the chamber to understand, in the context of this sort of truncated debate, how much notice an amendment to an amendment should receive. I just wonder if you could ask the President to report back to the chamber.

I will ask the President to do that, Senator Wong. As no-one else is seeking the call, I will put amendments 1 and 2 on sheet 3477 together. The question is that amendments on sheet 3477 in the name of Senator Antic be agreed to.

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move:

That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum relating to the bills and move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech es read as follows

TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (PAYDAY SUPERANNUATION) BILL 2025

Today I am proud to introduce the Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Bill 2025.

This bill reforms our superannuation system to help ensure more Australians get the secure retirement they need and deserve.

From waiters and nurses—

To builders and teachers—

Aged carers and hairdressers—

This bill makes sure their superannuation is paid on time.

Workers should be paid their super at the same time they are paid their salary and wages.

That's exactly what this bill enshrines into law.

It is a meaningful change that will take effect from July next year.

It's a change that will strengthen Australia's superannuation system.

And it's a change that will help deliver a more secure retirement for millions of Australian workers.

Workers will benefit from more frequent and earlier super contributions, that will grow and compound over their working life.

For the average 25-year-old workers' retirement balance, this is the equivalent of receiving an extra $6,000 in today's dollars.

If a worker is missing out on their super the impact is even more significant.

In a typical unpaid super case for a 35-year-old, recovering their super leaves their retirement balance more than $30,000 better off in today's dollars.

The need for this reform is clear and compelling.

While most employers do the right thing, some disreputable ones are exploiting their employees.

On the most recent financial year data, there was almost $5.2 billion in unpaid super that should have gone to workers.

That's $5.2 billion that should be helping thousands of Australians in their retirement but isn't.

This issue disproportionately affects more vulnerable Australians and women.

That's because those on lower paid, casual and insecure work—who are more likely to be women—are most at risk of missing out on their super.

Super is an entitlement of workers, like salary or wages, and unpaid super is a form of wage theft.

This bill will help put a stop to it.

It will also help the Australian Taxation Office enforce the law and more quickly identify employers not making contributions.

Currently, over a third of outstanding super debt is owed by insolvent businesses.

This is because unpaid super is being picked up too late.

When the ATO responds to an employee complaint, they are investigating almost two years of potential unpaid super, on average.

As part of this reform, we're also investing into the ATO's capabilities, so it can detect suspected non-payment of super in near real time.

There is a productivity dividend here too.

Smaller, more frequent super contributions will help employers manage their payroll more smoothly.

This legislation also redesigns the superannuation guarantee charge to be fit-for-purpose and make Payday Super work.

The current charge is a blunt tool that isn't tailored to employers' circumstances.

And it is complicated for employers to correct late contributions and calculate their liability.

The redesigned charge will prompt employers to quickly rectify late or missed superannuation contributions.

And it simplifies the process.

Employers will no longer need to choose which period their late contribution should count towards or calculate their own liability.

This will all happen automatically.

At the same time, the new charge will deliver significant consequences for employers that repeatedly fail to pay their workers or let super go unpaid for long periods.

And it will make sure workers are accurately compensated for lost earnings if their employer is late in paying their contributions.

We thank the unions, industry, businesses and the broader community for their feedback, engagement and views to get to this point.

From the years of advocacy for change, through the consultation on the policy design in 2023 and more recently the draft legislation and ongoing engagement with the ATO working group.

We recognise that implementing Payday Super will require an economy-wide transition.

Not just for employers but also software providers, clearing houses and super funds.

Because of this, the ATO has advised it intends to consult on its approach to compliance for the 12 months after the change starts.

The ATO's approach will differentiate between low and high-risk employers.

This approach will mean that employers who are making the effort to pay contributions in line with each pay cycle will fall into the low-risk category.

This approach will address the feedback we've heard to ensure we are getting the implementation of this policy right, and workers and businesses will be better for it.

At the core of the economic plan we laid out in our budget earlier this year is a simple objective.

Our government is ensuring more Australians earn more, keep more of what they earn and retire with more too.

That's what this legislation is about.

You can see that in everything we've done since coming to government in the superannuation sector.

It's why we legislated the objective of super—to provide income for a secure retirement.

We've increased the superannuation guarantee, so it has finally reached 12 per cent.

We expanded the coverage of the superannuation performance test from around 80 products to more than 800 in 2023.

We legislated to align financial reporting requirements by funds with those of public companies.

We've also announced mandatory service standards.

And we're better targeting superannuation tax concessions and reforming the retirement phase of superannuation.

Our plan is making a meaningful difference, and wages are moving in the right direction again.

In the five quarters leading up to the 2022 election, real wages fell in annual terms.

They have now grown for the last seven.

We've recorded the strongest annual real wages growth in five years.

We're now on the longest run of real wages growth above 0.7 per cent in a decade.

And real incomes per capita are growing now too.

This legislation is another important step in implementing that plan.

It's about getting your super when you get your salary.

So there's more super savings for more Australians and more secure retirements.

And that's why we are proud to introduce it to the House.

Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.

SUPERANNUATION GUARANTEE CHARGE AMENDMENT BILL 2025

Today I am also introducing the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Amendment Bill 2025.

This bill works in conjunction with the Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Bill 2025 to make sure superannuation is paid on time.

The amendments in this bill will ensure the superannuation guarantee charge is imposed for any day wages are paid and there is a shortfall in contributions.

For all the reasons I outlined in my previous speech, I commend it to the House.

Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Bill 2025 and the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Amendment Bill 2025. At the outset, let me make clear the coalition strongly supports the principle of payday super. In that spirit, we will support the passage of these bills through the Senate. However, we do have concerns about the process, which we are concerned has been rushed and is careless. We believe there will be real-world ramifications for small business having to implement this.

Superannuation is not a gift from an employer; it is a pay that workers are owed for their effort. The coalition will, of course, support sensible measures which ensure Australians receive their super at the same time they are paid their wages. It is the right thing to do, and it will help protect workers in the short term and ensure larger superannuation balances come in retirement in the long term. Around $5 billion in super is going unpaid every year. This is a serious failure in the system, and Australians deserve better. Every worker should receive every dollar they earn. We agree that more frequent payments will help close this gap, which is why the coalition will support these bills. However, while the principle is correct, Labor's execution of it is far from clean. Once again, we have a government which is obsessed with the announcement and careless about the delivery. A rushed and poorly planned rollout risks chaos for small businesses right across the country.

We've seen this pattern before, from the Treasurer's botched and now withdrawn superannuation tax on unrealised gains to this sloppy implementation plan. Labor never learns from its mistakes. Small and family businesses are always left to pick up the pieces, while the government boasts about its headlines under Labor. Before I comment further on the coalition's concerns with this bill, I want to note the opposition's disappointment that Labor and the Greens teamed up to shut down a short inquiry into this bill. Labor's own documents make clear that Treasury advised an 18-month implementation lead time. Yet businesses are being given less than eight months to overhaul their payment systems. Of even more concern, that eight-month ticking clock began the day this bill was introduced, not the day that it will pass the parliament. Labor took more than two years from announcing this policy to drafting the legislation, and now, suddenly, they claim there is no time to act sensibly. This is irresponsible.

That's why the coalition moved an amendment in the House calling on the government to follow Treasury's advice by giving small business and digital service providers the full 18 months they need to implement these changes by pushing back the start date for businesses with less than 20 staff for 18 months to 1 January. Labor refused to listen, so we risk the systems not being ready in time. The government is even shutting down the free superannuation clearinghouse service on the very day these new obligations begin. That affects around 200,000 small business users and will cause further uncertainty. Software providers are being asked to build, test and rollout entirely new systems to pay people superannuation in a fraction of the time that they say is required to get it right. Everybody in this chamber knows what happens when technology upgrades are rushed. We've seen it many times before. Systems fail, and someone, the end user, ultimately pays the price.

As is often the way with this government, consequences will be borne by the small business who can least afford it. For some employers, super payments will go from quarterly to weekly. A tradie with three staff, a small cafe or a neighbourhood hairdresser with a couple of employees do not have HR departments to absorb the compliance burden nor an IT director to manage new systems for them. Every moment that they spend on paperwork is a moment taken away from keeping their doors open. Small businesses account for about 97 per cent of all Australian businesses, and they employ around 40 per cent of workers. They do not have the spare resources to absorb unnecessary pressure. For some, Labor's reckless timeline could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

That is why the coalition has called on the government to allow hardworking small businesses a fair and achievable pathway. It is not only the coalition that has raised concerns. MYOB, who supports thousands of small businesses across Australia to make these payments, has warned of serious cash flow pressures that could push many firms into insolvency. COSBOA has urged the government to adopt a more realistic timeline because the current approach risks overwhelming those who are already struggling.

The Treasurer claims that the ATO will take a soft approach to compliance in the first 12 months. That's not a plan. That is an admission that the government knows that there will be problems and that they are refusing to fix it. Businesses across the country are unaware this change is even coming because Labor has failed to communicate it. All the coalition has asked for is a responsible timeline—a timeline and a process the coalition has showed is possible. We showed Labor how to do major payroll reform properly. When the coalition was in government, we delivered single touch payroll, the very system that is making payday super more possible. We phased it in a commonsense manner—large employers first, small employers later, with micro employers given reasonable time and concessions.

Labor now expects even a small suburban cafe to meet the same the deadline as a large multinational corporation. That is absurd. Labor also risks punishing honestly employers who encounter problems that are outside their control. If the bank transfer fails or a service outage causes delays, surely no-one here thinks a small business should be hit with penalties. Draft ATO guidance is not enough protection. Draft guidance can change at any moment, and it expires after just one year.

To be clear, we want workers to receive their super entitlements. We want dodgy employers who are not paying workers what they are entitled to to be caught and held accountable, but we'll also stand up for small and family businesses who keep millions of Australians employed. The coalition supports payday super; Labor needs to support a fair and responsible implementation of it.

Labor created our superannuation system following hard fought campaigns by union members right across the country. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Bill 2025 delivers on once-in-a-generation reforms to the superannuation system led by this government. It ensures that superannuation is paid at the same time as wages. From 1 July 2026, employers must ensure contributions reach a worker's fund within seven business days of payday. It closes a gap in unpaid super and helps workers get what they are owed. It also modernises the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Amendment Bill 2025, simplifying employer obligations and compensating employees for lost earnings.

Stolen super costs 3.3 million Australians $5.7 billion—money that should be in workers' retirement accounts. Unpaid super is wage theft, plain and simple, and the problem with a quarterly system is that it hides nonpayment for months or even years. If a business were to collapse, the money is often gone. This new system will make non-payment visible almost immediately. Ultimately, it's about fairness. Workers should be paid the money they earn when they earn it.

This is a particularly important reform for women, for young people and for migrant workers. One in four working women in Australia are underpaid super every year, missing on average $1,300 annually. Across the population, that adds up to $1.9 billion a year and more than $15 billion over the past decade in unpaid super owed to women. And we know women already retire with significantly less super than men, so missed payments make that gap even harder to close. A 30-year-old on average wages who misses a single year of super ends up with $25,000 less in retirement savings. These workers are often in child care, aged care, nursing, community services—some of the most important workers in our country, dominated by women and often on lower pay. This reform goes to ensuring that those workers as well as every single worker across our country can retire with dignity and security.

Stolen super also disproportionately impacts young people, with almost one in three workers in their 20s or 30s having had their super stolen at some point in their careers. Unions have campaigned for this change for years because they know superannuation is workers' money; it is not cash flow for employers. The ACTU's assistant secretary, Joseph Mitchell, put it very well recently:

Paying super on pay day means some workers will retire with tens of thousands of dollars more in superannuation, not just by reducing super theft but by getting their money earning compound interest faster.

…   …   …

If we're serious about tackling intergenerational inequality, we must stop super theft and pay day super is critical to stopping super theft.

This bill goes some way to stopping that theft. It guarantees that super moves with wages, making it easier for workers to track their payments. It's about building super balances and increasing trust in our superannuation system. This is, of course, part of Labor's broader commitment to superannuation. The super guarantee is rising to 12 per cent. We'll be paying super on government funded paid parental leave and increasing penalties to prosecute deliberate superannuation theft. In contrast, the coalition has previously sought to cut the super rate to nine per cent—a move that would cost the average worker $165,000 in retirement savings. And so this bill cements Labor's position as the only party, the only government, that will protect workers' super and their right to retire in dignity.

Today I want to make a really important call to workers right across the country and especially to young workers, who might think they don't need to worry too much about their super, because retirement is a long way off. But super is a part of your pay. It's not a bonus or a gift, and every dollar that isn't paid is a dollar stolen from your future. It is theft and, in fact, many dollars stolen or lost from your super. Young people stand to lose the most when they don't check their super. There's over $17.8 billion in unclaimed super sitting across millions of accounts. This could be your money. A lot of it belongs to young workers who have changed jobs, worked casually or never linked their accounts. Time is your biggest advantage. Compound interest is the most powerful force in super. Money paid into your fund in your 20s has decades to grow, and missing even a year can cost you tens of thousands of dollars, if not more, by retirement.

And so, to young Australians out there: check your super balance. Download the app on your phone. I recently downloaded the MySuper app on my phone. It's a great way to check your balance and to make sure that your super is being paid on time. When this bill comes into effect if this bill passes this parliament—I really, really hope it will—your super will need to be paid along with your wages, and so it's a great opportunity to check and make sure that you are being paid what you are owed. Your future self will thank you.

We know that many young people are starting behind. The average super balance for a 25-year-old is about $24,000. A single year of unpaid super can cut your eventual retirement balance by $25,000 in today's dollars. Disengagement is common and costly. Over a third of gen Z and millennials have no retirement plan and rarely check their fund. It's like walking around with a hole in your wallet.

Australians believe in the superannuation system. It's become a fundamental part of our workers protection framework, but too many are missing out. A national survey found that three-quarters of people trust their super fund to act in their best interests, but engagement drops sharply amongst people from non-English-speaking backgrounds and gig economy workers, who often don't know what they're entitled to or how to check if they're being paid their super. That's why payday super matters. Paying super at the same time as wages makes it visible, trackable and fair. It means that these particularly vulnerable workers from young and culturally diverse backgrounds can see the money land as they get paid, not months and months later. Your super is your future income. Alongside your home, if you're lucky enough to own one, it will likely be your largest asset in retirement. Keeping an eye on it now is the difference between scraping by and living more comfortably in retirement. This reform puts the power back where it belongs—with workers. You'll know if your super is being paid, and you'll be able to see it grow as you go through your working life.

The start date for this bill of 1 July 2026 gives businesses, payroll providers and funds time to upgrade their systems. The ATO will apply a phased compliance approach for the first year, focusing on support for low-risk employers. The ATO will have real-time visibility of contributions through Single Touch Payroll reporting, helping it detect nonpayment sooner. The reform will also retire the Small Business Superannuation Clearing House and align payment systems right across the country. For employers already doing the right thing, this simply aligns the law with existing practice, and, for those who will take some time to transition, this bill allows them to do that. This bill means that workers' super will grow faster through more frequent compounding. A 25-year-old worker will retire with around $6,000 more in their account, thanks to earlier investment returns. For a 35-year-old recovering unpaid super, the benefit exceeds $30,000. Ultimately, this reform will lift retirement incomes and continue the trust in our superannuation system.

Payday super is a simple but powerful idea: when you get your pay, you get your super. It will go a long way to strengthening our superannuation system—the system that Labor built—closing the gender gap and protecting our most vulnerable workers from super theft. It's good for workers, it's good for employers and it is good for the economy. Every Australian deserves to retire in dignity, and that is what this bill delivers.

Superannuation is one of Australia's greatest nation-building achievements. It ensures that every Australian, not just the wealthy, can retire with dignity and security, and, of course, it is a signature policy that was introduced by Labor. After a lifetime of work, every Australian should be able to retire with independence and less reliance on the age pension. So, when super isn't paid properly, it robs Australian workers of their future. That's why the Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Bill 2025 is so important—to make sure people are paid what they're owed. This is critically important because even small amounts of unpaid super mean less money compounding in your account over decades. That can cut tens of thousands of dollars from retirement savings, which can mean the difference between comfort and hardship in later life, especially for lower paid and casual workers, who can least afford to miss out on their superannuation.

This isn't just a technical change to payroll systems; it is about fairness. It's about ensuring that, when a worker earns a dollar of superannuation, that money actually reaches their superannuation account—on time, every time. Right now, far too many Australians are being robbed of their retirement savings. According to the Super Members Council, 3.3 million Australians were not paid the super they earned in 2022-23. That is not a rounding error; that is one in four Australian workers. The total cost is $5.8 billion a year or about $110 million every single week—disappearing from the retirement savings of honest, hardworking people. In my home state of Queensland, the problem is particularly stark: 680,000 workers—which is nearly 30 per cent of the workforce or one in three workers—missed out on an average of $1,720 each in unpaid super last year. Over the past six years, that's a staggering $5.7 billion totally taken from Queensland workers' nest eggs.

I'd like to put that into some further context for the seats that I represent and look after as duty seats in Queensland. In the seat of Longman, 23,950 people lost an average of $1,460. That's 28 per cent of workers in that electorate. In Fairfax, we also saw 28 per cent of the workforce underpaid by $1,590. In Fisher, 29 per cent of the workforce was denied an average of $1,670 of entitlements. That's 22,400 people. It gets worse the further out west you head in Queensland. In Wright, 23,950 workers missed out on $1,720. In Groom, 30 per cent of the workforce missed out on a whopping $1,730. That's 22,300 affected workers in the Toowoomba area.

Superannuation isn't a luxury; it is a promise—a promise that, after a lifetime of work, Australians can retire with dignity and security. When super isn't paid, that promise is broken. The damage doesn't stop there. Every dollar of unpaid super is a dollar that doesn't get the chance to grow and compound over time. If we don't fix this now, the average Australian worker could be short-changed more than $30,000 from their final retirement balance. That's why Labor's payday superannuation guarantee is so important. This legislation will require employers to put super at the same time as wages, not months later. It's a simple, commonsense reform aligning superannuation with payday so that workers can see their contributions flow in real time.

Payday super will create a better system for workers and employers alike. It will give the ATO, businesses and workers the ability to track and address unpaid superannuation sooner, before debts grow and companies collapse. Crucially, it will ensure that every dollar owed in superannuation starts earning investment returns right away, building stronger retirement savings for every Australian. Australians overwhelmingly support this reform. A national survey found that more than 70 per cent of Australians want payday super laws to start from 1 July 2026, because people understand that this isn't just about payroll compliance; it's about doing what is right.

This reform continues Labor's proud legacy of strengthening Australia's world-leading superannuation system. By passing the payday superannuation guarantee, we can stop the $5.7 billion drain on Australians' superannuation savings and ensure that every worker's super grows and compounds from day 1.

The Superannuation Guarantee Charge Amendment Bill 2025 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Bill 2025 penalise employers who do not pay their employees' superannuation guarantee contributions at the same time as salary and wages. The payment must reach the employee's super account within seven business days of the employee's payday. Currently, payments are due 28 days after the quarter to which they relate.

This is a major change in cash flow. It brings forward a significant expense for businesses, particularly small businesses, while only adding a small amount to their super across their working life—if they can get a job, of course. So many jobs these days require ABNs, in which case the person must pay their own super. It says in the legislation:

The reforms intend to 'strengthen Australia's superannuation system' by reducing the SG gap—

which was estimated at $5 billion in 2022. Treasurer Chalmers wrongly says:

While most employers do the right thing, some disreputable ones are exploiting their employees.

Most of the shortfall is in small businesses and microbusinesses and includes solopreneurs not paying themselves super. The quality of data on this is surprisingly poor for something being used to justify this onerous bill. The government doesn't want the facts to get in the way of their virtue-signalling and pork-barrelling of union backed industry super funds. That's the target. That's what the government wants to do here—look after their union bosses' super industry funds.

If the employer hasn't paid the super 28 days after payday, they will receive a notice giving them 28 more days to pay. If they still fail to pay, there is a penalty of 25 per cent of the missing super. That's for the first offence. There's a 50 per cent penalty for a second offence and for subsequent offences. This will be a nightmare for small and medium businesses, particularly in retail, hospitality and tourism, and it will be a gift for super funds, the unions and the Australian Taxation Office.

Treasurer Chalmers has no clue how businesses—especially small businesses and microbusinesses—work. The current quarterly super system increases the ability of small and medium businesses to smooth their cash flow over what is, effectively, a four-month period. Businesses could set their staffing levels to the expected revenue for a three-month period.

Let me give you an example. Retailers have mostly completed hiring their staff for over the Christmas period, even though Christmas spending doesn't get going for another few weeks. They know they can afford the wages now but don't need to pay super until the money comes in next month. What's going to happen under this ignorant, anti-small-business legislation is that small and medium retailers will cut their staffing. They'll reduce the number of their workers equal to the amount of the super contribution that they're bringing forward. They're taking the cost out of labour because there's nowhere else to take it from. That's what you don't seem to understand. You certainly don't understand rents or profits.

Most small and medium businesses in this country are struggling as it is. Business bankruptcies are at a record high under this Labor government, and now more will go under. Large retailers—wait for it—will simply pass this cost on to everyday Australians through higher prices, so the people of Australia, and the workers in particular, are going to get shafted by this bill. Treasurer Chalmers and this Labor government have ensured that tens of thousands of, mostly, young Australians will not have a job this Christmas, Easter, Mother's Day, Father's Day or Black Friday and other retail highlights.

It isn't just retailers, though, who will lose. This bill will, in addition, harm markets, tourism and hospitality—all of which are weather dependent. These businesses will not be able to smooth out the ups and downs coming from good and bad weather—and there are ups and downs. That's the way the earth operates; weather is variable. They will be forced to set staffing levels lower to ensure that they can cover the wages of staff and their super. I expect we will see a change to employment terms, with weather clauses being written into awards and further reductions in shifts to allow staff to be sent home if businesses are not busy.

This Labor government has already had a lesson in unintended consequences with its greedy hike in tobacco tariffs leading literally to open warfare, firebombings and killings in the industry, and lower tax revenues. Everyone loses except the criminals. Treasurer Chalmers is in for another such lesson here. It will not be the government that's harmed. It will be young Australians—and retailers—who will be harmed. Of course, Labor won't care. They don't govern for young Australians. If they did, then the Albanese government would not have flooded the country with new arrivals, driving up rental and home prices, lowering wages and reducing living standards. Did anyone mention unaffordable power?

The winners from this bill will be the government's mates. The unions' super funds will get richer. The large corporations who can afford to carry staff for the few weeks will get richer. The big end of town gets richer, and Australians get poorer. I said last week that the Australian Labor Party spell 'labor' without a 'U', l-a-b-o-r, because the Labor Party do not care about 'you'. They bypass the 'you'. Young Australians are about to get another lesson on how little they matter to this government.

Workers will be sacked, and businesses will close as a direct result of this policy. It's clear. The revenue-raising figures and estimates in this bill make no allowance for expected employment downturns, which will come—the unintended consequence of this bill. It's not, as proposed in the legislation, better for employees because they get their super money earlier, because the job market and the private sector will immediately shrink.

After Treasurer Chalmers had his fantasy tax grab on unrealised capital gains trashed, he has evidently pivoted to recouping the money off the dying and struggling ecosystem of private industry, which has borne all the costs of unaffordable energy increases, foreign competition and Labor's recent award changes.

These bills are estimated to increase taxation payments to $589 million over the next three years. This is about a taxation increase, which ignores as usual the decrease in revenue from business collapses and staff sackings. There will be lower employment.

Why is the government banking on this bill boosting their bottom line so much? Is this about superannuation or is it revenue raising—fining small businesses for laws the government knows they won't be able to comply with on time? Maybe the government don't know; that's how out of touch they are. Despite this, this bill is disguised as being pro worker, when in fact compulsory super contributions are eating away at workers' take-home pay and preventing them from saving for a home. The $4 trillion—that's right; $4 trillion—in Australia's super accounts is employees' money. It's the workers' money. It's come out of workers' wages.

One Nation will counter this Albanese government attack on our young with better policy. We will allow young Australians to use their super balance towards a deposit on a new home. That's been a standing part of our policy for a year now. The higher the deposit, the lower the repayments. The more the young are advantaged there, the more realistic purchasing a house becomes. The investment from the person's own super account into their home is secured with a loan, so their super grows as the value of their home grows. You'll never see that policy coming from the ALP, the Australian Labor Party, because their policy is for the government to own your home, or a share of it, so they can dictate to you how to live and who you should live with. Think about it. This has all been documented.

This measure adds to payroll complexity for large corporations, especially around employment mobility. Large corporations will not pay for this measure. The Australian public will, though, through higher prices or staff reductions.

Industry has already asked for a one- to two-year delay to make the necessary software changes. That's how extreme the measures are. Accounting software giant Xero provides the software that 1.8 million businesses use and has recommended a two-year window for implementation. Instead, this bill is going to be rushed through, with an implementation date of July. Imagine the cash-flow burden on a medium business with a thousand staff across different states, on different awards, all taking leave and changing super funds during this period.

Treasurer Chalmers can't imagine that. He has no business experience, and, quite honestly, he hasn't a clue about the misery his policies are causing small and medium businesses in this country. That's apparent with the decision in this bill to abolish the ATO's Small Business Superannuation Clearing House. Small businesses today can pay a lump sum of all their employees' superannuation contributions to the clearing house along with their employees' super details. The clearing house then makes the necessary payments to the employee's individual super fund. This saves small businesses a truckload of paperwork by letting them make one bulk payment instead of dozens to every employee's individual fund. That will be gone with this bill. Small businesses will have to take care of dozens of extra super payments, and they will be penalised 60 per cent if they are later than seven days from payday.

Nonetheless, a lot of the blame for small-business hardship must be directed at the minister for climate change and sending Australia broke, Minister Chris Bowen. Unaffordable energy is driving the country to ruin. This legislation has come into this Senate at the same time as the government announcing it would require super funds to invest almost $2 trillion of Australia's super money in the United States. That's how much this Labor government cares about jobs for Australians. They are taking an amount equal to one-half of all the money in super funds in Australia at 30 June this year and sending it to America over a 10-year period. Prime Minister, superannuation is not your money! Yet the government is sending your super overseas to grow the American economy.

Imagine how many breadwinner jobs could be created in Australia with the $2 trillion being invested right here in projects like the Capricornia project, an integrated rail, steel and concrete project, to provide Australia with security on steel, ceramics, fertiliser, explosives and pharmaceutical precursors—steel, the foundation of modern civilisation. Instead, young people will be competing with millions of new arrivals in a labour market that's currently in a race to the bottom of wages, conditions and security—Prime Minister, in case you're not aware of it despite so many people shouting it from the streets, stop mass migration—a trend this bill will make worse.

The Albanese government is pursuing policies that ensure young Australians don't have the abundance, wealth and income necessary to buy their own home in a country with more resources than any other country per capita. Instead, young people will have to rent from union super funds and predatory wealth funds like BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and First State. Putting a roof over a young couple's heads is critical to starting a family. Measures like this, combined with over migration, mass migration and unaffordable energy, will continue to steal opportunity from our young people. Never has a generation been so lied to as the people aged today between 18 and 45. One Nation opposes this bill because One Nation supports employment, workers and small businesses. We support a fair go and fairness for all.

I rise to support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Bill 2025 and the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Amendment Bill 2025 and will attempt to address some of the wild misconceptions we've heard about what this legislation seeks to do. Quite simply, if you earn it, you should be paid it on time, every time. We would not accept regular wages being paid six months after they were earned, and it is about time we start thinking about superannuation in exactly the same way. When superannuation is paid late, workers lose out twice: firstly, because it's their money, and they should have it in their fund on time but, secondly, because delayed contributions mean losing decades of compounding savings that follow. Payday super fixes that. Its effect will be transformative to a dignified retirement.

Unpaid super is no small problem in this country. Across Australia, 3.3 million workers were not paid the super that they earned in the financial year 2022-23. That underpayment—or, let's call it out for what it is, wage theft or super theft, on a grand scale—amounted to $5.7 billion each year or $110 million each and every single week. For the average worker in Australia, that means an unpaid super balance of $1,730, which compounds over time to a shortfall of more than $30,000 at retirement for workers. For Victorian workers alone, unpaid super in the 2022-23 financial year affected 85,000 people, a staggering almost 30 per cent of the workforce. Over the past six years Victorian workers have collectively had $7.3 billion stolen from them in unpaid superannuation. These are not abstract numbers. These are real dollars that could have grown to provide security, independence and dignity in retirement.

At the core of our super system is something every school maths student knows—or they should—the power of compounding interest. This is the quiet engine that turns modest regular contributions into a secure retirement. Every dollar that's paid on time earns returns and returns on those returns year after year. When contributions are delayed, that compounding is disrupted. A worker missing $200 a fortnight doesn't just lose $200. They lose the decades of growth extracted from that $200. So over a 30-year career, those interruptions compound as well. Payday super ensures contributions flow regularly and compound just as the system was designed for, protecting the future income of millions of workers. It also brings super into alignment with modern-day payroll practices. Our current system of quarterly super payments is nothing more than a nasty head-in-a-bucket hangover from the olden days of analogue bookkeeping. This change is bringing workplaces and superannuation into the 21st century. Electronic payroll methods mean that paying super with wages rarely involves any extra work for business. This is contrary to the contribution that we heard earlier from Senator Paterson. This legislation will in fact save businesses the hassle of time-consuming quarterly reconciliations and mitigate the risks of getting stuck with hefty unpaid superannuation liabilities.

Payday super ensures that contributions are paid when wages are, without leaving workers waiting, worrying or chasing their own money. It reflects the way that people work today—whether you work fulltime, part-time, across multiple employers, casual hours or varied income patterns. Our retirement system must keep pace with the workforce that it serves. Most employers, I would say, do the right thing, and they want to do the right thing. They recognise that superannuation is part of remuneration and not an optional extra. But this is too important to put in the hands of employer good will. Good will does not compound at retirement.

For years, unfortunately, we have seen some employers who have treated superannuation as though it was negotiable. They have delayed payments to manage their own cashflow. They have ignored their obligations until regulators, unions or superannuation funds intervene. They have exploited gaps between reporting and enforcement. At the end of that chain is a person, a hard-working person, whose savings are diminished, whose retirement is smaller and whose next life phase is worse off as a result. The cost of these delays is immense. I think it is worth repeating those numbers for each week—a staggering $110 million that workers have earned never reaches their funds. That is 5.7 billion stolen from workers per year. That is the nightmare that we are talking about today and what we are seeking to fix not what some of those opposite would have you believe. This wage theft is unacceptable, and this government will not accept it. To employers who have relied on that delay: those days are over. Workers' superannuation is not a petty cash tin for you to dip into. The law will now catch up with the principle that Australian workers already understood, that superannuation is their money. It belongs to them from the day that it is earned.

The Australian tax office will have greater oversight to identify noncompliance sooner. Information flows will be clearer and more frequent. The ATO will also receive additional resourcing to help it detect underpaid super payments earlier, and the government will set enhanced targets for the ATO for the recovery of payments. Workers will be able to see their contributions arriving when they should, and regulators will be empowered to intervene when issues arise instead of years after returns have disappeared down the drain.

The preventive impact that this has on our social security system is also worth calling out. By reducing the billions of dollars in lost superannuation, we enable the retirement system to function as it was intended and consequently reduce reliance on the age pension and other social supports. Good retirement policy is responsible policy and the retirement system working as it should. When we legislate for timely superannuation payments, we reinforce a culture of compliance across the workforce. Paying super when wages are paid will mean a 25-year-old median income earner currently receiving their super quarterly and wages fortnightly could be around $6,000 better off at retirement. More frequent super payments will make employers' payroll management smoother, with fewer liabilities building up on their books.

Payday super will also make it easier for workers to keep track of their payments and harder for them to be exploited by disreputable employers. We say to those workers that their entitlements matter and that wage theft and super theft are unacceptable. It was a Labor government that proudly introduced compulsory superannuation, and it was a Labor government that proudly defended it through years and decades of opposition scaremongering. It is, again, a Labor government that strengthens it for the workforce of today and protects it for the retirees of tomorrow. The story of superannuation is a story of Labor governments building systems that endure and reforms that compound, like the savings that this bill seeks to protect. This government has acted decisively. We legislated the objective of superannuation. We lifted the superannuation guarantee to 12 per cent from July 2025. We strengthened performance testing, and we ensured superannuation is paid on government funded paid parental leave.

Payday super is the next critical step. It is the reform that ensures workers are paid on time every time, because a dignified retirement is not a luxury. We know that low-income workers, including young people in casual work, women in low-paid industries and migrant workers, are disproportionately affected by loopholes in the system. They are more likely to be in part-time or casual work, and women, in particular, are more likely to take time away from the workforce to raise families and for caring responsibilities.

Every time super is paid late or not paid at all, it has a profound impact on the end balance of these workers. When they took parental leave and did not earn super for that period of time, that had a profound impact on their balances as well. For this reason, payday super is a gender equality measure. It will narrow the retirement income gap for millions of Australian women. When super is not paid regularly, those compounding gaps widen. Every delayed contribution deepens the gender retirement gap. On average, as we know, women retire with around 25 per cent less superannuation than men. In addition to this, women live longer, on average, by four years, and so their money needs to be stretched further. We know that women over 55 are the fastest-growing cohort experiencing housing insecurity and homelessness. The gender inequality in the superannuation system is linked to two major factors: the gender pay gap and the career interruptions that are caused when women, predominantly, take time out of the workforce to raise children.

Let me turn to the gender pay gap in superannuation. Contributions are a direct percentage of someone's wage, so the gender pay gap is a critical contributor to women's superannuation balances remaining lower than men's. Australia's workforce is one of the most gender segregated in the world. Industries that attract lower wages are dominated by women workers, and it is unfortunately a simple proposition that, when you earn less, the percentage calculation which amounts to your super contribution is also less. The implications for our country are enormous. Over the last seven years, women's superannuation contributions were underpaid by a whopping $10.8 billion. It is staggering that, over the last seven years, Australian women earned but were denied that amount in their retirement savings. I am proud to be part of a government that is actively working to close this gap and to close the retirement gap. Australian women deserve better than insecurity after a lifetime of underpaid and underrecognised labour.

Senator, as it is 1.30, we will proceed to two-minute statements. You will be in continuation.

I rise today to talk about the efforts of the people of the Upper Hunter to work on a better pathway, better plan and better way forward on EnergyCo's Hunter transmission line. I want to salute the efforts of Allison McPhee and James Burns in putting on the pressure to get EnergyCo to show up to a meeting that will be held on Wednesday at 5 pm at the Gundy Soldiers' Memorial Hall. For anyone out there in the world today who wants to have their say on this process, the planning that's gone on and the lack of consultation—and that's only now starting to come around, but it's probably too late—get to the Gundy town hall at 5 pm on Wednesday and have your say. Do not let these people run roughshod over you. Make them answer the questions you want to ask. Make them tell you why they are doing what they are doing.

What we have to do on all of these transmission lines—it's 28,000 kays under phases 1, 2 and 3 of the planned renewables rollout—is find a way to do them better. Don't have black plastic bags of compulsory acquisition notices tied to fences. Have the consultation early, and work out the routes. We need to start talking about policies that would make the whole thing fairer, whether that means a trigger that landholders can have to make the compulsory acquisition be of the entire property so that they don't have to put up with a transmission line through the middle of it—if they want that—or that means ways to make all funding under this tax free from an Australian point of view, which would ensure that, at the time of acquisition, landholders' off-farm income isn't assessed against them if they've had disasters and that a compulsory acquisition can't trigger capital gains tax.

There are better ways to make this happen. There can be better planning. When we hear about them spending $20 million to bracket around the land of a man with a pacemaker, we think, 'Well done.' But we have to realise it has cost $20 million of taxpayers' money to do that, with a guaranteed return for these companies. So well done, Allison, and well done, James. To the people of the Upper Hunter: get to Gundy town hall at 5 pm on Wednesday and have your say on the Hunter transmission line.

Western Australians don't want talk; they want delivery, and that's exactly what the Albanese Labor government is doing. We're investing $7.6 billion in infrastructure across WA over the next decade, which means safer roads, stronger rail, faster freight and better public transport. That includes $5.6 billion for METRONET, the biggest investment in Perth's public transport in history, and there are billions more for the Kwinana Freeway, the Great Northern Highway and the Fremantle Traffic Bridge.

We are backing the regions, too, because the story of WA is not just written in the cities. In Albany, Labor is investing $5 million in the Southern Ocean Surf Reef, Australia's newest artificial surf reef. It is a first for the nation; it will bring jobs, tourism and pride to the Great Southern, and it's proof that regional infrastructure can be smart, sustainable and community driven. We've also lifted Roads to Recovery funding by 76 per cent so that local roads are safer, stronger and planned for the long term.

Right across our beautiful state, Carnarvon to Kwinana, we're funding local projects through our Stronger Communities and Thriving Suburbs programs, turning good ideas into real community spaces. This is what WA's fair share of GST delivers—not just photo-ops and promises but results on the ground. The former coalition government left behind a $33 billion black hole of uncosted promises and crumbling highways, and we are fixing that mess and doing it the right way

I joined the Labor Party to deliver the kind of Western Australia that we can all be proud of: connected, safe and full of opportunity. When we invest in Western Australia, we invest in the future of the whole nation.

I rise today to make a brief comment on what a clown show the coalition is today—what a rabble of climate-denying, attention-seeking knuckle draggers some of these blokes are over on that side of the chamber. Not only are they denying the science of climate change; not only are they denying the security advice to Australians about the impact that the climate crisis will have if we don't act, and not only are they denying the very help and support needed by our regional communities, who are already feeling the brunt of the climate crisis. Whether you live in the bush, in the regions, along our coastline, in our suburbs or in our cities, Australians have already felt the brunt of what happens as our climate changes—the extreme weather events, the floods, the fires, the droughts, the cyclones.

In my home state of South Australia, we see our entire coastline devastated because of the marine heatwave that's caused the toxic algal bloom. South Australians want climate action. We can't even swim safely at the beach today, let alone over summer. Rather than take the action we need to drive down the pollution that's driving this crisis, the coalition want to give taxpayer money to the coal industry. The coalition want to dump the commitment to Paris. The coalition want a handbrake on climate action. Well, what is Sussan Ley, the Leader of the Opposition, going to do about it? Is she going to stare down the knuckle draggers, or are they going to get their way?

I was recently doing my shopping in Woolworths. I was pushing my trolley, and looked up and saw a sign that said, proudly, that Woolworths was turning its delivery trucks to electric. I thought: 'That's great. Good on them for doing their bit to get us to net zero and reduce emissions.' But then I looked a little bit closer. Woolworths is not doing this on its own. They've had a helping hand. They got $6 million from the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and another $19 million from ARENA. That's $25 million of taxpayer money that is going to a company whose underlying profit last year was $1.7 billion. This is crazy.

Now, I do believe in man made climate change. I definitely believe that we should be reducing emissions. However, why does Woolworths need taxpayer money to do this for their delivery trucks? It may be the case that some Australians are happy to pay higher grocery prices to help fund those electric vehicles, and I'm one of them. However, are you happy to pay with both higher grocery prices and higher taxes? The truth is that this is happening right across the economy. It's happening because Labor is pouring billions of dollars into 'clean energy projects' without telling Australians exactly how much the transition is really going to cost. There's the National Reconstruction Fund, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, ARENA, Rewiring the Nation, the emissions reduction fund, the small-scale renewable energy scheme. That's before we begin on the bureaucracies: the net zero agency, the Climate Change Authority. The list goes on and on.

Australians deserve honesty, and they deserve transparency, because every single dollar a government spends comes from somebody else's pocket. It's the pocket of a family. It's the pocket of a small business. It's the pocket of a worker trying to get ahead. Just be honest, just be real, and just be transparent.

If you're a woman in this country, you'll want to listen up to what I've got to say the next couple of minutes. The Albanese Labor government's landmark women's health package is a transformative investment, delivering almost $800 million that is improving access, affordability and choice for women right across the country. From 1 November 2025, which was just over the weekend, all Australian women will have access to a whole range more. The NuvaRing has been added to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Until now, women could pay more than $270 a year. That cost will now fall to just $31.60 per script and $7.70 if you've got a concession card—even lower from January next year, down to $25. These changes are about empowering women to take control of their reproductive health without being limited by cost or access.

We're also making long-term, long-acting reversible contraceptives, such as IUDs and implants, more affordable for around 300,000 Australian women each year—saving up to $400 in out-of-pocket costs. We're investing in free training for health practitioners and introducing a 40 per cent bulk-billing incentive to improve access to care and enhance women's reproductive autotomy. It was Labor who created Medicare, and we will always act to strengthen it, ensuring your postcode or your bank balance never determine your access to care. Just this month, it has become easier than ever to find a bulk-billed GP. All Australians are now eligible for bulk-billing incentives under the Albanese government's $8½ billion investment—the biggest investment to Medicare in over 40 years. This will mean 18 million more bulk-billed GP visits each year and nine out of 10 GPs bulk-billed by 2030.

Last week, Victoria continued its incremental destruction of human rights and the natural environment. Premier Allan's extremist government has approved the Meadow Creek industrial solar installation against the wishes of local residents. Five hundred submissions opposing the development were lodged by people who did not realise Victoria is no longer a democracy and the will of the people is a joke to Premier Allan. Under new laws in Victoria, there can't be any appeal to this decision. Premier Allan will happily run roughshod over communities it doesn't need votes from to pander to constituents it does. In this case, rich urban voters with an ability complex, happy to destroy the natural to assuage their guilt at living lives of plenty on the back of Australia's coal power—all in the name of a fictitious, dishonest climate emergency. What they're really doing is denying young Australians the same life they led—a life which included homeownership on a single wage, proper holidays, a decent education without a lifetime of debt, and a healthy natural environment.

RMIT planning professor Michael Buxton has described approval of Meadow Creek as 'the autocratic imposition of a project without any regard for the principles of a liberal democracy'—a massive $750 million development turning 566 hectares of prime farmland into a toxic industrial site, destroying the value of neighbouring properties, destroying the natural environment, destroying tourism, destroying employment in agriculture and tourism and destroying the human environment. The toxic run-off from the solar panels, once they start to degrade, will go straight into the Ovens River water supply catchment and then into the Murray-Darling Basin. The Labor Party lies say they're not running a war on the bush. No wonder so many Victorians are leaving and seeking political asylum anywhere other than Victoria-stan. Victoria is dishonestly pretending to save the planet while killing the human environment and natural environment. (Time expired)

Australian Financial Review journalist Ronald Mizen revealed today that government agencies have, in their last financial year, blown their staffing budget by almost $1 billion. Unexpected and uncosted employment payments, totalling $851 million in just one year, are the result of thousands of new Public Service hires, artificially increased pay rises and exploding workers' compensation payments. That there are unexpected and uncosted payments shows how utterly incompetent this government is with managing the federal budget and taxpayers' money.

The Labor government led by Anthony Albanese is one of the biggest spenders on record, and what do we get for it? Higher taxes and declining productivity. The department of climate change and energy was $70 million over its staffing budget. This department is so totally focused on ramming through its green agenda that it's not just national parks and farmland that are being destroyed, but the staffing budget too. Remember you are paying for this budget incompetence. This is your hard earned money. Current government taxes cannot pay this bill. The Treasurer takes out loans to cover the costs, and you, your children and your grandchildren will pay for it. In the time it's taken to make this two-minute statement, we collectively paid $100,000 just in interest. Don't forget we are about to cross the historic $1 trillion debt line—the largest amount of debt in Australia's history. More debt means lower standards of living. This is the first time in Australia's history that the next generation will be handed a lower standard of living, and this is the fault of the Labor government. Let's connect the dots. Australians will always end up paying more under Labor.

An unassuming member of our community on the Central Coast of New South Wales who had a national and global impact on public health, Dr Tony Adams, passed away in August at the age of 89. Many locals will remember Tony as a friendly face and a regular at the local aquarobics morning classes at Kincumber swimming pool. What a lot of people didn't know, though, was the impact he had on public health at a global level.

Tony retired in 2016 after 20 years working with the World Health Organization in Geneva, where he played a pivotal role in the near eradication of polio in South-East Asia and the Western Pacific region as a member of the World Health Organization's polio eradication commission, serving as its global head for a decade. Before the World Health Organization, Tony was the longest serving chief medical officer for the nation, from 1988 to 1997. Before that, he served in the same role in New South Wales.

Dr Tony Adams was a pioneer of public health and a leading figure in Australia's response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the 1980s. He also oversaw the closing of the notorious quarantine station at Manly. Even after his retirement, Tony didn't give up his advocacy on public health, earning recognition for his work to have fluoride added to the water supply in the Central Coast region—maybe not great for the business of local dentists, but certainly a fantastic public health outcome. His voice was lent not only to health advocacy but to the Central Coast Philharmonia, where he served as secretary and treasurer.

Dr Tony Adams was a much-loved member of his family and friends, and he was respected internationally. To Tony's partner, Dr Romaine Rutnam, and his son, Erik, I send my condolences and pay tribute to his memory and his contribution to the health of our global community.

It might surprise people that my instinctive reaction yesterday to the news, watching Mr David Littleproud in the other place say he was proud that his party room in the National Party had reached a position of opposing net zero, was one of sadness. You'd think maybe I'd be happy, considering the coalition are polling at record-low numbers of 24 per cent today because of the exact issue. It's sadness because I've announced that I'm leaving this place next year, and I still can't believe that in 2025 we have politicians who don't believe in climate change, don't believe it's doing harm and don't want to take the necessary action for our nation to fix it. We have politicians who don't see the opportunity in acting on climate change.

I think my sadness also comes from the fact that I know the people within the National Party who are responsible for this—I saw some leaked words used in the media over the weekend of the 'terrorists' within the coalition, and I know that word was used by Malcolm Turnbull in his biography as well—are climate deniers. They just don't believe that climate change is a thing. Opposing something even as weak as net zero, which relies on net offsets which don't work, and which doesn't even include scope 3 emissions—you'd have to be pretty radical and extreme for that to be your policy position.

The sadness also comes from the fact that, even if these people were to leave the National Party, or even if Donald Trump were to get hit by a bus tomorrow, the denial machine that got people there in the first place is still around. It is still powerful, it is still well resourced and it is still organised. That's something I think we all need to grapple with. How has so much disinformation and misinformation got us to where we are today when a political party can still not believe in climate change? (Time expired)

No civilisation in history works harder to erase itself than the modern West. Whilst other nations proudly protect their heritage, we hold candlelit vigils for everyone else's. Our politicians and our political elites seem to always pay homage to every non-Western festival that they can find. It's a lovely gesture, of course, but try spotting a single mention of Australia Day on some of their Twitter feeds. You won't find it. You'll have better luck finding a spine in Parliament House. Go to any non-Western country and see if their leaders spend as much time pandering to minorities as ours do. Spoiler alert: they don't. Overseas they celebrate their country and their culture, while here in Australia we apologise for being Australian.

If you live here, then embrace Australian traditions. If you prefer the customs of another country, you know what? Flights leave daily. Off you go. We pander to every imported culture like a guilty host who has forgotten it's his own house. It's our house. People from around the world come here because Australia's free, safe and prosperous, but none of those blessings have happened by accident. They are the fruits of a Christian culture, the foundation of our laws. Our liberty, our way of life—all of it. If you change that culture, you'll destroy the very thing that made Australia worth coming to in the first place. We're a great country, but we must stay that way. Be proud of, defend and live by Australian Christian values. It is as simple and as vital as that. And if we don't, we will lose our country—make no mistake; look at the UK.

The first sod has been turned, and construction on what is going to be a fantastic community project is officially underway in Devonport, in Tassie. Located on Devonport's magnificent waterfront, the new Devonport Oval Sports Complex will be so much more than just a series of surfaces. It will be a pivotal space for sport on Tassie's north-west coast. When completed, it will be home to six sports: footy, cricket, athletics, cycling, basketball and netball. Backed by Devonport City Council, this project is a true investment in sport, health and community. It goes way beyond infrastructure, although the infrastructure will be impressive. It will boast indoor and outdoor courts, high-performance cricket centres, training facilities and administration buildings. There will also be the St Lukes wellness hub for use by community groups, to run activities promoting preventive health and general wellbeing, which will be a fantastic resource for the entire coast.

It's the potential to forge real community connections that makes this project so exciting. For the first time on the north-west coast, six different sporting clubs and codes will come together using amenities that would be unattainable for each group on its own. The use of shared social spaces will bring together people of all ages and backgrounds, all united with the love of sport. That's why the federal Labor government has committed $25 million towards this outstanding project led by the member for Braddon, because it's not just the bricks and mortar that are important. It's about the future of local sports, about kids starting out with Auskick and ending up playing for the seniors. From tai chi to netball, regardless of the weather, local sport will find a place to grow and thrive. I look forward, along with thousands of fellow north-west coasters, to the progress on this fantastic project; we eagerly await its completion.

(Quorum formed)

I rise today to pay tribute to Dr Max Hopp, a much loved paediatrician from Griffith whose tragic death has deeply affected the Riverina community and much of the Sydney cycling community. Max dedicated his life to caring for children and supporting their families. At Griffith Base Hospital, he led paediatric services with quiet excellence and compassion, establishing a specialist allergy clinic that spared thousands of families the burden of travelling to cities for treatment.

He was known not only for his medical skill but for his kindness—the doctor who listened as carefully as he diagnosed. Trained in South Africa before making Australia his home, Dr Max Hopp embodied the best of regional medicine. Committed, community minded and generous with his time, he mentored young clinicians and never stopped advocating for fairer access to child health services in the regions.

Beyond medicine, Dr Hopp was, as his brother Peter recalled, thoughtful, precise and quietly competitive—qualities that shone through in his passion for cycling, which is how I got to know Max. Max and his brother Peter rode together across continents—Canada, South Africa, France, Hawaii—and in Griffith and Sydney. Those rides reflected who Max was: dedicated, disciplined, curious, inquisitive and connected to others through friendship and laughter.

Max's loss in such tragic circumstances is felt keenly, yet his legacy endures in the healthier children he cared for, the colleagues he inspired and the community he helped to build and nurture. I know many members of the Sydney cycling community remember Max fondly and deeply mourn his passing, and I know many in the Griffith community and the Riverina more broadly will always remember his service to their community. May Max rest in peace, and may his memory be a blessing.

Sudan is burning—bloodstains seen from space, hundreds of mothers murdered in a maternity hospital and thousands of civilians killed and displaced as RSF paramilitary forces backed by the UAE stormed the city of Al-Fashir last week. Twenty years on from the last genocide in Darfur, our so-called leaders have again failed an entire generation, allowing the UAE to fuel a genocide so they can continue to steal Darfur's significant gold deposits.

We were warned. The nightmare we are seeing was repeatedly predicted by Sudanese advocates on the ground, who begged for urgent action from the international community to prevent a massacre. But, for Western powers, maintaining good relations with the UAE and their stranglehold over Sudan's resources has taken priority over the people of Darfur. Like in most genocides, the West is not only complicit but an active driver of the conflict. We know the UAE smuggles weapons manufactured in the West into Sudan, which end up arming genocide. Meanwhile our own government, rather than cutting trade ties and imposing sanctions on the UAE for funding and arming another genocide, instead celebrates the booming trade relationship. This is indefensible. This Labor government must immediately cut trade ties and impose sanctions on the UAE, urgently open humanitarian pathways for refugees and provide support and assistance to our Sudanese community. I stand with the people of Sudan. Our struggle is one struggle, and their fate is our own.

On at least three occasions this year, residents in the Tasmanian town of Ouse and surrounding areas have lost mobile and landline reception. What is most concerning in these incidents is that the Central Highlands region also loses the ability to call and access triple 0. As our reliance on digital connectivity grows, the issue of unreliable mobile phone coverage has become more apparent across Tasmania, particularly in the communities of Ouse and Miena and in other areas, such as Triabunna, on the Tasman peninsula. This is not simply about convenience. It can, as was tragically made apparent during the recent Optus triple 0 outage, become life threatening. While that has not happened in Tasmania—yet—it's something that could occur without immediate government intervention.

At a meeting of over 200 residents in Miena on Saturday, we heard from police and emergency service personnel, local business representatives and local residents about their fears that there will be a fatality in the region before any action is taken to improve telecommunication services. During the election, Lyons Liberal candidate Susie Bower campaigned strongly and secured a funding commitment for three new towers. Disappointingly, Labor's candidate and now our federal member for Lyons, Rebecca White, failed to match the pledge or make any election commitments that would specifically improve digital connectivity or phone coverage in Lyons. That is—

Thank you, Senator. Your time has expired. It being 2 pm, we will enter question time. Senator Paterson.

My question is for the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Last week's CPI figures confirmed electricity costs have risen—

I raise a point of order. The President would generally follow the order of the call.

Yes, we're up to question 1, and I have the Nationals. That's the order I have.

On the point of order, I was the senator who was on my feet, I was called and I was asking my question.

Yes, although the customary practice here is that we follow a list. My apologies that I was late. I'm very sorry about that. That has never happened before, and it's unfortunate that it happened today. I understand it is the usual convention that the government proposes the order. I received an email from the government that was sent to all the whips and leaders in this place, and it had question 1 going to the Nationals.

President, I hear you, but I was on my feet and I'd been given the call by the person who was in the chair at the time. I'm halfway through my question. I think I should be allowed to finish my question, which I was called on by the person in the chair to do.

Senator Paterson, if I may, the convention at question time is that the order is followed. If we move to a different convention—that we follow whoever jumps—that's a different precedence altogether. I do have the Nationals on my list. I would like the Senate to sort that through. Jumping and getting called is a different convention to what we normally have at question time.

For clarity, you're taking the call away from me because of a convention? I was given the call by the chair and I was halfway through a question, and you're now taking the call from me because you think there is a convention that prevents me from continuing with my question.

That's taking a little bit of licence with what I said, Senator Paterson. What I said was, if you are saying you are on your feet and therefore should get the call, if that's the convention we're now using at question time, then it is up to any senator to jump and be given the call. That isn't the way we run question time. We run question time on an order that has been distributed through the chamber. I received one email from the government, where I think the convention is established, that has the Nationals on the list. That's what I'm explaining to the chamber.

Given that I had been given the call by the Acting Deputy President, I'm going to continue with my question.

Senator Paterson, I'm running the chamber. Please resume your seat. As I said, the problem with that approach is that, if another senator jumps in the chamber, then I'm honour-bound to give them the call—if that's the precedence we are adopting. Senator Watt, on the point of order.

To reinforce your ruling, I know there's a lot of up-ending convention going on here by the people opposite at the moment, but one convention they haven't up-ended is that the government of the day sets the order of questions. That has been done. We had an unusual situation where there was a transferring of the chair at the very beginning of question time. I would ask that the convention be upheld.

Senator McKenzie, I said I would go to Senator Henderson.

On the point of order, it would be a very significant departure from precedence in this place if a senator who is on his feet asking a question was put in a position where he was not permitted to finish the question. We appreciate the convention, but—

Government senators interjecting—

Excuse me. Without interjection—we do appreciate the convention. You've made it clear that you weren't in the chair at the time and therefore by reason of the circumstances that have occurred today—and I'm sure they'll be rectified tomorrow—I would ask, and it's very important, that you permit Senator Paterson to continue to ask his question.

Senator Henderson, the premise of your statement is not correct. There have been times in the past where a particular senator has sought the call, only for there to be the realisation that a mistake has been made. They've sat down and the mistake has been rectified. What you're asking me today to do is abandon the convention that exists in this place, which is that the government creates the order. You're asking me to allow any senator to jump and ask a question.

I apologise most sincerely for not getting here on time. That was absolutely on me. It's created an additional problem because I would have given the call as it's described. I would suggest that we start the call again and that the call is given to the Nationals. But, if you're on—actually, Senator McKenzie was seeking the call. If you wouldn't mind, Senator Henderson, I'll go to Senator McKenzie and come back to you.

I'm happy for you to rule.

I have ruled, Senator McKenzie. Are you doing the question?

I thought The Nationals were called.

Yes, they were.

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Last week's CPI figures confirmed electricity costs have risen 23.6 per cent annually. Does the government agree that, when prices are rising that fast, the policy settings are wrong?

I don't accept the premise of the question. We need to first understand what happened in the decade that the former coalition government were in power. Twenty-four of the 28 coal-fired power stations advised that they were going to close. Those opposite were unable to settle an energy policy in the national interest that allowed for the international transition to clean energy that we are witnessing and which is underway. That has meant that the energy policy was delayed in this country.

Since we've come to government, we've put a number of policy responses in place to deal with that, including a huge investment in renewable energy so that we can secure the jobs, the opportunities and the investments that come in this space. There is more work to do. In the meantime, we're supporting households with the pressure of the cost of living through energy bill rebates, investment in Medicare, investment in childcare and investment in housing.

Senator McKenzie, first supplementary?

On David Speers's ABC podcast this week, former Treasury secretary Ken Henry said: 'If you have to provide a permanent or semipermanent rebate for something, then you're saying that your policy settings are wrong—your energy policy settings are wrong'. Given the government's only answer to soaring energy prices is an unsustainable rebate, do you agree with Mr Henry that the government's energy policy settings are wrong?

I accept that there have been costs from the delays from the decade of waste that we had under the former government. But, since we've come to power, we have increased the amount of energy available in the grid. We have provided support to households as the transition occurs. We have put into the system more renewable energy, which is the cheapest form of energy, as this transition occurs.

Order on my left! I ensured that Senator McKenzie was shown the respect and could ask her question in silence. That is exactly what should be afforded to the minister. I understand she has finished answering her question. Senator McKenzie, do you want to put your second supplementary?

When asked about the government's energy subsidies in May, the Treasurer said:

We only extended it for 6 months, rather than 12 months, because we know that at some point this electricity bill relief will taper away and will have to end.

What is the government's plan to ensure Australians aren't slugged again with even higher energy prices next year when the subsidies are scheduled to end?

We'll continue to invest in our energy system, whether that be through the work that's being led by Minister King or Minister Bowen or Minister Ayres. We operate in the national interest, making sure that we're making decisions for the long term and to support households in the short term.

I rise to ask the question those opposite refused me on Thursday, denying South Australian women vital information about crucial health reforms which were introduced last Saturday. But now I put my question again. My question is to the Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher. The Albanese Labor government's new health measures commenced on Saturday 1 November, with the government delivering record investments in women's health. What impact do these reforms have on Australian women, and how do they reflect the Albanese Labor government's commitment to listening to women and improving access, choice and lower costs for health care?

I thank Senator Smith for the question. At least you have been able to ask that question today. I also acknowledge the work that you've done in your time, particularly in the last parliament, on investing in women's health and making sure that the women of Australia get a better deal when it comes to support for perimenopause and menopause—but also on the broader women's health policy that we took to the election.

For the first time, on 1 November—so on Saturday—Labor expanded bulk-billing incentives to all Australians, creating a new, additional incentive payment for practices that bulk-bill every patient, and, from this week, practices and GPs registering for the Bulk Billing Practice Incentive Program will equally share in the additional incentive payment of 12½ per cent. We know that women visit the GP more often and have higher out-of-pocket costs, but they will benefit from that big investment in bulk-billing.

Labor's women's health package is delivering what women have been asking for: better access, more choice and lower costs after years of their health issues being ignored and not addressed under the former government. The Albanese Labor government is working to reverse a decade of neglect of women's health with $792.9 million to deliver more choice, lower costs and better health care for women. Women have asked the government to take their health care seriously, and we have listened. These changes could save women and their families thousands of dollars across their lifetime, and, from 1 November, women will have better access to affordable contraceptive options, thanks to the Albanese government's landmark women's health package.

We know that one in 10 Australian women use a long-term contraceptive—compared to one in eight women in New Zealand, one in seven in Ireland and one in three in Sweden—so providing more contraceptive options will allow more choice for women.

Senator Smith, first supplementary?

The Albanese Labor government has listed new contraceptives on the PBS for the first time in over 30 years and has made long-acting reversible contraception more accessible and affordable from 1 November. How are these changes improving choice and lowering costs for women seeking contraceptive options?

I thank Senator Smith for the question. Looking at just one of those contraceptive options, NuvaRing is available now on the PBS, from 1 November, providing a new, affordable option for women. Before the listing of NuvaRing on the PBS, women might have paid more than $270 a year. Now they will pay $31.60 per script or $7.70 if they have a concessional arrangement. This follows the first PBS listings for new oral contraceptive pills in more than 30 years, as Senator Smith said. I think most of us scratch our heads over the fact that new contraceptives weren't listed on the PBS for three decades. We've also listed Yaz, Yasmin and Slinda on the PBS. Again, women were paying around $380 per year if they were using one of those three choices. Now they're paying less than half of that, $126.40 a year, or just $30.80 a year with a concession card.

Senator Smith, second supplementary?

This information is hugely important to women across Australia. Last week we marked the end of World Menopause Awareness Month. How are the Albanese Labor government's investments in menopause and perimenopause, including the new Medicare rebates, PBS listings for therapies and funding for clinical guidelines and training, supporting women's health and raising national awareness of these important issues?

I think Senator Smith should be very proud of the work that the Senate committee did in relation to treatment of perimenopause and menopause, because it has directly influenced some of the decisions the government has taken in listing those new drugs. Again, they hadn't been listed for 20 years. Again, women were out of pocket paying for those. We've also established a new Medicare rebate for menopause health assessments. Over 20,000 women have undergone a menopause health assessment covered by Medicare since they became available on 1 July. In just four months, 20,000 women have been able to access that new item.

As Senator Smith said, we've also got the new guidelines in place, and, of course, all of our policy has been influenced by the work that the member for Cooper, Minister Kearney, did last election and also by the work of the National Women's Health Advisory Council, who led a lot of the consultations. It's time that we got this job done, and we're doing it.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Minister McCarthy. The Danish government has introduced mandates to use Bovaer 10 to reduce methane production in its dairy industry, to meet climate targets. Is Labor considering similar measures for dairy and livestock in Australia?

Thank you, Senator, for the question. The answer is no, but we are introducing methane-reducing additives.

Senator Whitten, first supplementary?

Bovaer 10 is already in use in Australia, with some of our major retailers sourcing meat grown with the additive. There is no requirement to label milk or meat as containing Bovaer 10, limiting customers' ability to choose. Does Labor believe that an Australian's right to know what is in their food is secondary to the perceived climate impacts of cow burps?

Can I just put on the record for the Senate that this government always wants Australians to know about most things. I would certainly object to the introduction of your question. We are certainly—

Except the redacted bits.

That's not quite true, but anyway. We are supporting the introduction of methane-reducing additives, as I've said.

Senator Whitten, second supplementary?

Since the introduction of Bovaer 10 mandates in Denmark, which started on 1 October 2025, there have been increased reports of cattle becoming sick, collapsing and, in some cases, being euthanised. Are Australians at risk from these additives in their food?

I do believe I've answered the questions, but I'm happy to take some more on notice in terms of any particular examples that you may have for the minister.

My question is to the minister for the environment—allegedly—Senator Watt.

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

I withdraw. The Climate Council has said:

The Government's proposed reforms have a number of gaping problems: they fail to address climate pollution—the biggest threat to the environment; they will undermine our climate progress by denying the government power to limit climate pollution from massive fossil fuel projects; and they may speed up fossil fuel project approvals despite the harm they cause.

Minister, you've had multiple opportunities; why won't you rule out fast-tracking coal and gas under these new laws?

Thank you, Senator Waters. I'm very honoured to hold the role of federal minister for the environment in a party that is the party of delivering real environmental reform. We never saw a Greens party deliver stopping the Franklin Dam, stopping mining in Antarctica, protecting Kakadu or protecting Murujuga. In fact, the Greens Party campaigned against the World Heritage listing of Murujuga only a few months ago. So I'm very honoured to hold the role of supporting federal Labor's policies when it comes to the environment.

As Senator Waters knows, when she puts her political rhetoric aside just for a little moment, the laws that we've introduced to the parliament deliver real gains for the environment—things like national environmental standards that have never been part of our law and things like requiring proponents to avoid and mitigate environmental harm.

Bullshit.

Minister Wong?

I might have misheard the leader of the Greens interjecting in what was quite an unparliamentary way. I'd ask her to demonstrate, perhaps, a little more leadership than that.

Senator Waters, I didn't hear anything—it is hard to hear up here—but, if you did make an unparliamentary remark, I'd ask you to withdraw it.

It was very unparliamentary, but, on a point of order, the minister was asserting that he knew what my understanding was. He does not, so I retaliated. If I withdraw, he should too.

Senator Waters, you are getting into a debating point. If you made the unparliamentary remark—and you said you did—I want you to just stand up and withdraw it.

I withdraw, but the minister should know that I am a trained environmental lawyer. Don't purport to tell me—

Senator Waters, please resume your seat. We're going to try it for the third time. When you withdraw, you simply withdraw. It shouldn't have statements around it. If anyone in this place uses unparliamentary language, they're asked to withdraw.

I did withdraw. I'd now like to make a separate point of order.

No. Senator Waters—

I would like to make a point of order, and I'm intending to do so now.

Just a moment—just indulge me, Senator Waters. I'd like you to withdraw the comment and then seek the call again.

For the third time, I withdraw.

Thank you.

I'd now like to raise a point of order—

Certainly.

which is that the minister is breaching standing orders by purporting to understand what my understanding and intent is. That's in breach of the standing orders.

Senator Waters, you are getting into the territory of debating, so—

Well, what are the standing orders for, President?

Thank you, Senator Waters. Please resume your seat. Have you finished your contribution, Minister?

Senator Waters knows that there are demonstrable gains for the environment in these reforms. She chooses to misrepresent the laws; that's a matter for her.

Senator Waters, first supplementary?

Can I clarify. Was that the minister's actual answer to my question about whether he would rule out coal and gas fast-tracks under these laws? Was that his answer? Has he finished?

It's not appropriate to ask me to make judgements about answers. You're perfectly capable of doing that yourself.

Well, through you, President, has the minister concluded his first answer or not?

Senator Waters, you are on your feet. The reason you're on your feet is I've invited you to put your first supplementary. So that would indicate that the minister has finished his answer.

I'll give the minister a second opportunity, because he continually fails to take it. Minister, will you rule out fast-tracking coal and gas projects under these new laws?

These laws provide a range of ways for projects to be fast-tracked. We know that projects are being held up in red tape, including, in particular, housing and renewables projects. They also provide very strong protections for our environment, and that's why both the Greens and the coalition should support the reforms.

Senator Waters, second supplementary?

This, perhaps, is why Chevron, BHP and the Minerals Council are loving these reforms. Can the minister rule out doing a dirty deal on these critical reforms with the chaos monkeys over here—the coal-loving, climate-denying, pro-emissions coalition?

Senator Waters, I'm going to ask you to withdraw. Please withdraw that comment. It's 'senators' in this chamber, so I'd ask you to withdraw that comment.

The chaotic senators.

No, Senator Waters. You're being disrespectful to me, because I did ask you simply to withdraw.

I withdraw.

Thank you, Senator Waters. Have you finished your question? Yes. Minister.

I'm not quite sure what the question was, but it's interesting that we see Senator Waters making something of parties working with the coalition when it was only last Thursday that we saw the Greens vote with the coalition to disrupt the convention here around question time. It was only before the election that we saw the Greens vote with the coalition to stop environmental reforms happening—

I've a point of order on relevance. I'm asking about environment reforms. I know the minister feels deeply uncomfortable about what he's proposing—or at least he should—but I would like him to answer the question.

Senator Waters, please don't get into a debate. I will draw the minister to your question.

As I was saying, speaking of environmental reform, it was only a few months ago that we saw the Greens party vote with the coalition to block these environmental reforms from happening, just like they did the last time Labor was in government as well. It's news to me that BP, Chevron and the Minerals Council have supported these reforms. I haven't seen that.

Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Hanson-Young?

I'd just like to draw your attention to the minister's gross misrepresentation of what occurred in the Senate. There was no vote. The government withdrew their bill—

Senator Hanson-Young, please resume your seat.

You can't purport a vote that hasn't happened!

Senator Hanson-Young, please resume your seat!

Senator Hanson-Young, for the third time, resume your seat. Those are debating points.

What I have noticed in the last few days is support for these reforms from the Housing Industry Association, the Clean Energy Council and the Ai Group. It's those kinds of groups that the coalition or the Greens should be listening to so that we can deliver the renewables our country needs, along with the housing and the environmental protections that we need.

Senator Hanson-Young?

I would ask you to reflect—

Why are you standing?

It's a point of order. You're the President. It's a point of order I am making to you.

You need to say that when you stand, Senator Hanson-Young.

It's a request to you, President. I ask you to reflect on the ruling you just made about whether a minister can misrepresent a vote that has occurred—

Senator Hanson-Young, I will certainly reflect, but I indicated to you that you were getting into the realm of making statements.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Ayres. The Albanese Labor government is committed to addressing climate change in line with the international community. This means taking practical actions on emissions and seizing the opportunities our abundant minerals and renewable resources offer. What progress is the Albanese Labor government making on addressing climate change, and what are the economic risks if we fail to act in line with our international partners?

Thanks, Senator Mulholland, for that question. Twice now, Australian voters have endorsed the Albanese government's practical policies to reduce emissions and to modernise our electricity system. We take that endorsement of our approach earnestly. Our approach to this task is absolutely in the Australian national interest. Australians want to see Australia be part of the international community, with the government listening to the science and reducing our emissions while we strengthen the economy. We are tracking well to meet our 2030 climate target. In the year to March, emissions were 440 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent—6½ million tonnes lower than the year before and 28 per cent below 2005 levels.

The risk to that approach is a return to the policy chaos and the investment drought—indeed, disinvestment—that happened in Australian industry and the Australian electricity system under those opposite. The efforts that we see from them to reconcile themselves with their approach—it is becoming very, very clear this week. They are all about themselves, not about the country. They are all about their internals, not about additional electrons. Nothing demonstrates that more than the opposition spokesman, Mr Tehan, who after their meeting said that the critical thing for them was to develop a 'pathway to bringing us all together'. It's all about their internals, not about engineering and science. Then he went on to say— (Time expired)

Senator Mulholland, first supplementary?

A central part of the Albanese Labor government's agenda for addressing climate change is building an expanded clean and affordable energy system. What progress is the Albanese Labor government making on building a modern energy system, and what parts of the community are already benefiting from this?

Thanks, Senator Mulholland.

On Friday, the opposition spokesman for climate change and energy said the priority was 'a pathway to bringing us all together.' Well, look how that's going this week! He then went on to say:

Exactly what that looks like, we are all working through it.

It's all about the politics, all about the internal politics of grievance and anger, all of the social media meme-driven silliness that's driving the approach over here, not actually carefully, systematically, in a disciplined way that provides certainty for the investment community, doing the work that is required to do what has happened this year. Wholesale prices falling 27 per cent compared with this time last year— (Time expired)

Senator Mulholland, second supplementary?

The Albanese Labor government is making sure that its emissions reduction agenda drives the creation of new clean-energy industries and benefits existing industry. How will the Albanese Labor government's climate change policy build new industry, and what are the risks to existing industry if these policies are unsuccessful?

Well, this is hard work in the national interest. It involves using the machinery of government and working with the private sector to deliver real outcomes. There is $5 billion in the Net Zero Fund from the National Reconstruction Fund, an additional $2 billion for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and $1.1 billion for low-carbon liquid fuels. What this is all about is offering industry the support and encouragement it needs to invest in a modern electricity system fit for purpose in what are going to be tough decades in front of Australia. It is delivering for blue collar regions and blue collar suburbs in a way that meaningfully deals with the economic challenges and drives the investment that we need for the future. We are going to get on with the job. Those opposite will get on with the politics of arguing with each other.

I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the chamber of the parliamentary delegation from the New Zealand Parliament, led by the Speaker, the Rt Hon. Gerry Brownlee. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and, in particular, to the Senate. With the concurrence of honourable senators, I invite the Speaker to take a seat on the floor of the Senate.

Honourable senators: Hear, hear!

Mr Brownlee was seated accordingly.

Maybe you could talk about treaty in this country.

My question is for the Minister for the Environment and Water, Minister Watt. Minister, will you commit to introducing a standalone First Nations engagement and participation standard before EPBC reforms are legislated?

Thank you, Senator Thorpe. My department has been working very actively on the development of a First Nations engagement standard, which is a really important part of these reforms We're not actually able to create any new national environmental standards until this bill is passed, because one of the things the bill does is give the minister of the day the power to make national environmental standards. Nevertheless, we are developing those standards and we'll be consulting on them over the next few weeks. Of course, the best thing that anyone who wants to see those standards created could do is to vote for these bills, which will give a minister power to make those standards in the first place.

Senator Thorpe, first supplementary?

Free, prior and informed consent must occur before any standard, so why are you continuously going against First People's free, prior and informed consent, which was violated by Labor?

I'm not quite sure what Senator Thorpe is referring to there. I'm happy to discuss that with you, Senator Thorpe. As I say, we are already drafting national environmental standards, including regarding First Nations engagement, even though we haven't got the power to create those standards, because we want to get moving on them when this bill is passed—and I'm very confident that it will be passed with the support of either the coalition or the Greens.

Senator Thorpe, a second supplementary?

My question was about violating free, prior and informed consent, destroying sacred sites and destroying water and country. You spoke about protecting Murujuga. The people of Murujuga say otherwise. So, in the national interest, will you as minister continue to desecrate and destroy sacred sites?

No, I certainly won't. In fact, I, along with all members of this government. will do everything I can to protect sacred sites for First Nations people. I know that in some quarters there is a narrative that traditional owners in Murujuga are unhappy with the way the government has acted. As with every group, there are some people that are in favour and some people that are not, but the representative group of traditional owners in Murujuga has supported the government's actions. I was standing side-by-side with them when we secured World Heritage listing for Murujuga.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. We are now one month from when your government opened up the five per cent deposit scheme to every first home buyer, and the effects are clear. New numbers released today by data house Cotality reveal that the pace of growth in Australian home values has accelerated by 1.1 per cent—the fastest gain in years. The price hike was steepest amongst the entry and middle parts of the market, which rose 1.2 and 1.4 per cent respectively. Why does your government think it's a good idea to make entry and middle level houses less affordable for first home buyers?

Can I welcome the Speaker to our parliament. We'll try and be polite now, sir. Senator Bragg, we fundamentally don't agree with the proposition you've put forward—that somehow it is a bad thing to assist first home buyers through this deposit scheme. Of course, that is not the only thing the government is doing. The government also recognises the importance of increasing supply, which is why we have a very ambitious addition to housing supply as part of our policies.

Senator Bragg, a first supplementary?

This entry level house hike was entirely predictable. Indeed, the Prime Minister himself admitted that Treasury advised Labor that their changes would send house prices up, and the RBA governor told Senate estimates that the scheme would not only send up house prices but also result in higher repayments for first home buyers. Why does the government knowingly implement policies that make housing less affordable for first home buyers?

The answer is we don't. The five per cent deposit was the subject of advice, and the facts are that lending rules and serviceability requirements stay the same, and the Treasury advice indicated the impact on house prices would be minor. You'll recall, also, that this is only one part of a comprehensive suite of housing policies including the addition of supply.

Senator Bragg, a second supplementary?

Since your government expanded the scheme on 1 October, entry level property has almost doubled the rate of other properties. Cotality's research director Tim Lawless has pinned this on your policy saying, 'stronger housing demand at the lower price points is likely a culmination,' of multiple factors, including, 'what is likely a pickup in first home buyers taking advantage of the expanded deposit guarantee.' Can you explain why your government has— (Time expired.)

We are helping more Australians into their own home. We are training more tradespeople. We are kickstarting construction. We are helping first home buyers. In fact, my recollection is that we have seen building approvals up over the last year and commencements also higher than they were a year ago which is an indication that the policies that we are putting in place, which were opposed by you, are having an effect on the market.

I'll just advise the chamber that Senator Babet has given his question to One Nation.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Watt, regarding humanitarian visas. In the 2024-25 financial years or the 2024 calendar year, what are the top five countries of origin of refugees to which your government granted humanitarian visas?

Thanks, Senator Roberts. I don't have that level of detail with me but am happy to come back to you on notice.

Senator Roberts, first supplementary?

In that period, how many refugee visas were granted overall, and how many of those were issued to Nigerian Christians and South African farmers?

Again, I'll come back to you on notice.

Senator Roberts, second supplementary?

Minister, Islamic cultures and cultures foreign to Australia need a lot of work to integrate into our country, yet your government's refugee program disproportionately favours Islamic and foreign cultures over Christians, who have a similar culture to Australia's. Minister, why does your government's refugee program deliberately exclude Christians who are being slaughtered as we speak?

Senator Roberts, I'm not quite sure that you're telling the truth there. I have said that I will come back to you on notice with the facts, but Australia has had a non-discriminatory immigration policy for many decades, which has been supported up until now, at least, by the Liberal Party. I'm not quite sure what their position is on these matters these days, but we remain proudly in support of a non-discriminatory migration policy, and it will remain that way under Labor as long as we're in government.

My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator Watt. Over the weekend we saw the National Party abandon future generations of Australians when they dumped net zero and undermined Australia's relationship with our region. You have repeatedly said that you don't mind who you do a deal with when it comes to your environment laws. Really? You don't care? You're prepared to do a deal with the climate-denying environmental wreckers of the coalition, aren't you? What does that say, Minister, about the principles of your government—that you're prepared to do a deal with these climate deniers, environmental wreckers? What does that say about the principles of the Labor Party?

As I said last week, Senator Hanson-Young, I have one very easy suggestion for any member of the Greens party who doesn't want to see us pass these laws with the support of the coalition. That's that the Green party could actually back Labor to achieve environmental reform not continue the blocking that we saw from you in the last term where you blocked housing, where you blocked environmental reform and where you teamed up with the coalition to do it. How about you stand up for the environment and back environmental reform in the way that we're putting forward?

Senator Hanson-Young, first supplementary?

Minister, I've just listened carefully to your answer. Your laws have been written to appease the climate-wrecking, environment-wrecking coalition and their mates in the fossil fuel industry. What now do you think about the risk that these on the other side pose to Australia's renewable energy industry and investment?

I obviously keep reading different newspapers to the Greens party, because I don't see the mining companies jumping for joy about our reforms, because they can see that we are actually requiring stronger environmental standards in these laws than currently exist. That's one of the reasons why—silly me!—I would have thought the Greens party might support laws that actually deliver gains for the environment. But of course what we know about the Greens party is that they're more about the politics than the outcome.

Senator Hanson-Young, second supplementary?

Through you, President: Minister, do your laws make it easier and cheaper for coal and gas to get approved?

What our laws do is deliver national environmental standards for the first time we've seen in Australian law. What our laws do is lift the penalties on business when they breach the law when it comes to the environment. What our laws do is require proponents by law to avoid and mitigate environmental impacts before they offset their environment, and what our laws do is require proponents of projects to deliver a net gain for the environmental offsets. There are just four reasons of the many reasons why the Greens should support these laws, but we know they're always more interested in grandstanding.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Senator McCarthy. The Albanese Labor government has a plan to lower speed limits in regional Australia and is currently consulting on this. The consultation documents clearly state speed reduction reform options include sealed roads going down to 70 kilometres per hour and unsealed roads down to 70 kilometres per hour. On 31 October 2025, the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories, Minister McBain, was asked by the ABC Ballarat reporter:

Even if this got up with the 70km limit, this would not apply to highways and well used country roads that have a speed limit of 100 already, would it?

Minister McBain replied:

No, this is all around those unsealed … roads.

Minister, isn't it a fact the government's consultation includes lowering speed limits on all sealed roads, and why did Minister McBain mislead the people of regional Victoria?

I thank the senator for the question. We do know that each state and territory makes laws in regard to what their roads are going to be about in terms of speed limits and in terms of the funding that they wish to put into those roads. We know that, under Labor, regional Australia is firmly getting its fair share, and we're investing in safer roads, stronger local economies and fairer funding for every community. I know the ministers of the Albanese Labor government are doing their utmost—both the minister I represent in Catherine King and Minister McBain—to ensure safer roads across Australia.

Senator O'Sullivan, first supplementary?

I was only asking about the consultation, but anyway—was the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories unaware of the details of the government's consultation process prior to speaking to ABC Ballarat, or are the government deliberately seeking to mislead regional Australians about their plans to lower speeds on sealed and unsealed country roads? A very precise question, Minister.

I thank the senator for the question. I will say this: in terms of Minister McBain and her many interviews, I am more than happy to seek some further advice from the minister in regard to Ballarat.

Senator O'Sullivan, second supplementary?

Thank you, Minister. When the lower speed limit proposal was put to the former coalition government, we didn't implement it. So why is the government now proposing to reduce regional speed limits instead of just fixing the roads?

I certainly have spoken in the Senate, even as early as last the Thursday with regard to question time, about our investment in roads and regional roads across Australia, but I am more than happy to take the advice of the minister and get back to you, Senator.

My question is to the so-called minister for the environment, Senator Watt.

Senator McKim, withdraw that please.

I do withdraw that. Minister, these questions are in regard to your rewrites of Australia's environment laws that have got big polluters like BHP and Chevron so excited they are literally begging for them to be passed this year. The Samuel review recommended removing the exemption for native forest logging done under an RFA. Our forests are beautiful and complex ecosystems that are home to threatened species like the koala and the swift parrot. They are precious Aboriginal cultural heritage. They are massive banks of carbon that help in the fight against climate breakdown. Minister, why did you ignore Professor Samuel's recommendation? Why are you not scrapping the RFA loophole, or, even better, why are you not ending the loss-making, environmentally catastrophic native forest logging industry once and for all?

We've said that we remain committed to implementing Graeme Samuel's recommendation that the national environmental standards should be applied to regional forestry agreements. We've said we're committed to doing that, and we remain committed to doing that.

Senator McKim, first supplementary?

Well, Professor Samuel recommended scrapping the loophole. Minister, deforestation is also driven by the continuous use exemption for land clearing, which, coupled with underenforcement of illegal land clearing, has resulted in about one million hectares of land cleared in Queensland alone since Labor took office. Why is your government not closing that gaping loophole?

Because our priority is passing reforms based on Graeme Samuel's recommendations, and that should be the Greens' priority as well.

Senator McKim, second supplementary?

Your priority, Minister, should actually be protecting the environment. That's your job, and that's what you should be doing. Minister, in your entire package you haven't mentioned the F-word once—forests. Why are you so scared to mention forests, let alone do anything to rein in the massive carbon emissions and biodiversity loss caused by native forest logging and by land clearing?

Well, I'm so scared about using the word 'forest' that in this very answer I mentioned that we remain committed to applying national environmental standards to regional forestry agreements. I'm so scared about it that I said it in Senate estimates and I've said it several times since becoming the minister. I'll say it one more time: we will be applying the national environmental standards to forests.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Can the minister explain why the Albanese government's full compliance rate with orders for the production of documents has plummeted to just 17 per cent in the current parliament?

Thank you, Senator McDonald, for the question. I would make the point that this parliament passes many more requirements on the government of the day than any previous government. An interesting statistic is that, since the last election, more orders for the production of documents have been agreed to in 19 sitting days than in the parliaments of the Fisher, the Hughes, the Bruce, the Scullin, the Lyons, the Page, the first Menzies, the Fadden, the Curtin, the Forde, the Chifley, the second Menzies, the Holt, the McEwen, the Gorton, the McMahon, the Whitlam, the Fraser and Hawke governments combined. So I would make the point that the way in which this chamber chooses to use OPDs—as someone who has been here a very long time—is, frankly, far more extensive and more onerous and with a much lower bar to put up an OPD than in any previous parliament. We have sought to comply with the orders which have been placed upon us, but I would make the point that, if you continue at this rate, there is no government that can meet this volume of OPDs as this Senate is putting in place in its entirety. It's as simple as that. If you have more in the last period than during all of those governments put together, it does tell you something about what the Senate is choosing to do.

Senator McDonald, first supplementary?

Given that 43 per cent of orders for documents in the current parliament have not yet been complied with at all—the highest rate of noncompliance across at least three parliaments—does the minister accept that Labor is systematically blocking the Senate's right to scrutinise government decisions, and when will the government comply with the outstanding 40 orders?

This government has complied with the most OPDs of any government in Australia's history.

Senator McDonald, second supplementary?

Minister, the Albanese government has raised public interest immunity claims in relation to 54 per cent of all orders that have been partially or not complied with in this parliament, with 'cabinet deliberations' being claimed in 62 per cent of those cases. In 2020, you said:

The government can't simply make that claim, because the document was walked through a cabinet room or has the word 'cabinet' on it.

Do you still agree with that statement?

Thank you. My recollection was that there were stories about your government just rolling trolleys into the cabinet room in order to claim cabinet confidentiality. What I can say to you, in terms of what I have seen—

It may not be true, Senator McKenzie. It was folklore.

Did she just say I was right? She might have just said I was right. What I can say to you, Senator, is that as a cabinet minister, from what I have seen where that has been claimed—

Shut Murray up!

Order!

Sorry, do people want an answer or not? Murray. There you go. From what I have seen as a senior cabinet minister in this government, when we have claimed cabinet-in-confidence, I believe that has been legitimate. I really do. You may chuckle, but I believe it is true. What I would say to you is that I know—I almost want to ask for an extension of time. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, Senator McAllister. According to an article published today in the Herald Sun, only 13 per cent of metropolitan GP clinics will bulk-bill under the government's new program. That means the vast majority of patients in metropolitan areas will continue to face rising out-of-pocket costs, currently at an average of $49.14. How does this achieve the Prime Minister's promise to all Australians, made on at least 71 occasions, that they can see a GP for free?

I am very pleased to be asked about the historic investment that our government is making to repair the damage inflicted on Medicare and inflicted on bulk-billing by those opposite during the long period where they froze the rebates available to doctors and saw the rate of bulk-billing in freefall. It is simply true that, at the time of your government, bulk-billing rates, according to the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, were in freefall.

They were at 88 per cent!

The numbers cited by Senator Hume were cooked up by relying on the bulk-billing rates that were produced by COVID. In fact, it had never been harder to see a doctor, and it is on that basis that we are making the investment we are making.

Senator Ruston?

President, on a point of order on relevance, I don't believe that Senator Askew was asking about anything that the minister is actually contributing at the moment. Could you maybe draw her back to the questions around bulk-billing? It was a specific question about out-of-pocket costs on bulk-billing, not something that happened historically.

The minister is being relevant to the question. Minister, did you wish to continue? The minister has completed her answer. Senator Askew, first supplementary?

Minister, according to health department officials, the current, average out-of-pocket cost for a GP appointment is $49.14 and will continue to go up. However, the Prime Minister continues to tell all Australians that they can see a GP for free. Is the Prime Minister wrong, or is the health department?

We are determined to lift rates of bulk-billing. That is why we are making these investments, and we are very pleased that, already, over a thousand practices that were previously mixed-billing have indicated that they are interested in becoming fully bulk-billing practices. What that means is that more Australians will be able to see a doctor for free.

Senator Askew, second supplementary?

The Prime Minister continues to tell all Australians that they can see a GP for free. If that is true, when will the average GP out-of-pocket cost be down to zero dollars?

Thank you again for the question. I can only restate our intention, which is this: we want more Australians to see a doctor for free. That is the promise of universal health care. That is the promise that Australians voted for when they voted for our government, and it is on that basis that we are making the largest single investment in Medicare since the inception of that program—and it is all to repair the damage that was done by the government that you supported and that many of you were part of.

My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. The Wilderness Society has said that the Environment Protection Reform Bill would increase opportunities for political influence on decisions and use new loopholes to weaken nature protections. Without an independent EPA making decisions, and both major parties continuing to accept political donations from fossil fuel corporations, have you received legal advice about higher corruption risks under the new laws?

I find it interesting that the Greens party have asked a question about the risk of the EPA not having independent decision-making powers. I was reading a newspaper report only a couple of weeks ago where the Greens spokesperson for the environment was saying that they supported the minister having decision-making powers rather than the EPA. I'm not quite sure if there's a disagreement there between Greens senators. Frankly, this is the one point that we do have agreement on across the entire parliament. I look forward to many more.

Senator Hodgins-May, first supplementary?

Thank you for that nonanswer. The Wilderness Society also described the bill as 'a piece of swiss cheese riddled with loopholes that would enable rampant deforestation and species extinctions to continue at pace'. Will the government close the many loopholes that provide get-our-of-coal-free cards for project that do not meet environmental standards?

I don't think it's surprising at this stage of the debate that different groups have things that they would like to see changed in the legislation.

Not one environment group will back you.

Senator Hanson-Young, come to order.

We've seen comments from business groups. We've seen comments from environment groups. And we will weigh all that up. But one thing I can guarantee you is that we will pass these laws. We will pass laws that protect the environment and do better for business, and we will either do it with the Greens party or the coalition.

Senator Hodgins-May, second supplementary?

Not one group is backing you. You selectively include lines to include in your email blasts; it's ridiculous. The Wilderness Society has called for the removal of the continuous use loophole that it says is being used to clear one million hectares in Queensland alone under the Albanese government—one million hectares! Will the government remove the section 43B continuous use exemption so that agricultural clearing cannot continue to destroy habitat and drive extinctions without scrutiny?

In her question, Senator Hodgins-May cited some of the comments from environment groups. I can only assume that she's referring to the press release from the Australian Conservation Foundation, Greenpeace and WWF-Australia, in which they said, 'Environment groups welcome new enforcement powers and increases in penalties for nature laws'. That sounds like a degree of support from environment groups. Perhaps the Greens might like to listen.

Senator Hodgins-May?

Senator Hanson-Young, I invite you to turn around to see one of your own senators on her feet. You need to be quiet.

On a point of order on relevance. Senator Watt completely failed to answer the question. I hope he attempts another crack, because people are really disappointed.

He's finished answering the question.

I seek leave to move a motion regarding the order of call during question time.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, I move:

that so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to provide for consideration of a matter—namely, a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the order of business for the call for question time.

Well, once again, we have seen those opposite decide that they're going to come into this chamber and have a childish response to a legitimate motion of the Senate. It's incredibly disappointing. You come in here and you make it sound as though there has never before been any attempt in this chamber to hold a government to account.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator Ruston has moved a suspension, and she will be heard in silence. If you can't be silent, I invite you to leave the chamber.

As I was saying, those opposite seem to want to rewrite history here and say that something like this has never occurred before, where a government has been held to account. I'd like to repeat something I put into Hansard last week, when Senator Wong was overseas and not here. I think it is entirely relevant that we read back to Hansard the commentary of Senator Wong in relation to a motion that the opposition at the time, now the government, sought to move at a time they were accusing Senator Cormann of not being transparent when he was not releasing a document. Let's be clear here. The precedent for this particular issue has been set already by those opposite. To remind those opposite, in case you've forgotten from last week, this is what Senator Wong had to say back on 12 February 2020:

It is entirely explicable why the government have such an attitude, though. Frankly, they're arrogant. They've been on a victory lap. They think they own the joint. They think that the last election was the last word on accountability. They think they're unbeatable and that, no matter how badly they govern or abuse their office, they can get away with it. That's what they think, and it is reflected in their behaviour.

I would remind government ministers that unchecked power never ends well.

They were the words of Senator Wong in relation to when a much more aggressive punitive action was threated against Senator Cormann.

Quite simply, the easiest way for this impasse to be dealt with is for the government to comply with the order. The minister responsible for this particular document hasn't provided it to the chamber, despite the majority of this chamber saying that she needed to provide this document, a document that she promised to release 2½ years ago and has still not produced to date. It's actually a very sad indictment on the transparency of this government.

But the most egregious thing that has happened in this chamber is that the will of this chamber has continually been denied by those opposite. You are behaving like the most arrogant government. You do not believe you need to comply with the orders of this place. This chamber is sovereign. The orders of this chamber, the will of this chamber, should be adhered to. There were a number of people in this chamber, the overwhelming number of people in this chamber—

Senator Ruston, I have been listening carefully. I remind you that you are speaking on a suspension motion and you need to demonstrate to the chamber why it's urgent that you need to put aside procedures of the Senate to move the suspension.

The reason this suspension is particularly urgent is that there could be nothing more urgent in this place than a government that is abusing its power. Quite frankly, that is nothing more and nothing less than what is happening here. You are a government that came to power promising transparency and accountability, and all you have done is be completely non-transparent and unaccountable, and, in the process of doing that, you are abusing your power.

To make things even worse, when the will of the chamber was expressed not in your favour, what did we hear last week? We heard that the Leader of the House, Mr Burke, threatened retribution.

Senator Ruston, you are drifting. The issue before the Senate right now is the suspension motion that you moved. The suspension is saying to the chamber that this matter is so urgent that the rest of the business of the Senate must be put aside for this debate to continue. That's what you need to address.

Thank you very much, President, for your ruling. As I said, the reason I believe this suspension is urgent enough to be called at this particular time of the day is that we have a government that is abusing its power. I do not understand how anybody in this chamber could think that the abuse of power by a government was not probably the most serious or egregious thing that could occur in the Parliament of Australia.

What we've got here is an ongoing demonstration of the refusal to provide information that is important to the Australian public. We saw last week that the government had refused to provide information about, for example, the incoming government brief about energy policy—the incoming government brief that said your energy policy is failing, emissions are not going down and energy bills are going up. Nothing could be more important to Australians than their ability to pay their bills—nothing could be more important to Australian businesses and the 1,000 people at Tomago who are concerned about their jobs.

That was a fairly expansive contribution to the Senate, and I want to make a few points in response.

No, it will be precise and to the point. The first is that the senator seems to be very keen to quote me, which maybe I'll take as a compliment. But I would make the point that I have served in this chamber opposite Nick Minchin, Eric Abetz, George Brandis and Mathias Cormann, who I had the pleasure of catching up with last week.

What about Birmo?

And, of course, Birmo most recently, on the other side! But I will say, as Leader of the Opposition, what we all understood in our roles was what we wanted to have as something that parties of government resolve and when we would play the crossbench in. And of course, at time, people do play the crossbench in, but it wasn't really until last week that I've ever observed a party of government essentially inviting a member of the crossbench to become the Leader of the Opposition! And I thought, really, Senator Pocock should just be invited to the Liberal party room and be elected to your job, because he is doing your job. That is what you're doing. That's the first point I'd say. I've never seen that in over 20 years.

The second point I would make is this: this is not urgent. This is a stunt.

No. Excuse me. I actually listened to you.

I'm listening to you.

Courtesy! This is a stunt. And I'm interested to see if the senator actually returns to the last question, which she fought so much about.

David Smith is going to lose his seat.

Senator McGrath! Senator Ruston, I ensured there was silence in the chamber, and I expect that same respect—

Order! You're not in a debate with me, Senator McGrath! I expect Senator Wong to be heard in silence.

Thank you. I think we all understand this is a stunt. And if the approach we want to take is a conversation across the chamber about the order of the call, that's how we will approach it. But those opposite, particularly this acting Leader of the Opposition, has not taken that approach. If the Senate wants to return to what has been the approach—certainly in all the time I've been here, with many different leaders—

You sacked our staff.

Senator McGrath, would you mind? I'm tired of you interjecting on me. It's just rude.

Senator! Excuse me! If senators want to return to a conversation across the chamber about how the order of the call is managed—

Release the document.

Are you done?

Senator McGrath, I've called you to order about three times. If you can't sit in silence, leave the chamber.

If senators want to return to that sort of approach, we're up for that. We are up for that. I've always sought in this role, and Minister Gallagher has always sought in her role, to have that sort of conversation across the chamber. That isn't the approach that the acting Leader of the Opposition, in her wisdom, has taken. I would recommend to your party room to consider whether or not it's in the long-term interests of a supposed party of government—

Well, her leader isn't.

Senator Scarr! Senator Hanson-Young?

On the matter of urgency to suspend, the Greens will not be supporting this suspension. However, it is quite clear that question time has become an absolute farce, that the respect across the chamber is at an all-time low and that we obviously need to do something about putting a bit more order in place. I'll take up one point that Senator Wong raised. And, I must say, I felt—with all due respect, Senator Wong—I know you weren't here last week, but I'm not sure you're really listening and hearing what the rest of the chamber is saying. To stand here today and argue that, in the past, the two major parties have been able to decide and dictate when to 'play the crossbench in'—that's not exactly what any of us on this end of the chamber like to hear right now.

The two-party system is crumbling. Voters don't like it, that's why they voted at the last election, at record levels, against the two major parties.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Senator Hanson-Young, I've called you because I'm going to draw you back to the suspension matter.

Here in the chamber, the government of the day does not have the numbers to control the chamber, and neither, of course, does the rabble over there in the coalition. The numbers on the crossbench continue to grow, and they are growing because the majority of Australians are looking, more and more, at options other than the two major parties. I would say to you—

Senator Hanson-Young, I'm really struggling to understand your arguments about the suspension motion. That is what you need to focus your remarks on.

My argument about the suspension, President, is that this chamber needs to put in place a system that reflects the reality in this chamber. It should not simply be dictated by one side of the major parties to the next. We will not be supporting this suspension. We want a proper process put in place to ensure that there is fairness across the chamber for those from the non-government side who are able to hold the government of the day to account.

When you continue to not release documents, when you tell the not—

Government senators interjecting—

Order!

I'm sorry, President, but if you can't even keep your government side quiet while I make my argument, what's the point?

Senator Hanson-Young, resume your seat! I'm going to ask you to withdraw that comment.

I withdraw, President, and I seek your protection from the rabble inside the chamber.

Senator Hanson-Young, have you finished or do you wish to continue?

No, I haven't. I have two minutes and 25 seconds left.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order across the chamber.

I urge both sides to talk to the rest of us in the chamber about what would be a good way forward, because it is clear that leaving it to mum and dad isn't working. Leaving it to the major parties isn't working. If we want to put in place a system that holds the government of the day to account, then the crossbench should have a larger number of questions every question time. The opposition should be able to ask questions when they want, and the government should answer. That is how question time is meant to work. It's not so that government members can continue to prop up each other; it is so that the government of the day is held to account. I'm not going to let Senator Wong sit here today and say that it's up to the Labor Party or the Liberal Party to dictate when the crossbench are played in.

I thank Senator Duniam for this motion. I won't be supporting it. I note that it looks like it doesn't necessarily reflect the current one to 10, but I would be willing to look at another motion. I think it may be a good reminder of why we're actually here, and that is because the Labor government, who made much in opposition about transparency, about jobs for mates, is sitting on a report that is more than two years old now. The Lynelle Briggs report into public sector—

Senator Pocock, I'm going to remind you there's a suspension order that was moved by Senator Ruston. You need to indicate to the chamber your views on why the matter is so urgent or not urgent that the business of the Senate ought to be put aside to continue the debate. This is what you need to focus on.

Sure. This is critically urgent, because Australians have had a gutful of jobs for mates. They have a government that, in opposition, made much about it and that, when it came into government, said, 'It's so bad, we have to abolish the AAT.' And yet, when given a report on how to change that, they sit on it. In those two years there have been a number of former Labor politicians appointed to things who may or may not have been well qualified. They may have had both the experience and the credentials, but we don't know, because it's so opaque. Why won't they release this report that was—

Senator Pocock, you are drifting. This is about the suspension.

We're only in this situation—having to suspend question time after a record question time on Thursday—because the government has an addiction to secrecy and will not respond to Senate orders by simply releasing a document. It is not in line with community expectation. I applaud the Senate for putting our foot down and saying: 'You need to comply with Senate orders. This is not good enough.'

At the heart of the urgency motion before the chamber is the matter of transparency. Question time is all about transparency. It's about non-government senators asking ministers questions and answers being provided. I tell you, sadly, this government isn't in the habit of doing so. What this enabled, again, is for the world to see what this government is really like. The aerating of this motion in front of the media, in front of the gallery, again highlights the aversion to transparency this government has.

Senator Pocock mentioned, of course, that the catalyst for this, which precipitated the question time last week—the longest question time since federation, 3½ hours—when the government lost control of the chamber, was that this government refuses to release a document. That's the catalyst. That's why we're having this debate now in response, instead of releasing the document which brought us to where we are today. This is because the government—the all-powerful government that must be obeyed and will tell this chamber what to do, when they'll do it and who'll get what question at what time—again sought to alter the order of question time. So, of course, all of this comes back to this attitude, which is completely opposite to what the government promised this country they would have, around transparency. Even the answers to the questions that were asked by senators in this place last Thursday and today were not befitting of transparent ministers—one-word answers, 10 seconds here, 10 seconds there. The EPBC Act—

Senator Duniam, you are now drifting off the matter of the suspension.

The suspension, of course, is about question time and altering the order of call. We believe it is urgent because this government, these ministers, refuse to be transparent. That is the thing. The minister over there, Senator Watt, says, 'We've answered the questions.' He's provided whatever he thinks is an answer, but it doesn't go to the issues that are being asked about here, because, as discussed, record numbers—this is all interrelated. It's all interrelated.

Transparency is not just something that occurs in one part of a government's business. We have orders for the production of documents that this government refused to respond to in any meaningful way. We have FOI requests on behalf of the people of Australia that this government refused to provide responses to in any meaningful way. We are here in question time—the one time of the day when we are able to ask ministers of the Crown, elected on behalf of the people of Australia to run the government. Of course, they seek to run their influence here as well, telling senators when they'll get a question and in what order. What is next from this government that refuses to stand by the promises they made? They won't do it. This is just another example of that.

So I would ask the Greens to reconsider their position—and Senator Pocock as well—because I think it is important this government is held to account. If we can't get this motion passed here today, we will come back with another motion to deal with this very issue, because, as I said last week, it is an urgent matter now. But we've had enough of a government completely rejecting the democratic rights of the people of Australia, as represented here by the majority of senators outside of the Australian Labor Party.

I look forward to working with a government that wants to actually be co-operative; I'm happy to do that. But a bit of transparency along the way never goes astray. It was what was promised—transparency. Part of that is question time. We have, as I've said before, a government that refuses to be transparent and wants to dictate to this Senate who'll get a question when and in what order. That doesn't sound like a government that is obeying the will of the Australian people and working cooperatively with all senators that don't happen to be in their party room. Of course, this Senate chamber is sovereign. It is not ruled by the government. There are conventions that that mob there, this government, will not stick by, whether it's on staffing, on question time, on transparency—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator Duniam, please resume your seat. Order! Order across the chamber but particularly on my right. Senator Duniam.

Thank you for your protection, President. It has been a delight to again highlight the willingness of this government to hide from accountability and to do what it can do with its numbers from time to time. It's a real disappointment, especially when such promises were made before the last election and the one before that, which they so easily break.

I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on this. I think others have spoken about the fact that this chamber largely works by cooperating across the chamber—not that a lot of people see it. No single party has the numbers, and no individual senator can deliver a particular outcome. So, from the minute we start to the minute we adjourn, there are a whole range of agreements that are reached, usually outside of the floor as we talk across all of the offices. That's the only way the Senate can truly function. We don't talk about it often, because it isn't demonstrated on the floor, but that's how the place works. Last week, that was fractured, and we are seeing the results of that now.

The Briggs report—I'm trying to keep within the motion, and the Briggs report is relevant because it triggered the fracture that played out on Thursday and is playing out again today. That report will be released, as I have said a number of times, but it won't be released until the cabinet has finished its consideration of it.

We just want to read the report.

It won't be released until that time, because it is not fair to my cabinet colleagues to do that when they have the right to consider that report as it relates to their own portfolios. It is a piece of work that is restricted to boards and committees. That is the work that was done by Ms Briggs. But it is currently before cabinet. Under the conventions and under the operations of cabinet confidentiality—and this is recognised in Odgers'while those discussions and deliberations are underway, the government has a right to protect that information. That is all we are doing.

We will release that report; I've been clear about that. So I do not accept the criticism from Senator Pocock, who not once has asked for a briefing on boards or committees or anything to do with that report.

Minister, I draw you back to the suspension.

This is linked. Convention was ripped up on the floor, led by a senator who hadn't sought any information about the work that I am currently doing. It has ramifications. We've been seeing that over the last couple of days. I wish it had been dealt with differently, but that was the choice of a senator who, working with others, passed this motion. We are trying to make that work, as we did on Thursday, when we all sat here and were prepared to sit here for as long as you had questions. We tried to stay till midnight. We kept question time going. We were the ones that were directing the show. And those opposite, in all these calls for transparency, left. The exodus out of those doors was something I haven't seen before.

So don't lecture this government about transparency. As Senator Wong said, we have answered more OPDs than any other government in the history of this parliament. OPDs are being misused by the Senate right now. They're being used as the first point of research, not the last. There are OPDs being used that have 1.8 million documents under their scope.

A point of order. At some point, could Senator Paterson cease the interjections. At some point in this five-minute contribution—

Even now.

Senator Paterson, come to order.

It's just rude. We listened to your leader in silence.

You did not.

It's not a debate.

Almost silence. We certainly did. How about we have almost silence? How about that? Whereas you do permanent interjections.

Minister Wong, please resume your seat. It's not an open debate across the chamber. Minister, please continue. I'm going to draw you back to the suspension motion.

The scope of some of the OPDs include 1.8 million documents, and they have to be delivered to this chamber within eight days. I mean, come on. This chamber needs a serious discussion about how it's going to operate. It looks like those opposite are prepared to rip up any pathway to resolution on this, but I would urge everyone in this chamber—the government is up for it—to talk through how we will make this chamber work. In the history of this chamber for its proud 124 years, that is the way it has worked.

We do not support the suspension. We have the order of the call. I'm not sure if we're going to get to question 15. We are prepared to work across the parliament to resolve the order of the call going forward.

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

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Could I please ask that the division be cancelled.

Leave granted; question negatived.

My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator Watt. Minister, on multiple occasions last year, your predecessor as environment minister was asked by the coalition in question time and in OPDs to provide the number of hectares of native vegetation and wildlife habitat approved to be cleared for renewable energy projects in the years of the Albanese government. Naturally, this information goes to the very heart of the government's environmental credibility or otherwise. So, Minister, why to this day has the government still refused to release that data?

I think it's interesting that Senator Colbeck is asking this question because I remember Senator Colbeck calling for the approval of the Robbins Island wind farm in Tasmania, so I thought Senator Colbeck was a supporter of renewables, but maybe he's now falling into line with the National Party-led coalition to oppose net zero and oppose renewables. Senator Colbeck's question goes to matters prior to me taking on this role. I can't shed any further light in answer to his question.

Senator Colbeck, first supplementary?

Minister, is it the case the Albanese government has been so reckless that it doesn't actually know how much land and wildlife habitat has been approved for clearance for renewable projects under its watch? Or is it, as seems more likely, that the primary reason the government has continued to refuse to provide figures is that it knows the numbers would further expose the complete environmental hypocrisy at the centre of its renewables agenda?

It's neither of those things.

Senator Colbeck, second supplementary?

The coalition calculated at the time of the election in May this year that at least a whopping 9.75 billion square metres of land had been approved for clearance for renewable projects by Ms Plibersek, of which well over 6.53 billion square metres had a known disturbance footprint. Does the minister have the latest updates of those figures to provide to the Senate, or will he, yet again, like on so many occasions under this government, fail the accountability and transparency test?

No, I don't have those figures.

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

I'm going to make a statement on a question asked by Senator Wong earlier during a division of committee-of-the-whole. There was some confusion earlier about the right of a senator to move an amendment to an amendment in relation to a bill which was subject to an order limiting time for its consideration. Where the Senate has agreed to limit time for consideration of a bill, standing order 142(4) provides that only amendments circulated two hours before expiry of that time are considered once time expires. If questions are being put after time expires, then amendments circulated less than two hours before can only be considered by leave. However, prior to time expiring, senators have all of their usual rights to propose amendments or, in this case, an amendment to an amendment. The Deputy President was correct to rule that Senator Canavan had a right to move his amendment.

A second issue in this case was that Senator Canavan was seeking to describe his amendment to the Senate but had not circulated it in writing. Senators are encouraged to circulate their amendments in writing wherever possible. This ensures that all senators are clear about the proposal they are being asked to vote on. Nevertheless, if an amendment is simple enough to clearly convey to the Senate orally, this can be done. Senators should then provide a signed copy of what was moved to the chair. I understand that Senator Canavan followed that practice by providing a signed copy during the division.

I would like to respond to two questions, the first one being from Senator O'Sullivan to me in my capacity as the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, relating to regional speed limits. Some roads in Australia do not have signposted speed limits. This means that a default speed limit applies on these roads. The Australian Road Rules do not specify a default speed limit for unsealed roads. We are seeking feedback from industry, interested stakeholders and members of the public on the options for lowering the current default speed limit outside of built-up areas, introducing a default speed limit for unsealed roads outside of built-up areas and the potential road safety benefits of reducing default speed limits outside of built-up areas. This information is stated on the department's website, where members of the public are welcome to make their submissions until 10 November.

I also have a response for Senator Whitten in my capacity as the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, relating to Bovaer 10. The Australian government is not mandating the use of any methane inhibiter. Meat and Livestock Australia has spent more than $1 million investigating. To date, all research on Bovaer has confirmed that the product is safe for consumers as well as for handlers when standard safety practices are adhered to. International food safety authorities, including the EU's European Food Safety Authority and the UK's Food Standards Agency, have assessed it and consider it safe for use. Food Standards Australia New Zealand sets chemical residue limits for domestic produce through the Food Standards Code. The code does not permit any residues of Bovaer in food, and this is able to be enforced by state and territory food regulatory agencies. Additionally, the code requires meat and dairy producers to ensure that all inputs, including feed additives, do not compromise the safety or suitability of their products.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Treasurer (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice asked by Senator McKenzie today relating to energy policy.

Here we are, talking about numbers. Last week's CPI figures confirmed electricity costs have risen annually by 23.6 per cent—almost a quarter in just one year. What we're seeing is the effect of that. We're seeing the effect of Labor's energy policy in both directions. We're seeing things like the Tomago aluminium smelter saying they can no longer get an energy contract to remain viable beyond 2028, and so 1,400 direct jobs and up to 5,000 indirect jobs are on the line. The only reason that is making news, rather than all the small ones, is that it is so big. What we're seeing is that energy-intensive industries right across the employment sector, including the smaller ones that you won't see, who have five, 10 or 20 employees; engineering firms; bakeries; and things that require gas, are all under the same pressure. In whole, it would be as many jobs as Tomago, but small enough individually to sit under the radar.

On the other side of that, we see Rainforest Reserves Australia coming out and talking about the amount of land these large-scale renewables projects are using and the environmental damage they are causing. They are starting to see the wind towers inserted on the Great Dividing Range, the solar panels across agricultural lands and all of these things being a massive detriment to the environment, the economy and the country.

We have environmental damage creeping up on one side. We have their policy and the consequences to the economy on the other side. They are closing in, with a pincer movement, on just how bad Labor's policy has been. In the middle, the centrepiece of this, is their emissions reduction strategy, which has gone nowhere for four years. This year, Australians will spend $9 billion in subsidies. Mums and dads, people out there and businesses will pay over a thousand dollars extra on their power bills—23 per cent just in the last year alone—for what? For a flatlining result. For nothing. For nada. If you go back to 2022, we were at a very similar level of emissions to where we are now.

Let's go through without the spin or the hype of Labor's energy policy. Let's go through the facts. Power bills are up; people are paying more. Subsidies are up by $9 billion, and that's not counting all the ones for businesses, like the $2 billion clean energy fund. That's just on emissions stuff. We have environmental people coming out and saying that this policy isn't working. We have no change in the emissions. Forget the talking points. We always come here and talk about the talking points. Let's get down to tintacks. The policy that this government has is wrong and the settings are wrong, but someone is so invested in being right that they can't admit it.

It wouldn't take a lot to change a few things. It wouldn't take a lot to go back to an absolute emissions reduction fund that would pay people who want to abate and who can abate to get involved and do it. If you take just the sheer numbers, which are, again, $9 billion, on their numbers, and you take the current Australian carbon credit unit value, of about $30 per tonne, and apply it to the numbers we heard today in the answer—that we wanted to reduce by, say, five million tonnes; let's up it a bit and say $50 for a carbon credit unit, for a tonne—you're talking about no more than $250 million. That is, essentially, what it would cost, in carbon credit units, to abate the amount that this government say they want to abate.

But what do we spend? We spend $9 billion to get $250 million worth of benefits. Where is the common sense? Rainforest Reserves are out there saying it will cost $1.3 trillion to achieve the energy transition. According to Net Zero Australia, the cost to the economy comes out at $7 trillion to $9 trillion. That's $250,000 per person. I'm counting $7 million worth of people in the galleries, but that's a rough guess. That is what we're talking about as the cost to the economy. So what part of this policy is working? If we were going through all this pain and reducing emissions, I might see something. If we were taking this pain and industry was taking off, I'd see something. If we were actually spending money on making our environment better, I would see something. This policy is not working in any area, and we will get up and we will hear 'cleaner, cheaper, cleaner, cheaper', but it is not. That is just a smokescreen to cover for a failed policy, and we need to do better. That's why we on this side are looking for ways to do things in a way that's cheaper, better and fairer for our country so that we can all thrive.

I'm very pleased to talk about this government's approach to energy policy and energy prices. They're more than just talking points; they're actually the reality of what we are doing to deliver for Australians. While the Albanese Labor government has taken strong action to provide energy bill relief to Australians, households and businesses, what we've seen from those opposite is opposition every step of the way. They're not talking points; they are the reality.

We've provided three rounds of energy bill relief to homes and small businesses to take the sting out of bills now, while we're doing the long overdue reform work to bring down energy bills for good. This goes to the core of the energy future for this country. We've also acted to cap coal and gas prices, shielding Australians from the worst of the global energy crisis. For those households who are watching now, some of the things that you can do is check that you're on the cheapest energy plan that is available to you. The recent ACCC data shows that some 80 per cent of households could we paying less on a different deal right now. The government's energy.gov.au website and the AER's Energy Made Easy website can help billpayers to find the cheapest plans, and we urge you to go and do that.

In the longer term we are also rolling out critical investments in renewable energy, because the sun and the wind don't send a bill, and we've acted to make the energy market fairer. Our new rules, coming into effect in 2026, will make sure that retailers aren't ripping off customers and are going to driving down energy bills. These changes include banning unfair fees and card surcharges, stopping sneaky price hikes and making sure that hardship customers are receiving the best offer that their retailer can provide.

In contrast, we see that the former coalition government left Australians with a power system overexposed to offshore price shocks, exposed to reliability gaps and overly reliant on ageing and increasingly unreliable coal plants, with no plan for a future that is sustainable for our country. They ignored the experts and refused to take advantage of our abundant sun and wind, leaving households paying the price for a grid that's too reliant on expensive, unreliable and ageing coal. We know that those opposite initially voted against the Energy Bill Relief Fund in 2022 and at the election. To this day they say that the solution to Australian energy bills is the most expensive and slowest possible—nuclear.

Only Labor has a plan for an affordable and reliable energy system that's backed by the experts and backed by the Australian economy. The Liberals' nuclear plan would only deliver four per cent of the capacity needed by 2050. The CSIRO figures show that the cost of power from nuclear reactors is up to eight times more expensive than firmed renewables and that the cost of the single plan could be as high as $16 billion. If you want to talk about lowering energy prices, you certainly don't want to be following those opposite.

We know that GenCost has consistently found that renewables, including the cost of transmission and storage, are the cheapest form of new energy generation. This is an important transition in our national interest. Whether it's looking at the International Energy Agency, merchant banks, Baringa, a comprehensive study by Danish academics into the economics of Denmark's energy needs, the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies's work or extensive research published in the respected energy journal Joulethe most recent research by Griffith University's Centre for Applied Energy Economics and Policy Research suggests that the cost of generating electricity would be as much as 50 per cent higher today if Australia had relied solely on coal and gas instead of pursuing renewables. So it's hardly for those opposite to come here and talk about the price of energy bills for everyday Australians when all they're worried about is themselves.

I would also say that Treasury modelling finds that the wholesale electricity prices will be much lower under an orderly transition, compared to the disorderly transition that our political opponents want. It's unclear where it's disorderly or where it's actually non-existent at the moment, given the discussions over the weekend from those opposite. However, under the orderly scenarios, long-term prices are forecast to be 10 per cent lower than the 10-year historical average, in line with the Australian Energy Market Commission's 10-year forecast and the long-term cost of firmed renewables. Australians know who is looking after their energy prices, and it is on this side of the chamber that that is the case.

Senator Cadell predicted that we'd get a rolling out of the talking points, and that's exactly what we got. There was a point of discussion about reality, but, unfortunately for the Australian people, reality is the problem.

Labor promised 97 times before the 2022 election that they would reduce energy prices by $275 by 2025. Here we are, in 2025. What have we seen? In the last year alone, power prices have gone up by 23.6 per cent. That's the reality that the Australian people are facing. And guess what? At Christmas, just a few weeks down the track—frighteningly—because Labor, to get themselves through the last election campaign, only put up six months of energy price subsidy, the energy subsidies will be gone, and what will the Australian people be left with? Higher power bills. It was always going to be the case. Once the energy subsidies disappear, the Australian people are left with higher energy prices—over $1,300 a year higher under this Labor government. Subsidies will be gone, and power bills will still be there at a higher level—23.6 per cent in the last 12 months.

When the kids are going back to school, with all the expenses and costs for the kids to start school again, the higher power prices will still be there. When the credit card comes in for Christmas, the higher power prices will still be there. Yet we heard the Labor Party 97 times before the 2022 election say that they would reduce Australians' power bills by $275 by 2025. That's the reality. That's the reality that Australians are facing.

You cannot believe a single word that this government says with respect to energy. You can't believe Mr Bowen. You can't believe the Prime Minister. You can't believe the Treasurer. You can't believe anyone opposite. They'll trot out the talking points. They'll blame everybody else. But it was their promise that they would reduce power prices for Australians by $275 by 2025.

What are we seeing with respect to industry? Industry are starting to walk out the door because energy prices, the foundation of this country's economy, are too high, and it's now too expensive to do business in this country. That's what Tomago is saying. That's what Bell Bay Aluminium in my home state of Tasmania is saying. The minister trotted out earlier this year saying, 'Here's a program so that we can support business and industry in this country to get through, because we want to have a built in Australia—made in Australia—campaign. What are they doing? They're having to subsidise industry to cover the costs of their power bills because their energy policy is too expensive. It's the same thing over and over again. They just don't seem to be able to join the dots. They make a whole series of bad decisions through their governance of the country. They're spending too much money. They're keeping interest rates higher for longer because of the expenditure. The Reserve Bank has said that on a number of occasions. They're energy policy is wrong and driving up costs to business. They had to subsidise the Australian community for 2½ years. That's now coming off. They got through the election. They don't need to worry about you for a while now. But the credit card bill will come in after Christmas, and the kids going back to school will still have all those increased costs. Energy prices are up 23.6 per cent over the last 12 months.

It's no wonder that Ken Henry said:

If you have to provide a permanent or semi-permanent rebate for something, then you're saying that your policy settings are wrong … your energy policy settings are wrong …

That's Ken Henry. He's not necessarily a friend of this side of politics, but that's what he's saying about the government. And the government need to shape up with respect to this matter.

I just want to make a few points that Senator Colbeck and Senator Cadell made. It's convenient when people come into this place and try and recast history and try to pretend that, somehow, the cost of energy was solely this government's problem—when we came to government in 2022. It's just worth placing on the record that what was forecast by Treasury, when we were elected in 2022, was that this government was looking at one of the highest increases to energy prices ever seen by an incoming government. In fact, Treasury had estimated that, without the government's reforms that were—some of the members of this place would remember that we had a special sitting of the parliament very late in December in the year 2022. Energy prices were forecast to go up by around 20 per cent by the year 2022-23 and then by 36 per cent by the year 2023-24. If it weren't for the government's intervention in our reform packages that were passed by the parliament late in 2022—when we came to government, the former coalition government had left an energy sector that was exposed to offshore price shocks and that was exposed and overly reliant on an ageing and increasingly unreliable plants, mainly in coal.

At the election—and it's what we see time and time again now from those opposite—the opposition were not able to articulate a very clear set of policies that would bring back and reduce the cost of electricity in this country. We had some sort of half-cooked nuclear power policy. They were not able to provide a straight answer about whether they were going to continue the government's $300 energy rebate. Fast forward some years later and what we see is a coalition that is not only divided, but in chaos. They are tearing themselves apart, and we had the National Party, over the weekend, embracing a policy that would, effectively, say no to net zero—no to zero! Who would be against a policy that would ensure our country would have a position of saying that we can get to a position of net zero—not saying that 'we want to reduce energy pricing' or that 'we want to reduce our emissions here in this country', but a completely flat out 'no to net zero'.

We also see now, I think, one of the best quotes going around at the moment, from an unnamed coalition MP—and I think it was attributed to a Liberal MP, nonetheless—in the Australian.

It may not be you, Senator Scarr, but I want to place it on the record. The quote goes like this:

The first rule of being a parasite is not to kill off your host.

I have seen a lot of memes floating around online. In fact, I think there's a potential movie or a film call 'Parasite by Senator Canavan'. I'm not directing that at Senator Canavan, just to be clear, but that's the meme that is going around at the moment. But what you can see is the disdain, the confusion and the chaos that is happening right now from those opposite, because, quite frankly, they have no idea what their energy policy is.

Unfortunately, there are people in the gallery and people watching today who are wanting to have one simple question asked—where does the coalition stand when it comes to electricity? Where do they stand when it comes to investment in gas? Where do those opposite stand when it comes to the future of this country? Business, right now, want some certainty. They want to understand where we, as elected members of this place, are positioned. When we bring in a set of legislation, like we have with the EPBC Act, where do those opposite stand? Are they going to be dividing or crossing the floor? Quite frankly, we have no idea where those opposite stand at this point in time. We don't even know if the Leader of the Opposition, Sussan Ley, in the other place, will remain the Leader of the Opposition come Christmas.

You are sending a very bad message to those right across the country, particularly those in the business community and our future generations. We see the schoolkids here today looking down upon us. They're looking to us for hope and to make sure we do the right thing by them. (Time expired)

Clearly, not enough people have seen the movie Alien.

I rise to take note of questions asked by the coalition in question time today, and I will take some of the comments from those opposite in terms of where the coalition stands in relation to energy policy.

Under this Labor government, power bills are up, emissions are up, and productivity has flatlined. We're talking about billions of dollars in rebates with no intrinsic value for the taxpayer. When those opposite stand up and purport that the sun and the wind do not cost anything, I would put to them: why is it going to cost $1.33 trillion just to get solar panels and wind turbines? That number does not include transmission lines. The sun and the wind are going to cost $1.33 trillion. When those opposite put these things to the Australian people—those opposite stood up at the election and said that they would lower power bills by $275. They then came into this chamber and said that they were always expecting power prices to rise. Why did they lie to the Australian people? Why did they mislead the Australian people into believing that they would have cheaper electricity under this Labor government?

This government's reckless pursuit of net zero at any cost is costing Australian businesses. It's costing Australian families. It is costing everyday hardworking taxpayers. We've got this government taking over farmland—agricultural, beautiful, pristine parts of Australia—to put in solar panels and wind turbines. This government is proposing to destroy our natural environment—all in the name of having what they call the cheapest form of energy. And I say: if it is the cheapest form of energy, why have our power bills gone up 23.6 per cent? If this is truly the cheapest form of energy for the Australian people, we should be seeing costs coming down. We are not seeing costs fall.

We are seeing costs rise, and we are seeing costs rise across the board because when electricity is expensive, it's more expensive to do everything. It's more expensive to produce milk. It's more expensive to transport our products. It's more expensive for businesses to keep the lights on. We are seeing inflation go through the roof in our country. We are a wealthy, resource-rich nation, and this Labor government is driving us into poverty. We are going to see living standards fall drastically. That's what productivity tells us. When productivity flatlines, we know that our living standards are the next thing that are going to fall.

On this side of the chamber, we stand for everyday, hardworking Australians. We stand for sensible policy in relation to energy. We stand for sensible policy in relation to the environment, and we will stand every single day with the Australian people to make sure that they have access to cheap, reliable energy. That is something that this Labor government is not able to deliver for the Australian people. Even their own spending in terms of what they are doing to our economy—they are spending at four times the rate of the growth of our economy.

We are expecting to see here in Australia a debt set to reach $1.2 trillion. I have three children, and I worry because my three children are inheriting that debt. I certainly worry about their children, which will be my grandchildren, and what that is going to mean for them. We were the lucky country. That's why my grandparents and my parents migrated here—for the opportunities that were afforded to all Australians who came to our sure. But, when I think about that debt and I think about the impact that that is going to have on my children and my children's children, it scares me.

This out-of-control spending is hurting everyday Australians, and it has to stop. Emissions are up, power bills are up and productivity has flatlined. This Labor government has to accept that they have the policy settings all wrong and the Australian people are the ones who are paying the price. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given to our many questions on the EPBC Act.

The EPBC package is a backward step for our environment and for climate. The Greens have been very clear: we will not rubberstamp laws that fail to protect our native forests, that let down our precious habitat with continuous land clearing, that leave our wildlife unprotected and that don't take action on climate. These are pro-mining, pro-logging laws that Labor is trying to rush through the parliament. They have the mining industry's fingerprints all over them; look no further than BHP, Chevron, the minerals council—all delighted at the prospect of these environmental laws, which will be rammed through if Labor get their way.

These bills are riddled with carve-out clauses to suit industry—carve-outs, loopholes, scope for more and more ministerial discretion. Climate and impacts are still not to be required to be assessed under the federal environmental laws—completely unsatisfactory. Large-scale deforestation will be able to continue. Bulldozers and chainsaws will have free reign, and the minister will have increased discretional powers. The minister will not rule out fast-tracking new coal and gas through these changes. The so-called national interest power in these bills would allow the minister to approve certain projects that might otherwise be rejected. The Greens cannot pass these so-called environmental laws as they stand in their current state. We need laws that protect nature, stop native forest logging, actually factor in the climate crisis and don't fast-track coal and gas, and this is not them.

For years, we have been gearing up for a long-overdue reform of Australia's environmental laws—a reform that should reflect the urgency of the climate crisis. Yet this government has proposed a profoundly disappointing set of so-called reforms. These proposed laws are weaker than the ones that we already have and risk taking us backwards. Many in our community would find it appalling that this government continues to prioritise corporations over our environment. Labor's decision to greenlight the North West Shelf gas extension to 2070 makes it crystal clear that this government refuses to confront the long-term consequences of its choices. These new laws won't stop new coal or gas projects. The government is failing to stop the source of the climate destabilisation and it is failing to chart a clear and credible pathway for transition.

Just last month, I attended the release of a groundbreaking report showing just how Western Australia can reduce its emissions and manage energy demands across major industries—a science based pathway to align WA with the Paris Agreement's 1.5 degrees target. But this wasn't commissioned by government. No, it came from Greenpeace and the environmental sector. The people are doing the work which our governments should be leading. Instead, both WA and federal Labor continue to pander to fossil fuel giants, ignoring the economic and environmental realities that are right before our eyes.

This is not a time for denial. It is a time for strategic, bold action, a time for a transition to a cleaner economy—one that is fairer for people and puts the planet first. For those who still believe that Australia is a negligible contributor to this problem, let me say this: Australia is one of the world's biggest gas exporters. Our per person greenhouse gas emissions are amongst the highest on planet Earth. Our fossil fuel exports have already pumped 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere since the 1960s, and we are on track to add another 15 billion over the next decade.

So no, Australia is not a small player. We are a major polluter, and the government's refusal to act isn't just an environmental failure. It is a moral failure. We need environmental laws that truly protect our environment, our native forests, our critical habitats and our climate because protecting our environment is protecting our future. (Time expired.)

Question agreed to.

I move:

That—

(a) the questions on all remaining stages of the Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya's) Bill 2025 be put at 1 pm today;

(b) paragraph (a) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142; and

(c) divisions may take place between 1.30 pm and 2 pm until consideration of the bill has concluded.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to the following senators:

(a) Senator Brown for 27 October 2025, for personal reasons,

(b) Senator Polley from 27 to 29 October 2025, for personal reasons; and

(c) Senator Wong, for 28 and 29 October 2025, on account of ministerial business.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That Senator Babet be granted leave of absence for 30 October 2025, for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

If there is no objection, the business is postponed.

I move:

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

Department of Defence—9 Molonglo Drive project, Brindabella Park, Australian Capital Territory.

I table a statement in relation to the work.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Education, by no later than 5 pm on Thursday, 13 November 2025, copies of all ministerial submissions, records of conversation, letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, file notes, meeting invitations, meeting notes, meeting minutes, emails and instant/electronic messages between the Minister for Education and/or his office and the Department of Education in relation to the decision to exclude medical students from the Commonwealth Prac Payment program.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Disability and the National Disability Insurance Scheme, by no later than 5 pm on Wednesday, 19 November 2025:

(a) copies of all ministerial submissions, records of conversation, letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, file notes, meeting invitations, meeting notes, meeting minutes, emails and instant/electronic messages between the Minister for Disability and the National Disability Insurance Scheme (the minister) and/or his office and the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing (the department) in relation to stakeholder meetings held by or attended by the minister and/or his office or officials from the department that were related to the Thriving Kids program and were held prior to the announcement of the program; and

(b) a document which lists stakeholders met with in the meetings referred to in paragraph (a) and the dates of those meetings.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 June 2026:

The impact of proposed renewable energy projects on regional communities including the Lambruk Solar Project near Loomberah, New South Wales, with particular reference to:

(a) the use of prime agricultural land for industrial-scale renewable energy development;

(b) the effect on family farming operations, food and fibre production and local property values;

(c) the social, mental health and financial impacts on residents and farming families;

(d) risks to aquifers and soil degradation;

(e) the adequacy of dust and noise mitigation measures;

(f) the impact of increased heavy vehicle traffic on local roads and council infrastructure;

(g) the involvement of energy companies such as Venn Energy Inc. and other overseas investors;

(h) the level of benefit or disadvantage to affected Australian communities;

(i) any national interest implications arising from foreign control of energy assets;

(j) the adequacy of current federal and state planning, zoning and approval processes for renewable energy developments on rural land; and

(k) any other related matters.

by leave—The government will be opposing this motion. The Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner is the appropriate mechanism for complaints and inquiries about new or existing wind farms; large solar farms; energy storage sites, like pumped hydro or large batteries; and major powerline projects. The commissioner is engaging with the proponents of the Lambruk Solar Project.

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Bell, business of the Senate motion No. 2, be agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, by no later than 5 pm on Friday, 14 November 2025, copies of all ministerial submissions, records of conversation, letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, file notes, meeting invitations, meeting notes, meeting minutes, emails and instant/electronic messages between the Minister for Housing and/or her office, the Department of the Treasury and Housing Australia in relation to the effect the Australian Government 5% deposit scheme is expected to have on house prices and housing supply in Australia, including any modelling of said effect.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the time for the presentation of the final report of the Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy be extended to Tuesday, 24 March 2026.

The question is that motion No. 212, moved by Senator Whish-Wilson, be agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, by no later than 5 pm on Friday, 7 November 2025, copies of all ministerial submissions, records of conversation, letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, file notes, meeting invitations, meeting notes, meeting minutes, emails and instant/electronic messages between Minister for Communications and/or her office, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications and the Office of the eSafety Commissioner in relation to the establishment of an academic advisory group to evaluate the implementation of the social media ban under Part 4A of the Online Safety Act 2021.

The question is that motion No. 215, moved by Senator Payman, be agreed to.

I seek to withdraw general business notice of motion No. 217, standing in my name.

I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act relating to regulation impact statements, and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

I present the bill and move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.

Leave granted.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

As I rise today to speak on the Mandatory Regulation Impact Statement Bill, I am standing for honesty, transparency, and, frankly, good policy.

Now, I'll be honest. This is not a flashy bill. There are no headlines in it. No one's going to be chanting about regulation impact statements at rallies.

But it's the kind of change that makes a big difference in how we legislate, and how the legislation affects real people in the real world.

This bill is about making sure we do the thinking before we do the legislating. It's about getting serious not just about the why and the who when it comes to making new rules and regulations.

As all of you here in the chamber are aware, there is a recommendation located in the Legislation Handbook that says we should provide a Regulatory Impact Statement for any bill that will have an impact—on anyone.

As is sometimes the case, though, Impact Statements are too often only provided when they make the policy look good. When it has a positive impact.

Right now, across many levels of government, new regulations are brought in without fully considering the consequences. Most of the time, the intention is good, but the flow-on effects just haven't been thought through properly.

And who ends up dealing with those unintended consequences?

It's the small business owner trying to open a local cafe in a small town, who suddenly has to comply with a mountain of forms.

It's the farmer who wants to build a new dam for water security, but finds the rules made in the city don't match the reality on the ground.

It's the young family who can't move into their new build because it's tangled in a regulation spaghetti.

A decade ago, nearly half of Red Tape Survey respondents reported that impacts of regulation had prevented them from making changes to grow their business.

Years later, interim inquiries found that these concerns had not abated.

If a lack of a meaningful Regulation Impact Statement is preventing businesses from growing, then it is stalling productivity, which is one of the biggest concerns of this parliament.

When people get frustrated with the government, when they say it's out of touch, this is what they're talking about. Rules made, often with the best of intentions, but no clue the impact they're gonna have on everyday people.

This isn't right. Us representatives should know what we're voting on. Our voters should know how their elected representatives' policies are going to affect them. It's a no brainer, really.

That's where this bill comes in.

What this bill does is straightforward:

It makes it mandatory for new legislation that will have an impact to be presented with a Regulation Impact Statement. It's what we should be doing anyway.

If you're going to impose new rules that affect people's lives, their livelihoods, their businesses, or their communities, then you owe them a pretty honest estimate of how it's going to play out.

This Bill helps us to do our jobs better. It forces decision-makers to ask the right questions.

What is the actual intention of the legislation?

What are all our options, and the costs and benefits of each?

Who's affected, and how can we valuably include their input?

And finally, is this piece of legislation actually beneficial? Or is it just another layer of regulation to make people's lives harder?

If we want our voters, our citizens, the people we are put here to represent to trust us, we need to make sure our policies are well designed, thoroughly justified, and properly communicated.

This bill is about lifting and upholding the standard. It's about transparency. Accountability. All the things that are essential to our democracy.

We owe that level of transparency to the people who elected us.

Too often in this place, the outcome doesn't match the intent. We talk about removing red tape, and just add more. We say we want to improve the small business sector, and just make it harder for small business owners.

This bill aims to change that.

It's not a silver bullet. It won't stop every bad regulation or unintended consequence. But it will force us to have a good hard think before we go messing with people's everyday lives.

That's what good governance looks like.

This is for everyone who's ever felt like their elected representatives just aren't representing them.

So while this bill might not be a biting criticism, or a front page headline, it's a practical change that can make a world of difference.

Right now, we have a chance to improve governance for good. Why wouldn't we take it?

Debate adjourned.

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) order for the production of documents no. 27, agreed to by the Senate on 24 July 2025, requesting the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Monday, 28 July 2025, to table all documents relating to any advice provided by the Treasury to the Treasurer and the Minister for Housing since 1 January 2025 in relation to the Government's plan to invest $10 billion for 100,000 new homes for first home buyers, and any advice provided to the Treasurer and the Minister for Housing since 1 January 2025 in relation to the Government's plan to enable first home buyers to purchase a home with a 5% deposit was not complied with,

(ii) three months have passed since the minister's interim response requesting more time to comply with the order was provided, and

(iii) a failure to release the requested documents in a timely manner is in contempt of the Senate and its functions; and

(b) requires the Minister representing the Treasurer to attend the Senate on Tuesday, 4 November 2025 at the conclusion of question time to provide an explanation of no more than 5 minutes of the failure to comply with the order, and that:

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

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

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Liddle, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, by midday on Monday, 10 November 2025, all written briefings prepared by the Department of Social Services and provided to the office of the Minister for Social Services and to the Secretary of the Department of Social Services for 2025-26 supplementary Budget estimates.

Question agreed to.

I remind senators that, on Wednesday 29 October 2025, after 6.30 pm a division was called on the motion moved by Senator Kovacic proposing a reference to the Education and Employment References Committee. I understand it suits the convenience of the Senate for the deferred vote to be held now. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Kovacic be agreed to.

Senator McKim has submitted a proposal, under standing order 75, today. It is shown at item 13 of today's Order of Business:

Australia needs environment laws that actually protect our environment, including saving our native forests, critical habitat and the climate.

Is consideration of the proposal supported?

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

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

The plunder and pillage of the environment is being brought to you courtesy of big mining and the Labor Party, who they have bought up with their donations. The fossil fuelled Labor Party is now responsible for fossil fuel disaster after fossil fuel disaster—as the climate crisis worsens, as extreme heat worsens, as floods worsen, as fires worsen, as people are being crushed under the cascading impacts of the climate, cost-of-living and housing crises.

The Minister for the Environment and Water talks the talk of 'now or never' on environmental protection but then walks the walk of environmental destruction. That is what these reforms unleash: a path to fast-track the destruction of nature, a path to fast-track coal and gas. They are protecting a system that created the climate crisis. They are protecting the profits of billionaires and corporations. What needs protection is our ever-dwindling biodiversity and wildlife-rich native forests. What needs protection are communities on the front lines of climate driven disasters, who suffer again and again and again, both here and in the Global South. National interest should be about protecting people and the planet—not greed, not corporate profit, not flogging off our precious mineral resources for the war machine.

That Labor is open to doing business with the coalition on the environment should tell you all you need to know. The Nationals have shown their true colours by dumping net zero. The least Labor could do is rule out doing any deals with the climate deniers and the environmental vandals on the EPBC reforms. But I'm not holding my breath, because Labor's environmental playbook runs something like this: draft laws at the behest of big business and the mining lobby; give permission to some backbenchers to express concern; pitch yourself as the sensible Centre while fast-tracking logging, land clearing and the destruction of First Nations land and country, polluting the atmosphere and somehow trying to blame the Greens. We see through this; the community sees through this. The emperor with no clothes has nowhere to hide.

The Greens are not here to play your petty political games; we are here to stand up for nature. We are here to stand up for our communities. We are here to work with First Nations people and those on the front lines of the climate crisis. We will not be scared by your rubbish tactics. We will not back down in standing up to protect our environment and our climate.

The matter of public importance before the Senate is that Australia needs environmental laws that actually protect our environment, including saving native forests, critical habitat and the climate. When the MPI was first proposed, I thought immediately of a famous businessman. I'm not going to reveal his name until after I've read an important quote:

Climate change poses clear, catastrophic threats. We may not agree on the extent, but we certainly can't afford the risk of inaction.

  …   …   …

Climate change and energy use are global problems …

…   …   …

We need to push ourselves to make as many reductions as possible in our own energy use first—and that takes time. But we must do this quickly—the climate will not wait for us.

  …   …   …

… becoming carbon neutral is only the beginning. The climate problem will not be solved by one company reducing its emissions to zero, and it won't be solved by one government acting alone.

The climate problem will not be solved without mass participation by the general public in countries around the globe.

That was Rupert Murdoch. I'm not sure it has been read by Sky News or 'Sky after dark', or if they've got the missive, but their own master has very similar views to this senator.

The traditional environmental law approach is primarily regulatory, and we are going to debate a bill, which is before the other place, that is going to attempt to recast the environmental trade-offs between mining or commercial activities—in other words, the fruits of economic liberalism—against nature herself. The bill is structured—as I have seen, although I am not completely conversant with it since it's over 1,000 pages because of the diligence of the minister and his staff. I would challenge the chamber to think about the binary nature of that. Where is the voice of nature injected in that debate? There are other approaches in other countries that take a completely different journey to solving that problem. Nature is given a role and a guardian. Before you dismiss me, Acting Deputy President, as someone at the edge of legal thinking, we give corporate personhood status to our corporations, so why does nature miss out? Where is the arbiter of what nature has to give to us for our enjoyment and endless consumption? Who speaks for her? No-one. The minister signs a missive as judge, jury and executioner.

Perhaps, when we reflect on the coming debate, we might think that we should take a completely different approach. It's happened in New Zealand and Ecuador, and other countries have taken this approach. This is not a new thought of mine. If you seek to search the archive, I have made similar comments in state parliament—but not to such a warm and receptive audience as in this Senate!

In such a full house as this!

It is a full house!

I do believe that we need to evolve our thinking on how we deal with nature. I have said this in this chamber before, but, as a conservative, I believe I have a moral obligation to support, endorse, encourage, grow and enrich the compact between past, present and future generations. That compact must be at the heart of any environmental regulation. I don't believe it's something that is of the left or the right, because nature sustains us.

I believe that the conservative tradition has been corrupted with an overemphasis on economic liberalism and its benefits, and I think there needs to be a recasting. But I propose not the point of view of heavy-handed regulation but a restructured way of drafting our legislation that puts nature at the heart of all decision-making. I don't consider that at all a radical concept, as a lawyer of over 30 years standing.

Australia needs environmental laws that actually protect our environment, and that's exactly what the Albanese government is delivering through our Environment Protection Reform Bill. This is a once-in-a-generation overhaul of the EPBC Act, finally building a system that protects nature, gives businesses certainty and gets things moving again after years of delay.

Our reforms are based on the independent Samuel review. Professor Graeme Samuel himself said that this bill captures the intent of his recommendation to stop the decline of Australia's environment and to start the repair. In fact, Professor Samuel gave a direct message to the Greens when he released his report. He said:

… here is an opportunity to have a major reform and it takes you a long way forward of the current position

That was five years ago. Since then, sadly, some of the Greens have done what they always do—block, delay and grandstand—instead of getting behind reforms that will actually make our system better. We should also remember that Professor Samuel's report was handed to the former environment minister Sussan Ley in 2020, and, for years, nothing happened. They chose to ignore advice that would have improved outcomes for the environment, for industry and for local communities.

Labor is turning that around. We're doing the hard work to fix the laws that the Liberals brushed aside and that some Greens prefer to posture over rather than improve. The Australian people sent a clear message at the last election. They are tired of inaction. Australians don't like it when the Senate blocks reform for self-promotion, and they really don't like when that obstruction endangers the environment. If we're going to roll out renewables and cut emissions, we need clear, fair laws that make it possible to build transmission lines, solar farms and battery projects without trashing our ecosystems. If we're serious about the energy transition, we need these laws. If we're serious about solving the housing crisis, we need these laws. If we're serious about protecting the environment, we definitely need these laws. So when the Greens stand in front of this reform, they are not helping the planet; they're holding it back.

Our reforms will finally create an environment system that protects what matters and makes it easier to do the right thing. They are built around three key pillars: stronger environmental protection and restoration; quicker, more consistent project approvals; and greater accountability and transparency in decision-making. We will establish Australia's first national environment protection agency, an independent body with the power to enforce the law, audit safe processes and ensure compliance. This will mean real accountability for environmental breaches and an end to the rubber-stamping we have seen in the past. We will also set national environmental standards that make crystal clear what is acceptable and what is not. They will protect important habitats, give businesses certainty and make sure decisions are consistent and fair. For the first time, we will define unacceptable impacts—areas of harm that simply cannot be approved, like the destruction of World Heritage sites, critical habitats or wetlands of international significance. These laws will also deliver net gain for the environment, meaning that, where impacts do occur, they must be fully offset and compensated for, improving on the current no-net-loss approach. We are increasing penalties for serious breaches, giving the courts stronger tools to respond to those who flout the rules.

While the Greens are busy chasing retweets about protecting the Tarkine, Labor is establishing the legal framework that will actually protect it. We are introducing new emissions disclosure requirements for major projects. We are ensuring restoration contributions go straight back into rehabilitating land and ecosystems. We are doing all this while keeping Australia's economy strong. Environmental groups want these reforms. Industry wants them. Australians want them. The only people standing in the way are the ones more interested in political stunts than actually achieving anything. Our unique environment is precious. It's what makes this country special. We owe it to future generations to protect it. I appeal to senators here who care about the future and our environment to remember how destructive blocking these reforms actually is and to join us in delivering the biggest step forward in environmental protection in a generation.

First Peoples have sovereign rights and obligations to care for country, yet these continue to be violated by colonial governments, both Labor and coalition. When we care for country, country cares for us. That's what this colony still needs to learn. Country is in crisis. Our rivers are dying, totems are disappearing, our bushland is being destroyed and ecosystems are collapsing. Yet Labor keeps approving fossil fuel and mining projects. It is ecocide before our eyes.

Climate change is caused by humans. It's people like Minister Watt who are the problem when it comes to keeping our planet safe. Labor's new environment laws will decide what happens to country for generations, but right now Labor is promising faster approvals for big business while First Peoples are still being locked out of decision-making. First Peoples have not been properly consulted, and Labor does not have consent of the people to pass these laws. As Michael Ghillar Anderson said:

Protections for species and totems are giving way to mining and development, ignoring the need to protect First Nations culture and heritage, which includes medicines, bush tucker, fibres and timber.

We have to resist, or they will claim we acquiesced!

Protection of First Nations culture and heritage MUST be in the legislation.

Destroying Old Growth forest and habitat endangers our totems and spiritual beliefs.

If Labor actually cared about protecting country instead of being gammon, they would respect our right to free, prior and informed consent and close the loopholes that let big business destroy our lands, waters, climate and sacred sites. Anything less is just another colonial rubber stamp for destruction.

I rise to speak on this motion. Australia does need environment laws that protect our environment, and that is exactly what this Labor government is seeking to provide. Senators in this chamber have an opportunity in the coming weeks to make the right decision when our new Environment Protection Reform Bill comes before us. I remind my colleagues around the chamber that Australians voted for real action on climate change. Australians voted for a future made in Australia. Australians voted for more affordable housing. All of these things rely on us passing the environment bill when it comes before this place.

Our environment laws are broken. We seek to make them stronger so we can protect and restore the environment. We seek to make them more efficient so businesses and communities can have more certainty and get decisions made faster. The Environment Protection Reform Bill will deliver modern, fit-for-purpose national environment laws that are well overdue and that will deliver big gains for the environment and, yes, for business too.

The bill is centred on three key pillars: stronger environmental protection and restoration, quicker and more robust project approvals and greater accountability and transparency in decision-making. The bill delivers on the recommendations of the Samuel review, which was tabled some five years ago. These reforms are well overdue, and it is time that we pass them. Labor has been working to deliver on the recommendations of the Samuel review. These reforms will allow the environment minister to make new environmental standards—standards that will protect the environment, set out clear rules and help decision-makers be fair and consistent.

We aim to protect and restore important environmental areas and species to truly make up for environmental damage and deliver a net gain for the environment. Our proposal, importantly, includes a new definition of an unacceptable impact. This will set clear and upfront criteria for impacts that cannot and will not be approved. It will increase transparency, consistency and certainty of decisions and provide a safeguard against impacts that cause the irreversible loss of Australia's biodiversity and heritage. Our proposed reforms clearly define what type of environmental harm must be avoided and cannot be offset. Projects will be required by law, importantly, not just to avoid and mitigate but to repair damage to protected matters where possible. Any residual impacts must be fully offset and achieve a net gain for the environment. This is a significant improvement on the existing policy of no net loss. Our reforms seek to increase the penalties for the most serious and significant breaches of the law, allowing courts to respond proportionately to the most egregious of breaches.

Our proposed reforms seek to establish our nation's first-ever independent National Environmental Protection Agency, a strong and independent regulator with a clear focus, ensuring better compliance with and stronger enforcement of these environmental laws. A national EPA is well overdue.

Very shortly, we will have an opportunity to vote for a bill that does more to protect our environment and to set a new standard, and I hope the Greens get on board instead of doing what they usually do and standing in the way of progress. I think Australians made it pretty clear at the election that they don't like it when the Greens stand in the way of good, progressive policy. I'm sure the Greens don't need reminding of what that meant for them, following the ballot box in May. Australians don't want the Greens to be blockers; they want us, as parliamentarians, as leaders, to be doers. We must take action to protect our environment and to keep our economy strong. Our bill gets the balance right, and I urge senators here in the coming weeks to make that decision.

The thing about the major parties racing to the bottom in politics is that it has consequences. In their quest for headlines and opinion polls, the stuff that actually matters just gets trashed. Right now, what's being demolished by Labor is our environment, our native forests and any chance we have of meaningful climate action. A safe climate is the very thing that Labor is planning to sell down the river.

Labor's so-called environmental laws are a farce. They are a fast-track approval factory for big mining corporations, fossil fuel giants and AUKUS. Yes, you heard me—AUKUS projects will get total environmental exemption from protections whenever a Labor or coalition minister snaps their fingers and says the magic words 'national interest'. That's when the next nuclear submarine base, US military base, toxic nuclear waste dump or critical minerals scraping of a farm gets waved through under national interest by the next Labor so-called environmental minister, with no environmental assessment, no community say and no accountability.

I don't think it will be a great comfort to the communities having a nuclear waste dumped in their backyard that the Prime Minister got a selfie with Donald Trump. It won't slow the extinction of the greater glider in my beautiful home state or the regent honeyeater to know that Minister Watt decided that the project killing them is in the national interest. A bump in the opinion polls for the Albanese Labor government won't be any comfort to young people who are confronting an increasingly hostile climate for the rest of their lives.

The Greens are done playing nice with this nonsense. We will not rubberstamp laws that sacrifice our environment for corporate profits and US military production. We will not. There is a progressive majority in this parliament—or a potential progressive majority in this parliament—that could pass laws to protect the environment and the future. If only Labor realised that it could. It could if it chose to find a little bit of ambition and a little bit of spine.

We know that environmental laws are broken. Over the last 25 years, we've seen more than seven million hectares of threatened species habitat bulldozed or destroyed—an area larger than Tasmania. Nearly 750 fossil fuel projects have been approved. There was only one knocked back: a coal mine put forward by Clive Palmer. Hundreds of species have been pushed to the brink of extinction, and, in fact, we've seen a number of species go extinct.

I'm concerned when it comes to this debate around nature, the decline of nature, that our framing of it is not up to the task. Steve Irwin, a great Australian, reminded us that we don't own planet Earth; we belong to it, and we must share it with our wildlife. Almost 100 years before, one of my heroes, Aldo Leopold, said:

Conservation is getting nowhere because it is incompatible with our Abrahamic concept of land. We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect.

I think we have to reframe how we discuss environmental issues. This is in our self-interest to have strong environmental laws that actually protect the environment that we are totally reliant on. We are part of nature, and if nature goes down, we're going down with her. The government has introduced half-baked, loophole-ridden laws. They need to be tightened up. We need laws that are actually going to protect the incredible places and species that make this continent so unique.

The Australian Greens have abandoned nature, bulldozing forests, blasting mountain ridges, disrupting whale migration, clubbing koalas so that subsidised parasitic billionaires can cover our country in solar panels, wind turbines and transmission lines. Senator McKim says of Tasmania's Robbins Island industrial project:

Its habitats, landscapes and sea scapes should be protected under international conventions—not exploited for profit by a multinational corporation.

Senator Whish-Wilson says:

… it would be a cruel irony if Australia's renewable energy projects come at the expense of our threatened and iconic species.

They've done plenty to oppose this project, only for Greens leader Senator Waters to say on national TV:

I don't very know much about that …

Despite endangered species, the project was approved because of claimed climate change.

Labor, the Greens, the Liberals, the Nationals and the teals are killing the environment and endangered species, supposedly to save the planet. Only One Nation is united and consistent on protecting our beautiful natural environment against multinationals ripping billions off Australians.

The only corporations I never hear One Nation talking about are big fossil fuel companies. It's funny, because Senator Roberts used to manage a coalmine. It has nothing to do with the fact that he loves fossil fuels and is completely—

Very proud of it.

exactly—captured by the fossil fuel industry in here. So, make no mistake, when you hear any One Nation contribution, that they are climate deniers—100 per cent flat-earthers, climate deniers and conspiracy theorists. But, sadly, in an age of disinformation and misinformation, which Senator Roberts spends a lot of time contributing to, people do get sucked into this stuff.

Please direct your comments through the chair, Senator.

I was making a comment to the roof, Acting Deputy President, but I'm happy to make it to you.

The standing orders require you to do it to the chair, but, either way, continue.

I was looking for some divine intervention. When I think about Senator Roberts, I think that's about the only thing that's ever going to work to change his mind on climate change—some kind of divine intervention.

Anyway, back to the environment laws, Australians are going to have a simple decision to make. There's progress underway, apparently, according to Minister Watt in Senate question time today, in relation to these environment laws themselves. But the Greens have been very clear. We will support, and we encourage the government to bring forward, environment laws that will protect nature and laws that will give an environmental protection authority independence in their decisions over nature. We've seen EPAs in Western Australia and in my home state of Tasmania get overruled constantly by ministers. Unfortunately, the laws as they are written right now allow that to happen.

We've seen very little information on environmental standards. And of course, as my colleagues made it very clear in Senate question time today, native forest logging is not being dealt with in these laws. If you want to follow the Samuel review, then listen to what he had to say about excluding native forest logging from the environment laws and banning it all together. That's what we want to see.

We also want to see the impacts of climate considered in environmental decisions. You can't have environmental laws, be an environment minister or claim you're an environmental party unless you assess the impacts of climate change. Whether it's on our oceans, on our forests, on our communities or on our weather—extreme weather events—climate change is impacting everything.

We are right now, at this point in history, in a biodiversity crisis. We're seeing the physical world break down before our very eyes. We're seeing the climate break down before our very eyes. People are waking up to this, and they expect us to do something. At this point in history, there is no way the Greens will support environment laws that give the government a chance to give themselves a pat on the back and go to the next election saying they've fixed the environment when they clearly haven't. We won't be a part of that.

So the simple question that I have for Australians and the decision they have to make is: who do you trust to deliver strong environment laws that protect nature ahead of the interests of big corporations that are doing the damage in the first place? It's not a party that, as the very last thing it did in the last term of parliament, weakened the environment laws for the salmon industry, while the very first thing it did in this term of government was approve the biggest fossil fuel project in our nation's history—the North West Shelf extension. Australians trust the Greens. We've been a movement for over 50 years, protecting the environment. They're not going to trust the Labor Party who deliver these laws. I say to the Labor Party: come and work with the Greens; let's get laws that protect nature first.

The Senate will now consider a proposal, under standing order 75, from Senator Dean Smith, which is also shown at item 13 of today's Order of Business:

Dear President

Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

"The continued rise in inflation and the growing risk of another interest rate increase is placing further strain on Australian households and businesses facing cost-of- living pressures."

Regards

Senator Dean Smith

Is consideration of this proposal supported?

More than the number of senators requ i red by the standing orders having risen in their place s—

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

The Senate chamber this afternoon is going to discuss the continued rise in inflation, the growing risk of another interest rate increase and the stress that that is going to put on Australian households and businesses who continue to face cost-of-living pressures under the Albanese government.

Nowhere are those pressures being felt more than in my home state of Western Australia. Just in the last few days it's been revealed that Western Australia is experiencing some of the fastest housing price increases anywhere in the country. House prices in metropolitan Perth have risen by 1.9 per cent in October. House prices national rose by just 1.1 per cent over the same period. This was the fastest monthly gain since June 2023 in Western Australia. This growth in housing prices, which is making it particularly difficult for young Western Australians to get into the market, continues to reflect supply continuing to lag behind demand, with advertised supply levels overs the four weeks to 26 October 18 per cent lower than average.

On an annual basis, Perth now has the third most bullish capital city market, with prices increasing by 9.5 per cent to a median value to $884,000. Some of those areas experiencing this high growth include: Albany, with a 22.2 per cent increase in housing prices; Manjimup, 15.5 per cent; Bellmont in Victoria Park, 13.6 per cent; Kwinana, 12.3 per cent; Armadale, 11.5 per cent; and Serpentine-Jarrahdale, 11.3 per cent. Anyone who knows about these suburbs and regional towns that I've just mentioned knows that these are modest places. But they are important places because they're often where first home buyers in Western Australia get a head start. Just compare that growth that we are experiencing in Western Australia with the national growth of just 5.6 per cent. Western Australia is experiencing the second strongest market overall, with prices up 13½ per cent over the last year.

Indeed, Cotality has said that another key driver behind these higher numbers has been the government's expanded five per cent deposit scheme. These inflationary and cost-of-living pressures aren't just affecting parents, and they're not just affecting grandparents. I've got some information here. Senators will be very familiar with the Raise Our Voice in Parliament campaign that many senators come into this chamber and contribute to. I want to thank Isabella and Isabella, who are in their mid-teens, for sharing with me their thoughts about teenage stress caused by inflation—

(Quorum formed) Thank you for the silence. I'm wondering whether Senator Grogan, the Labor senator from South Australia, would like to apologise to Isabella and Isabella for interrupting their contribution on teenagers impacted by inflation.

Senator Smith, please direct your comments through the chair. You know the rules.

Before Senator Grogan interrupted the contribution of Isabella and Isabella, who are in their mid-teens, and who have written to me to talk to me about the impact of teen—

Senator Grogan, a point of order?

Senator Smith is casting aspersions in my general direction. It is well within my right to call for quorum when there is an insufficient number of people in the chamber.

Thank you, Senator. I don't think there is a point of order. But, again, Senator Smith, please make sure that you direct your comments through the chair. Also, let's focus back on the MPI, which I'm sure everyone is focused on in this place. I direct you back to the MPI, Senator Smith.

I'm about to make a contribution because Isabella and Isabella, both in their mid-teens, have written to me about the impact that inflation is having on the livelihoods of teenagers in our country. I'm disappointed that Senator Grogan and others thought it necessary—

Let's not reflect on other senators. Let's focus back on the MPI.

I don't think they'll be doing that again in a hurry. 'Teenage stress caused by inflation,' write Isabella and Isabella:

If you're like most teens of today, you may or may not have thought about your future, but those who have, realized the horrors they may face.

Teenagers today are under more stress than ever, and two major reasons are work and inflation. With prices rising for food, transport, and even school supplies, many families are struggling.

Some teens are working part-time jobs, not just for spending money, but to help support their households.

This leaves less time for study, hobbies, or rest.

61% of teenagers who feel this way, also have a crippling fear of not being able to afford houses, food, clothing or transportation when they eventually move out, Fear of failure and leaving families suffering. 86.56% of 15-17 year olds have part time jobs and study full time—

in order to beat the ravages of inflation. These are not my views and not senators' views, but the contributions of two young ladies in their mid-teens.

When Labor came into government Australians were staring down a barrel of absolute economic mess that those opposite, the Liberals and Nationals, left behind—high inflation, rising interest rates and a trillion dollars of Liberal debt weighed down with waste, rorts and slogans. Those opposite left behind a budget riddled with pork barrelling and 'back in black' mugs, but not a single surplus. They left Australians with hollow promises and higher costs.

Today the facts tell a very different story. Under the Albanese Labor government inflation has more than halved. When we came to office it was at 6.1 per cent and climbing. Today it is around half of that, with around 3.2 per cent inflation through the year to September. Underlying inflation has been in the RBA's target band for three straight quarters. That's not just luck; that's responsible, steady, Labor economic management. Because of that progress, the Reserve Bank has cut interest rates three times this year. That means that a household with a $700,000 mortgage is saving about $330 a month. That's nearly $4,000 a year in savings. It's money in the bank and in the pockets of Australians.

While other countries have slipped into recession, Australia has stayed strong. We've brought inflation down without it costing jobs—something those opposite could never manage. But we know Australians have been doing it tough, and that's why we're delivering real, practical help with cost-of-living relief: tax cuts for every taxpayer, because Australians deserve to keep more of what they earn; energy bill relief, taking the sting out of power bills and helping families actually stay ahead; cheaper child care so parents can get back to work without wondering if it's even worth it; free TAFE, opening doors to new skills and better jobs without a mountain of debt; cheaper medicines, because no-one should have to choose between filling a script and feeding their kids; 50 more urgent care clinics so families can see a doctor or a nurse when they need one without a long hospital wait; and, as of 1 November, expanded bulk-billing so that all you need is your Medicare card, not your credit card, to see a GP. We've also cut student debt by 20 per cent for three million Australians. We've lifted the minimum wage up again, with an increase of 3.5 per cent. Those opposite had a deliberate policy of lower wages; we don't. We back fair pay and secure work, and these are practical, targeted measures that make life fairer and keep our economy strong.

When Labor are in government, we build; we don't cut. Yet the opposition still haven't learnt. The Leader of the Opposition recently told a right-wing think tank that she supports a smaller government and that the Commonwealth should do fewer things. Well, we all know what that means. That means cuts—cuts to Medicare, cuts to pensions, cuts to cost-of-living relief. They preach austerity but practise hypocrisy. This is the same mob who wanted $600 billion for nuclear reactors and taxpayer funded long lunches for their bosses. We haven't forgotten about that one. The coalition's big idea for the country was to make life harder for ordinary working Australians—and they call that fiscal responsibility. Australians call it what it is. It's a con. They ran on cuts at the last election, and the people of Dickson cut their leader, and the people of Australia cut their numbers in this place, because, when you run on cuts when Australians are doing it tough, Australians cut you out. This crew is so obsessed with cutting things that it might even cut up its coalition agreement next!

That's the difference between the Labor Party and the Liberals. While they cut, we build. We build stronger wages, fairer taxes and an Australia where no-one is left behind. The coalition of 'will-they won't-they' have zip to offer this country because they can't even thread the needle properly on most of the issues in this place. The Albanese government are focused on building an Australian future that is stronger, fairer and made to last.

In my community and across Western Australia, the cost of living remains, as it has for some time, a major issue. It is in times like these that we see the true character of our people. I've been blown away by the efforts of OzHarvest, Foodbank and SecondBite, who are working every day in WA to feed and support vulnerable people in our community. Recently I had the privilege of volunteering with OzHarvest as they crisscrossed Perth to bring food to those most in need. From collecting donated food at Woolies Riverton to delivering meals to the Australian Relief Organisation and Cannington Soup Kitchen, I felt so privileged to see the amazing work that this group does to support our community.

Last week I met with three WA family and domestic service providers here in Canberra—Ngala, Amity Health and White Ribbon—who told me that poverty and the housing crisis are preventing women from leaving abusive relationships and are trapping families in the cycle of abuse. This is not just a matter of economics or global uncertainty; a failure of government policy has had its part to play in causing this crisis. Fundamental to this is the fact that the government does not have the data to make proper decisions on poverty policy. In Australia, millions of people, including 761,000 children, are living below the poverty line, and, despite that, there is no universal definition of income poverty. How can the government begin to address a crisis that they cannot see or grapple with, because they do not have the data to inform the development of policy? The cost of living won't fall unless this government stops tinkering around the edges and engages in real, holistic reform.

This matter of public importance highlights the great problem that the Australian people have. That problem is that they have a government that is uninterested in their own economic challenges and has been callous and cruel by declaring victory in the war on inflation and by declaring that the government has undertaken tax reform. We have got a country with a very sick economy. We have inflation rising above the band. You have got a budget with its backside out of its pants. You have got very flat capex and rising unemployment. We hear the government literally reading out their speeches that have been prepared for them by other people. I note that very few of the speeches from the government benches are genuine speeches; they're usually just read speeches. Apparently, down at Labor headquarters they're giving dictation. In the dictation that they receive—

On a point of order: I'm wondering if the senator is straying a little into reflecting on members in the chamber. I draw your attention to the comments.

Thank you. It is not a point of order but a debating point, and I'm sure you will be able to make a contribution on that. I will give the call back to Senator Bragg.

I thank Senator O'Neill for that. I appreciate her interest in these matters. (quorum formed) It is very clear that the government does not have much of an economic agenda, and the reason that the central casting people are giving these talking points to the government about their economic record is very telling. I imagine what it says is that the Australian people should be very grateful to live in the world's greatest economy and should every day do a big thank you to Dr Chalmers, as he styles himself, for the magnificent economy he has created with rising unemployment, rising inflation, low levels of investment and an economy in which 85 per cent of the jobs created last year were in the non-market sector.

So we have a very sick economy in Australia. If you're in a small business, you know that. Many millions of Australians know the economy is not well. Things are not so good. So the bragging from the government that they have created the world's best economy is grating beyond belief. That is why the government established a roundtable after the election—because they had no policies. They had a policy to have a meeting in Canberra, in the cabinet room. Very democratic to have meetings in the cabinet room—a very Labor approach. Having a meeting in a small room with no air in the middle of Canberra gives you great capacity to hear from the real people. Fantastic. So they had this meeting, and after that meeting—

Very sensitive, aren't they? Another sensitivity. We've have touched a nerve! Very interesting. Very telling. Thank you very much for those interjections.

They had the meeting in the cabinet room, and the outcome we've had so far from that meeting is nothing. Nothing has changed. We have a government still rudderless, without any economic policies that will improve employment and reduce inflation, and so we are rudderless. Inflation now is biting. We see it in the housing space. We see it in the first month of the five per cent deposit guarantee scheme, which has driven the biggest monthly increase in house prices in living memory, according to all the independent agencies who monitor this. Why is that? Well, the answer is that if you increase demand in a supply-constrained market, you get higher prices. You know what? The Australian people are smarter than Labor imagined they are, because they understand that. They understand that these gimmicky posts on social media, these unbearable posts from the Labor government members, saying they have solved the housing crisis with their five per cent guarantee scheme, is a cruel hoax. People are not stupid. They know that a government that has failed to build houses but opens up a government insurance scheme to everyone, including the children of billionaires, is a cruel hoax and a con. That is what we are seeing now in the inflation numbers.

We have high inflation, we have rising unemployment, we have a sick economy and we have a Treasurer that is doing a victory lap, saying he has created the world's best economy. It is beyond grating and beyond embarrassing. The government ought to do a better job for the Australian people.

I'm glad I was in the chamber for that last contribution because it's hard not to hear the sort of glee at the hope that there might be bad economic signs on the horizon for the Australian people. That's the only thing they're hanging onto. The ridiculous description that we just heard from Senator Bragg, who is from the great state of New South Wales, is selling the whole country down the river instead of standing up with pride for what Australia has achieved and for the future and opportunities that lie ahead for Australians.

They didn't elect the opposition. They didn't elect the shameful, disrupted Liberal-National coalition at war with itself. They actually rejected the coalition whose economic plan at the last election was for higher taxes, lower wages, bigger deficits and more debt. Australians said no to all that that coalition had on offer. They rejected it wholeheartedly. They delivered 94 seats to Labor in the House and a strong and growing team here in the Senate. That is a great outcome for the country because, despite the miserly view, the down-in-the-mouth, who-kicked-the-dog attitude of those sitting on the opposition benches, the reality is the Albanese Labor Government in fact has a strong economic record.

Senator Dean Smith has put this motion before us today—a matter of public importance. Let's think about the last time that Senator Smith's coalition government was in office. In that period of time, inflation was high and rising. Today, after a period of government under the steady hand of the Albanese Labor cabinet and its members, we have inflation that is low and stable. Underlying inflation sits at three per cent, squarely within the Reserve Bank's target band, and headline inflation has been lower for several consecutive quarters. We need to keep it that way, and to achieve that was absolutely no easy feat. It took careful and disciplined management to steer a very narrow path supporting Australians, keeping unemployment low and steadily bringing inflation back to the target, because Australians need to keep their jobs. That's our connection to our future not just for ourselves but for our families and our communities and, particularly in regional areas, for regional economies.

The reality is that Australians have done it tough, and this Labor government understands that and has stood shoulder to shoulder with our fellow Australians. We know that people continue to feel pressure, but the contrast with those opposite couldn't be clearer. Senator Smith and his colleagues have been very, very long-term advocates for deep cuts—cuts to the budget, cuts to services and cuts to the supports that help everyday Australians make ends meet. Their prescription for inflation is the same old tired ideology of austerity, and we know that if they had their way, Australians would be poorer. Many, many more would be unemployed, and they would simply dress it up in highfalutin economic language and call it fiscal discipline. I tell you what it really is. It's hurting ordinary Australians. That is what they do every single time they come into government. It's not responsible economics.

If the motley collection of ideology and grievance that calls itself the coalition were serious at all about supporting Australians, they would have backed the measures that this government delivered. But they said no to energy bill relief. They said no to cheaper childcare. They said no to cheaper medicines, and they said no to a stronger Medicare. There's real pressure on people who want to be able to get to see a doctor, and taking the pressure off people's budgets so they can see a doctor when they need to is a massive effort from this government. From last week, the government began to deliver the single biggest investment in Medicare since its creation, and this is real, real cost-of-living relief. It helps families to see a doctor without worrying about the bill, and it keeps inflation down by reducing out-of-pocket costs. We are stretched to make sure that we get a 90 per cent bulk-billing rate by 2030, and it's already begun.

I thank Senator Dean Smith for once again bringing this important issue to the attention of the Senate. Inflation hit 3.2 per cent in the September quarter, up from 2.1 per cent in June driven by electricity prices jumping 23.6 per cent over the year as rebates ended in Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania. They were nothing more than a Labor trick, a sleight of hand, to hide their economic ruin running into an election. But the facade of good fiscal management could only hold up for so long. It's time to pay the piper. The net zero chickens have come home to roost.

Energy isn't the only thing driving up inflation. Housing has hit the roof, thanks to Labor's insane policy choices. Labor's high immigration levels are flooding the housing market with housing up 2.5 per cent for the quarter and 4.7 per cent for the year—miles ahead of the headline inflation rate. This doesn't even include the soaring cost of buying established homes, ballooning under Labor's ill-conceived five per cent deposit scheme. Nor does it include the cost of interest on the ever-larger mortgages that the next generation is lumped with. No sooner had the kids signed up for 95 per cent of a million-dollar mortgage than they are staring down the barrel of a rate rise.

Under normal economic conditions, inflation is usually accompanied by a boom in the economy, where people are doing so well demand fuels prices and rates are brought up to take some of the juice out of the market. That's not what we're seeing here. Unemployment is up. Thousands of Australians are losing their jobs while costs skyrocket. Labor brags about Australians getting a pay increase. It won't be enough. Labor has landed the RBA in the disastrous position of facing rising employment and rising inflation. Make no mistake. Labor has driven the crisis with their disastrous policies, and we are just seeing the beginning of this market sabotage. One Nation knows what needs to be done.

I rise in support of this matter of public importance—of course I do. Why wouldn't I? The relentless rise in inflation and the looming threat of another rate hike are crushing Australian households and businesses. Last week's CPI data was a rude awakening. Property rates and charges have surged 6.3 per cent, the steepest increase since 2014, thanks to the bureaucrats who are obsessed with climate strategies and diversity officers instead of potholes and bins. Electricity is up a staggering 23.6 per cent in just the last year. In a nation that is overflowing in coal, gas and uranium, we should have the cheapest power in the world, yet we get rorted. This isn't a cost-of-living crisis. It's a cost-of-government crisis. Every new layer of red tape, every green dream and every bloated department drives prices higher. Inflation isn't random. It's the invoice for government waste.

Cast your mind back to 2023. In February that year, Treasurer Jim Chalmers had his essay of more than 5,000 words published in the Monthly. The Treasurer wrote about wanting to 'build a better capitalism'. It was classic doublespeak, of course. What the Treasurer and the Prime Minister have wanted from day one is to move Australia away from a free-market economy and towards a state directed and controlled economy. Labor has embraced the same statist ideas that have devastated economies and people wherever they've been implemented.

That's why Australia is in such an economic mess today. That's why instead of cost-of-living pressures going down, Australians will likely soon be hit by yet another interest rate rise. If the RBA decides to lift interest rates, it'll be the 13th rate rise Australians have experienced under this Labor government. Consider what we've seen under Labor. We've seen record government spending. Our economy will soon be burdened with $1.2 trillion of debt for the first time. We've seen the bloating of the Public Service. Australia's public sector workforce is now one of the largest in the world on a per capita basis. We've seen an appetite for government intrusion into the lives of Australians. Labor has enacted some 5,000 new regulations. We've seen interference across the economy—interference through Labor's environment, industrial relations and industry policies. It's no wonder that the economy is shuddering to a halt. It's no wonder that under Labor Australians are paying 15 per cent more for food, 19 per cent more for housing, 15 per cent more for health and 39 per cent more for insurance.

If there's one area of Labor's policy agenda that's contributing to economic decline more than anything else, it's Labor's energy policy. We used to be a competitive economy because we believed in affordable and reliable power. But under Labor's reckless renewables-only push this government is making power unaffordable and completely unreliable. Labor has turned its back on coal and gas. It refuses to lift the ban on nuclear power because it knows nuclear power will be commercially viable, as it is in more than 30 other countries around the world. Instead Labor subsidises renewables to give renewables the appearance of being competitive. Chris Bown is engaging in one of the most scandalous cons ever attempted on the Australian people.

Senator Nampijinpa Price, just a reminder to refer to those from the other place by their correct title.

Certainly. But Australians of course aren't mugs. Every power bill they receive exposes the truth. Under Labor Australians are paying 40 per cent more for electricity. When energy prices skyrocket, it costs more to grow food, more to manufacture goods and more to run homes, businesses and factories. Energy costs are having an inflationary impact across Australia. We need affordable and reliable energy, but we won't get that with a net zero target.

Australia contributes just over one per cent of global emissions. Reaching net zero could cost a staggering $7 trillion to $9 trillion by 2060, as estimated by independent experts. Net zero will impoverish and deindustrialise our nation to achieve an emissions reduction target that, in an Australian context, will not alter global temperatures a single iota. Labor's overbuild of renewables and enforcement of draconian emission reduction policies are only going to cause more harm. Power bills will continue to climb. More businesses will close, and more industries will move offshore. A public greenlash has started, just as it came in Europe and America. It's time the government started putting Australians first. It's time Labor prioritised affordable and reliable energy. It's time to end the net zero nonsense and restore common sense, if we're serious about turning our economy around.

The time for that debate has now expired. I shall proceed to the consideration of documents.

by leave—I table a non-conforming petition signed by over 6,000 people calling on the federal government to step in and save cohealth Collingwood, Fitzroy and Kensington so that they can continue providing accessible and affordable health care.

by leave—I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning emissions reduction targets, the Rewiring the Nation program, government responses to reports of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on bank closures in regional Australia and the impact on mitigation of aircraft noise, and estimates briefings prepared by the National Indigenous Australians Agency and the Home Affairs portfolio.

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

by leave—I move:

That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:

Procedure — Standing Committee—

Appointed—Participating member [for the purposes of the committee's inquiry into orders for the production of documents]: Senator Payman

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee —

Appointed—

Substitute member: Senator McKenzie to replace Senator O'Sullivan for the committee's inquiry into Australia's aviation sector.

Participating member: Senator O'Sullivan

Question agreed to.

I move:

That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TRIBUNAL AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2025

I move that this Bill be now read a second time.

The Administrative Review Tribunal (the ART) commenced operation on 14 October 2024, replacing the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal as Australia's federal merits review body.

The ART provides an independent mechanism of review of government decisions made under more than 400 Commonwealth Acts—a function that is critical to Australia's system of government and maintaining public confidence in our institutions.

This Government created the ART to replace its dysfunctional predecessor based on the fundamental belief in the importance of merits review.

And in that spirit, this Government is therefore committed to ensuring the ART has the tools it needs to deliver efficient and high-quality review of government decisions.

One of the Tribunal's objectives under the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (ART Act) is to ensure that applications to the Tribunal are resolved as quickly, and with as little formality and expense, as a proper consideration of the matters before the Tribunal permits.

This objective recognises that not every review is the same, and that the Tribunal should provide a meaningful opportunity for review in a way that is appropriate to the circumstances of the matter.

That is: merits review processes should be proportionate.

The time and resources expended to determine a matter should reflect the complexity of the issues, and the importance of what is at stake.

To be clear, this does not mean that efficiency should come at the expense of quality decision-making.

Rather, it requires that a balance be struck.

Proportionate and efficient review procedures ensure that the Tribunal can make decisions efficiently and without delay.

Efficient and timely decision-making is particularly important in the context of the Tribunal's reviews of migration decisions—such as reviews of decisions to refuse visas.

Onshore applicants seeking review of a decision to refuse the grant of certain visas are entitled to stay in Australia on a bridging visa for the duration of the merits review process.

In this context, efficient review procedures are important to reduce delays in decision-making, provide genuine applicants with the benefit of a timely and effective remedy, and strengthen the integrity of the migration system.

Backlogs and extended wait times at the Tribunal stage create incentives for non-genuine applicants to apply for review in order to extend their stay in Australia.

For genuine applicants, this creates an access to justice issue as the large volume of non-genuine applications that must be dealt with mean that they can wait months or years for a decision.

This point was emphasised in the Rapid Review into the Exploitation of Australia's Visa System, delivered by Ms Christine Nixon AO APM in March 2023.

Since early 2024, the Tribunal has experienced a significant surge in applications for review of decisions to refuse student visas.

This has further highlighted the importance of ensuring the Tribunal is equipped with the tools it needs to provide quick and efficient merits review.

The Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill enhances the Tribunal's powers and procedures to ensure the Tribunal can achieve this objective.

In particular, the Bill expands the Tribunal's ability to make decisions based on written materials, without holding an oral hearing.

Currently, the Tribunal is required to conduct an oral hearing in all proceedings before it, unless narrow exceptions apply. Oral hearings are time and resource intensive. A one-size-fits-all approach that requires that oral hearings be conducted in all matters is unnecessarily rigid.

The Bill would give the Tribunal additional flexibility and ensure that review procedures are proportionate to the circumstances of the case.

Amendments to the Migration Act

The Bill would amend the Migration Act 1958 to require the Tribunal to make decisions without conducting an oral hearing in reviews of certain migration decisions.

This will specifically include decisions to refuse to grant a student visa, and could be expanded by regulation to include decisions in relation to other kinds of temporary visas.

Critically, permanent and protection visas are excluded from this regime in recognition that the matters in contention can be more complex—and in the case of protection matters—generally involves a more vulnerable cohort of applicant.

Informed by the Nixon Review, which noted that the merits review process should be proportionate, the Government believes it is appropriate that reviews of student visas be determined 'on the papers', having regard to:

These amendments would establish an efficient and proportionate method of review, while ensuring that applicants are given a meaningful opportunity to present their case to the Tribunal in writing.

Applications which would be required to be reviewed 'on the papers' would be subject to a new review procedure set out in the Migration Act.

The review would be conducted entirely on the basis of written materials, without the Tribunal holding an oral hearing.

There would no limit to the information applicants would be able to present to the Tribunal in support of their case, and nothing to constrain an applicant from making their full and forthright case in writing.

Key features of the review procedure include:

To be clear: the Bill is not a reaction to the current migration caseload facing the Tribunal.

That caseload is a symptom of the inflexibility of the current framework; a policy issue that this Bill seeks to cure.

The Bill would also empower the Governor-General to prescribe other temporary visa types that should be considered on the papers.

As an important safeguard, the Parliament would of course retain its ability to disallow regulations if it judged it appropriate to do so.

Amendments to the ART Act

This Bill would also amend the ART Act to give the Tribunal additional flexibility about how it makes decisions in relation to other kinds of cases.

The Bill expands the circumstances in which the Tribunal can choose to make a decision based on written materials and without holding an oral hearing.

The Tribunal would be able to do so if it appears to the Tribunal that:

This recognises that procedural fairness does not require that an oral hearing is required in every case. What is required to conduct a fair review will hinge on the facts of each matter.

In light of this, it is appropriate that Members have discretion to adapt Tribunal procedure to achieve fair and just review in a manner that is efficient and proportionate to the complexity of the matter before them, across the Tribunal's varied jurisdiction.

This new discretion will ensure that simple matters with straightforward issues can be determined as efficiently as possible, enabling a proportionate allocation of Tribunal resources.

An important safeguard is that, before deciding to dispense with an oral hearing, the Tribunal must consult the parties about this and take the parties' submissions into account.

Conclusion

The Administrative Review Tribunal has a crucial role in enabling members of the community to seek fair, quick and inexpensive review of government decisions.

This Bill will support the tailoring of the Tribunal's procedures in a way that is proportionate to the matters and issues before the ART.

This Government is committed to merits review and maintaining public trust in the ART.

This Bill further strengthens the Tribunal by empowering it with the tools necessary to make decisions in an efficient and timely manner, while ensuring applicants have a meaningful opportunity to present their case to the Tribunal.

I commend the Bill to the House.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (INTEGRITY AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2025

Mr Speaker,

This Bill makes a number of changes to improve integrity, improve access and improve the information we collect about the education system.

First, it strengthens the integrity of the international education sector.

Second, it expands access for Indigenous students to study medicine by uncapping Commonwealth Supported Places in medical courses.

And third, it introduces measures in early childhood education and care to improve data collection and strengthen the integrity of subsidy administration.

International education measures

Mr Speaker,

International education is an important national asset.

It brings tens of billions of dollars into the economy each year.

It also builds friendships and long-term connections around the world.

And in the world we live in this is more important than ever.

But it is also a target for unscrupulous individuals trying to make a quick buck.

In September 2022 we announced the Parkinson Review of the Migration System.

And in January 2023 the Nixon Rapid Review into the Exploitation of Australia's Visa System.

These reviews identified integrity issues in international education, and we moved quickly on a number of recommendations of those reviews.

This Bill is the next step.

The reviews made it clear we have a problem with collusive and unscrupulous practices between some agents and providers.

In response, the Bill inserts a new definition of "education agent" which better captures their activities.

It strengthens the "fit and proper" test for providers.

This means that greater scrutiny will apply where there are cross-ownership arrangements between providers and agents, and where providers are under investigation for serious offences.

It also inserts a definition of "education agent commission". This will allow for complementary amendments to be made to the National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2018 to ban commissions from being paid to education agents for onshore student transfers.

And it gives the Education Department clearer powers to collect and share information on commissions. This will help providers to choose reputable agents and shut out those who put students at risk.

The Minister for Education will also be able to pause new applications for providers or course registration for up to 12 months where needed, so agencies can focus resources on integrity issues.

The Bill also requires prospective providers to first deliver courses to domestic students for two years before they can apply to teach overseas students as evidence of their commitment to quality education.

The registration of providers that fail to deliver a course to overseas students for 12 consecutive months will also be cancelled to help deal with 'phoenixing'.

The Bill also allows, with agreement from the Minister for Skills and Training, the Minister for Education to suspend or cancel courses with systemic quality issues, limited skills value, or where needed in the public interest.

Together, these reforms make it harder for dodgy operators to enter or remain in the sector, while supporting the majority of providers who are doing the right thing.

The Bill also amends the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act (TEQSA).

Providers will now require authorisation from TEQSA to deliver Australian degrees offshore.

This means that students who study with an Australian provider overseas will have the same confidence in the quality of an Australian qualification as those who study here.

Authorised providers will need to notify TEQSA of new or changed offshore delivery arrangements and report annually on their activities. This will give regulators the information they need to monitor quality and address risks early.

The amendments are designed to provide oversight of offshore arrangements while also minimising the regulatory burden on Australian providers.

The amendments are light-touch, set transitional arrangements that take into account existing offshore arrangements, and utilise information that providers already hold.

These changes safeguard our reputation as a world leader in education, here and overseas.

Indigenous medical students measure

Mr Speaker,

Indigenous Australians are significantly underrepresented in our health workforce.

They account for 3.8 per cent of the population, but only 1.25 per cent of the health workforce.

That percentage is even lower amongst doctors.

Less than 1 per cent of doctors identified as Indigenous.

The Universities Accord recommended that we uncap Commonwealth Supported Places for Indigenous medical students to help address this.

In the election earlier this year we promised to do this.

This Bill delivers on that promise.

It means every Indigenous student who meets the entry requirements for medicine will have a Commonwealth Supported Place.

Evidence shows Indigenous Australians are more likely to have a positive healthcare experience from an Indigenous healthcare worker because of their unique skill sets and cultural knowledge and understanding.

We also know that Indigenous doctors are more likely to work in Indigenous community health services and in regional, rural and remote areas.

These communities also have some of the highest demand for doctors in the country.

This is an important reform that will help increase the number of Indigenous doctors in Australia.

Last year we uncapped funding for all Indigenous students enrolling in non-medical bachelor degrees at a public university.

It has already had a positive impact.

Last year the number of Indigenous students enrolled in a university course increased by five per cent.

This year it increased by a further three per cent.

Next year we will take the next step and expand this demand driven system to all Australians from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Early childhood education and care measures

Mr Speaker,

The third part of this Bill strengthens integrity and transparency in early childhood education and care.

Every year the Australian Government invests more than $16 billion in the Child Care Subsidy.

We are committed to building a universal early childhood education and care system that is safe, affordable and accessible for every family.

To do that we need a better understanding of the costs of delivering early education and care.

And this Bill will help us do that.

In MYEFO last year we committed $10.4 million over two years for the Early Education Service Delivery Prices project.

This Bill gives that project the legislative support it needs.

It amends the Family Assistance Administration Act to allow the Secretary of my Department to compel providers that are constitutional corporations—if necessary—to provide cost-related data.

Data will be sought voluntarily in the first instance. But this power is important to help ensure that information is accurate, comprehensive and representative.

Getting a better understanding of the reasonable costs to deliver early childhood education and care services around the country will help us to deliver evidence-based reforms.

The Bill also makes three further changes in early education and care.

It expands the ability to use and disclose protected information, strengthening data governance, supporting transparency and ensuring continuity in reporting.

The Bill also aligns the date of effect of Child Care Subsidy reconciliation decisions with the date they take effect in the Child Care Subsidy system and in line with policy intent.

This fixes inconsistencies that have been an issue since 2018, leading to over and under-payments.

Conclusion

Mr Speaker,

In conclusion, this Bill:

All important and necessary reforms, and I commend them to the House.

In accordance with standing order 115(3), further consideration of these bills is now adjourned to 24 November 2025.

Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.

I move:

That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025, and I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows—

HOME AFFAIRS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (2025 MEASURES NO. 2) BILL 2025

The Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 2) Bill 2025 amends the Migration Act and Citizenship Act to clarify provisions relating to personal identifiers, and particularly requirements in relation to facial images, to ensure they align with international standards and current biometric technologies and practices.

The Bill also amends the Citizenship Act to address certain residency barriers to Australian citizenship for persons who are seeking to engage in a specified activity that is of benefit to Australia, and who need to be an Australian citizen in order to engage in that activity.

Personal Identifiers

The collection of biometric facial images assists the Department to mitigate identity fraud, and national security and community safety risks.

They enable the Department to identify individuals who have committed serious crimes in Australia or in partner countries, and prevent the return of certain individuals who have previously been refused a visa, placed in immigration detention, or removed or deported from Australia.

The collection and use of facial images also support efforts to prevent identity fraud in visa and citizenship application processes, and mitigate the risk of human trafficking.

Facial images are also an important part of efficient and secure immigration clearance at the Australian border.

Biometric facial images are used by SmartGates to automate immigration clearance at our major international airports. Approximately 70 per cent of travellers are currently immigration cleared by SmartGates. This supports the Australian Border Force to manage increasing numbers of travellers entering Australia without the need for significant increases in ABF officers. The security benefits and efficiency of biometric facial images enable the ABF to focus the efforts of ABF officers on identifying persons of interest, protecting the Australian community and enabling legitimate travel and trade.

The last major changes to the Department's collection of biometrics were made by the Migration Amendment (Strengthening Biometrics Integrity) Act 2015. Since then, international standards have evolved and biometric technologies for facial images have advanced.

The amendments in Schedule 1 to this Bill will modernise and clarify the provisions of the Migration Act and Citizenship Act that enable the collection of facial images. The amendments will ensure the Department collects only what is required for biometric matching purposes. This includes clarifying the collection of facial images by authorised systems such as SmartGates, or through an online application.

The amendments in Schedule 1 will ensure the Department has express authority to collect and verify facial images whether that image is of a face, face and neck or face and shoulders—in line with international facial image standards and practices and current biometric technology.

Modernising terms and definitions in the legislation for facial images, and bringing them into line with agreed international standards—instead of using outdated terminology—provides greater certainty for the Australian Government and individuals going forward regarding a capability that underpins the integrity of the migration system.

Schedule 1 to the Bill clarifies what constitutes a facial image. It also introduces provisions that clarify how a person's photograph or facial image is provided to a SmartGate or the Minister under the Act. These amendments will ensure that the Department has clear legislative authority to collect what is required for biometric matching purposes, with flexibility reflected in the legislation to align with modern technologies.

The provisions also expressly allow for a SmartGate or the Department to derive a photograph or other image of a person's face, in circumstances where more of their body is captured. For example, if a person presents to a SmartGate and the original image includes their upper body. Importantly, the amendments in Schedule 1 do not expand on the current collection of facial images or existing powers to collect them—the amendments simply clarify what constitutes a facial image.

The collection and use of facial images is a longstanding feature of Australia's immigration and border management processes and systems. The amendments in Schedule 1 therefore also validate past actions taken by the Department in relation to facial images collected under the Migration Act and Citizenship Act as in force at the relevant time. This is a commonsense amendment, to make clear that an image of a face and neck (that didn't also include the person's shoulders) is appropriately a personal identifier for the purposes of the legislation. The amendments are clarifying amendments and will not result in any penalties or disadvantage to those who have previously provided facial images.

Special residence requirements for citizenship

The Bill alsoamends the Citizenship Actto amend the Minister's personal, discretionary power to determine that a person meets special residence under section 22A of the Act.

The amendments in Schedule 2 to the Bill will address residency barriers to Australian citizenship for persons who are engaging in an activity of benefit to Australia, and who are seeking to become an Australian citizen, but whose overseas absences relating to this activity impact their ability to meet the current general, special or alternative residence requirements.

The amendments will provide the Minister with the discretion, under the Minister's personal power, to determine that an applicant for Australian citizenship meets the special residency requirement under section 22A of the Citizenship Act, without needing to be satisfied they have been present in Australia for at least 180 days during the period of two years immediately before the day they make their application.

Currently under subsection 22A(1A) of the Act, the Minister has a personal, non-compellable power under the special residence requirement in relation to specific activities, where the Minister considers that the person engaging in a specified activity would be of benefit to Australia.

These activities are specified in a disallowable legislative instrument made for the purposes of the provision—and include a range of sporting competitions, including the Olympics, Paralympics, international tennis or cricket matches.

However, in some cases, the current provisions have failed to provide for the increased overseas training requirements associated with certain sports.

This is resulting in a significant missed opportunity for Australia to harness the significant contributions a person could make in terms of:

enhancing Australia's international reputation and

providing inspiration and motivation to other athletes and the Australian community at large.

The amendments in Schedule 2 will address this by allowing the Minister to exercise the Minister's personal power to determine that an applicant for Australian citizenship meets the special residence requirement without needing to be present in Australia for at least 180 days during the period of two years immediately before they made an application.

The Bill also makes a related amendment to remove the requirement that the applicant provides an undertaking that they will be present in Australia for a total of at least 180 days during the two-year period after acquiring Australian citizenship.

To continue to reinforce the importance of presence in Australia as a way of understanding the Australian way of life and the commitment made through the citizenship pledge, the applicant will still be required to provide an undertaking they will be ordinarily resident in Australia for two years immediately after they became an Australian citizen. The Bill also makes consequential amendments of other provisions of the Act, including associated revocation provisions, to reflect the changes to the undertaking.

Any applicant who applies under the special residence requirements will also continue to be required to meet all other relevant legislative requirements under the Citizenship Act to be approved to become an Australian citizen, including:

having permanent residence status;

being of good character; and

passing the citizenship test.

This legislation will ensure there is appropriate flexibility for applicants for Australian citizenship to participate in, for example, overseas training that may be required as part of their specified activity, while still spending sufficient time in Australia to understand the nature of Australian citizenship and the Australian way of life, and to call Australia home.

I commend this Bill to the Chamber.

THE SOCIAL SECURITY AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (TECHNICAL CHANGES NO. 2) BILL 2025

The Albanese Government is committed to further strengthening Australia's social safety net.

The Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025 is a significant step towards a fairer, more efficient social security system that better supports Australians when they need it most.

The Bill builds on the substantial investments the Government has made since the 2022 election. These include:

Raising the rate of working-age and student payments to help ease cost of living pressures. We have increased the rate of JobSeeker by almost $4,000 a year since we were elected.

Raising the Age Pension by almost $5,000 a year for a single person since we were elected, giving older Australians a better chance at a secure retirement.

Helping people to manage rental pressures by increasing maximum rates of Commonwealth Rent Assistance by almost 50%—someone paying $250 a week in rent could now be getting up to $1,800 a year in extra support since we were elected.

Providing more support through our changes to Parenting Payment Single, which has expanded eligibility for the payment to around 103,000 single parents.

Guaranteeing every new family 26 weeks of Paid Parental Leave by 2026, with superannuation now paid on top. That means parents are almost $12,000 better off than when we came to government.

We also established the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, ensuring expert advice on the social security system is delivered directly to Government.

And we've improved the experience of engaging with the social security system, treating those needing support with dignity, transparency and respect.

Under the leadership of the Government Services Minister, Senator Gallagher, call wait times at Services Australia are down.

Claims processing at Services Australia is up.

We have worked hard to rebuild the system following the legacy of Robodebt. The Government accepted, or accepted in principle, all 56 recommendations made by the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme and 75 per cent of these are implemented or well progressed. We are committed to implementing the recommendations that remain.

This hard work has meaningfully improved the way we manage social security debts.

The use of external debt collection agencies has ended.

Individual circumstances are taken into account when recovering debts, including people's capacity to repay.

Payment accuracy has improved, preventing people from getting debts in the first place.

Services Australia has employed more social workers to better support people experiencing vulnerability.

Community legal services now have a secure and streamlined channel to Services Australia to support vulnerable people with debt.

But we recognise there is more to do.

This Bill is another important step by the Government to reform the way we manage social security debts.

It includes provisions that:

make social security debt raising more proportionate and cost-effective for taxpayers

enable victims of coercion and financial abuse to receive debt relief

and resolves the long-standing, historic issue of income apportionment, in the most responsible and cost-effective way that we can.

Debt Reform

The Bill will standardise and increase the threshold for waiving small social security debts for the first time in over 30 years, up from the current thresholds of $50 and $200 to a single, unified amount of $250.

Because we know that often, the administrative cost of recouping small, accidental debts is higher than the value of the debt itself, making the process of debt recovery uneconomical.

As a result of this change, we will wipe almost half of Australia's social security undetermined debt backlog. This backlog has grown exponentially in recent years, including due to pandemic-era measures. But through the amendments in this Bill, around 1.2 million undetermined debts are expected to be waived or no longer need to be raised in in 2025-26 alone.

It will mean Services Australia does not waste time or resources chasing small debts that are uneconomical to recover and will spare Australians with these small debts from significant stress. Setting the new threshold at $250 recognises people generally engage with the social security system in good faith, while continuing to ensure responsible fiscal management.

As well as increasing the waiver threshold to $250, we will now index it annually in July, in line with changes in the Consumer Price Index.

This change means people will no longer be disadvantaged by the decline in the waiver value over time.

At the same time, we will strengthen existing safeguards to ensure the waiver system cannot be manipulated. This includes situations where someone is found to be cheating the system to regularly have debts waived in this way.

The Bill also includes amendments to help deliver on our election commitment to embed safety in Commonwealth systems. Financial abuse and coercive control are serious forms of family and domestic violence. And these changes will better protect victim-survivors from coercive social security debt by expanding access to the special circumstances waiver.

This will mean it can be applied more widely and fairly, in situations where a person has genuine limitations on their ability to comply with their reporting requirements.

This includes cases of family and domestic violence, where a debt arises due to coercion or financial abuse.

To give just one example—a woman who we will call Ashley, was receiving the Disability Support Pension and Family Tax Benefit, while she was experiencing severe mental illness. During her illness, her former partner who was acting as her nominee incorrectly declared their family income and a debt of $7,000 was raised against Ashley. Under the status quo, Ashley would be denied the special circumstances waiver because her former partner knowingly made a false declaration.

But under the change we are proposing in this legislation, Services Australia workers would be given the discretion to take into account Ashley's illness as well as the controlling and abusive behaviour of her former partner, meaning she could be eligible for a waiver.

This is really important. The social security system should be there to assist vulnerable people when they need it most, not to punish them further.

This change responds to calls from stakeholders and addresses a recommendation of the 2024 Parliamentary Inquiry into Financial Abuse. It also delivers on our commitment to support victim-survivors under the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032, and responds to recommendation 18.1 of the Robodebt Royal Commission, which called for Government to "take each person's circumstances into account before commencing recovery action" and to "respond appropriately and proportionately to cases of hardship".

Income apportionment

The Bill also includes provisions to provide legal clarity to the historic practice of income apportionment.

Income apportionment was used to assess income earned between 1991 and 2020. It has never been used by the Albanese Labor Government.

Income apportionment was a practice used for decades to determine social security debts for some income support recipients who received employment income.

The method involved using evidence from the individual, such as payslips, to determine their entitlement to a social security payment as part of calculating a debt. In circumstances where it wasn't clear what a person's daily earnings were from their payslip, Centrelink would sometimes spread a person's reported income across their payroll period so that it better matched with their systems.

Around 5.5 million social security debts, previously or currently held by around 3 million people and worth a total of $4.4 billion, may be potentially affected by income apportionment. 'Potentially affected', because we can't know if a debt is actually affected without a manual review of each individual debt.

The vast majority of these debts have already been paid off.

We know that income apportionment was adopted in good faith, with the Commonwealth Ombudsman stating that it reflected a genuinely held incorrect understanding of the law. This wasn't Robodebt.

It is important to remember that, based on sampling by Services Australia, in most cases individuals still owed a debt, but the amount owing was miscalculated at the edges.

But we do need to deal with its legacy in the most responsible and cost-effective way we can.

This Bill will resolve the historic use of income apportionment with a twofold approach, including:

Validating the use of income apportionment for past calculations and embedding the method for decisions to be made in the future concerning entitlement periods pre-December 2020. This approach puts past decisions on the same footing as future decisions and better accords with the way in which the social security system was administered. It also acknowledges that income apportionment was a reasonable method of assessment at the time, based on evidence provided by the individual, such as payslips.

Additionally, the Bill establishes an Income Apportionment Resolution Scheme for people with affected debts. This both acknowledges the error of income apportionment and facilitates a pathway for compensation in a manner that is streamlined, fair and fiscally responsible.

By validating the use of income apportionment, we will avoid the need to recalculate potentially millions of debts, many of which date back decades.

Reopening debts and manually recalculating them would cause distress and protracted uncertainty for the people affected. In many of these cases, the debts are decades old, have been repaid, and people have moved on with their lives.

It would also divert critical government resources totalling billions of dollars from frontline services that help people who need support now.

That's why we have to retrospectively validate the practice of income apportionment and embed it for future decisions that relate to debts from the pre-2020 period.

Resolution scheme

Alongside these amendments, the Bill will establish the Income Apportionment Resolution Scheme.

People with historic debts potentially affected by income apportionment from 20 September 2003 to 6 December 2020 will be eligible to apply for a resolution payment of up to $600, in recognition of the fact we now know this method of calculating entitlements was invalid.

Once established, the scheme will provide those affected a clear pathway to seek fair and reasonable compensation from the Government.

The Bill provides that the Minister may determine provisions related to the Scheme in a legislative instrument following commencement of Schedule 3. Operationalising the requirements of the Scheme in a legislative instrument provides flexibility for dealing with historic debts and the different circumstances of individuals impacted by income apportionment. The instrument will detail eligibility criteria, how to apply for the resolution payment, how to accept an offer of a resolution payment, how much the resolution payment will be and other important administrative details to ensure the effective delivery of the Scheme.

The amount received will reflect the size of the original debt.

The instrument will prescribe the amount of resolution payments. For debts under $200, the full debt amount would be repaid. For debts between $200 and $2000, the payment would be $200. For debts between $2000 and $5000, the payment would be $400. And for debts above $5000, the payment would be $600.

No-one is obliged to participate in this scheme or prevented from exercising any legal rights to pursue a claim relating to their debt.

The Albanese Labor Government believes in a strong social security system.

We will not demonise people for needing support, but we will also make sure we are achieving value for every dollar of taxpayer money spent.

Australia's social safety net should be there for people when they need it.

This Bill almost halves Australia's social security undetermined debt backlog. It extends support for victims of coercion and financial abuse. It brings resolution to the long-standing issue of income apportionment, with a pathway for compensation for those affected.

And it protects the integrity of the social security system.

I commend the Bill.

Debate adjourned.

Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.

It's my pleasure to continue my remarks from earlier today in this debate. Those opposite in the coalition want to delay payday super. They say that it's too much too soon and that it will overwhelm business. Well, in a contemporary payroll environment, that argument does not withstand scrutiny. Payroll software is automated, digital reporting is routine and businesses already run payroll cycles weekly or fortnightly. The idea that contributing to a worker's retirement savings with the same regularity as their wages is somehow an unreasonable ask belongs to another era. The longer we wait, the more workers will miss out and the harder it will be to recover unpaid superannuation for them.

This is also a matter of intergenerational fairness. Every delayed contribution widens inequality between generations, entrenches disadvantage and undermines confidence in our system. Payday super addresses this directly, ensuring that younger Australians receive the value they have earned over the entirety of their careers. Superannuation is fundamentally workers' money. It is not employers' cash flow, and it is not optional. When it is unpaid, workers lose not just wages but future security. Payday super fixes that. It ensures accountability, protects workers, rewards honest employers and strengthens trust in the system.

Those opposite have a very long record of opposing superannuation reform not on the basis of economics but on the basis of ideology. They opposed its introduction, they delayed the increase of the super guarantee to 12 per cent and they proposed allowing people to raid their retirement savings for short-term problems, undermining long-term security. Let's not forget the dark chapter of superannuation management under the Morrison government during the COVID-19 pandemic. We saw Australians being encouraged to raid their super early to the tune of $20,000, leaving a gaping hole in their future retirement savings. In total, $36 billion was withdrawn from the system then. Over 700,000 Australians effectively depleted their super accounts, and 70 per cent of those people were under 30. It was a shocking case of kicking the can down the road. We will not even begin to see the impact of that decision until 2050. Twenty-five years of compounding interest went down the drain. For early career workers, the impact of that $20,000 cashout will be far greater than the lump sum withdrawn.

In closing, those opposite have consistently treated superannuation as something optional, something secondary, something disposable. Workers deserve better than ideological objections. They deserve policy that is rooted in fairness and facts. Our retirement income is internationally respected. It stands alongside Medicare and universal education as a defining pillar of Australian social policy. But no pillar stands forever if it is not protected and built on. Payday super will improve retirement balances particularly for women, carers, part-time workers, young people and workers in fragmented industries. It will create accountability where there has been ambiguity. Dignity in retirement begins with every pay slip linked contribution every fortnight. What you earn now grows for tomorrow. This is a long-awaited reform. Workers have asked for it, regulators have recommended it, economists have modelled it and now the parliament has the opportunity to deliver it.

The Greens welcome the Labor government's Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Bill 2025 and Superannuation Guarantee Charge Amendment Bill 2025. We will be supporting this legislation. This reform has been a long, long time coming. There are a bunch of folks who have been working behind the scenes and campaigning publicly for this legislation for a long, long time, including the Super Members Council, the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia and Super Consumers Australia. They have demonstrated relentless advocacy and persistence, and it is because of them and folks like them that this long-overdue reform is now finally going to become law.

This will be, when it passes through this parliament, a win for fairness, a win for transparency and a win for accountability. Importantly, it's a win for millions of Australian workers who have been shortchanged and ignored for far too long. The number of people who are missing out on their superannuation payments is staggering. It's absolutely staggering. The Super Members Council analysis of ATO data shows that in 2022-23, 3.3 million Australians were not pay the superannuation that they were owed. They were not paid the superannuation that they earned.

Let's be really clear about this. Superannuation payments belong to workers. They belong to the people to whom those payments are due. Those 3.3 million Australians who were not paid the super they earned in 2022-23 collectively missed out on $5.7 billion. That's $5.7 billion in unpaid super in a single financial year. That is $110 million a week that should have been going into the pockets and the bank accounts of Australian workers but wasn't. That money belongs to those workers; it doesn't belong to their employers. It belongs to the people who were doing the work.

For decades now, employers have been able to use their employees' superannuation as an interest-free loan, in effect, to top up their cash flow. The quarterly payment system, which has been in place for a long time now, has basically allowed widespread wage theft to hide in plain sight. Too many businesses have treated unpaid super as optional or as a buffer to offset their own financial mismanagement. This bill will finally change that situation.

From 1 July 2026, superannuation will be paid at the same time as wages. In simple terms, what that means is that, when working folks get their wages, they'll get their super payments too. It is simple. It is fair. It means workers and the ATO can spot problems faster. It means unpaid super can be recovered sooner. And it means fewer workers arriving at retirement to discover that tens of thousands of dollars are missing out of their superannuation accounts. This is a positive step and—credit where credit is due—we thank the government for bringing this legislation in. But I do want to say that we need far greater reform of the superannuation system than what this legislation delivers, than what the government's revamped super tax arrangements will deliver next year.

Over time, since the superannuation system was created in Australia, it has drifted away from its original goal of providing for a dignified retirement for working Australians, and it's become less about that and more about functioning as a tax haven for wealthy Australians. That is, it has to be said, mostly the fault of coalition governments, in particular the Howard-Costello government, which introduced a range of reforms to the superannuation system that actually made it less about being a dignified retirement system for workers and more about becoming a tax haven for wealthy Australians. I'll have more to say about that general proposition and that drift in intent of the superannuation system in other speeches that I will make in this parliament.

I do want to draw attention to one matter in this speech, which is the second reading amendment that the Greens have circulated in my name. I foreshadow that amendment now. That amendment does hold the government to a promise that it's already made, which is to regulate the advertising of superannuation funds during employee onboarding. Those protections, the regulatory framework, were in the exposure draft of this legislation, and those regulations that were proposed were widely supported by consumer advocates and the industry super movement. But they've been stripped out of the final legislation. I have to say they've been stripped out of the final legislation without any kind of convincing explanation from the government. That is disappointing, because that reform is about protecting workers at one of the most vulnerable moments in their financial lives. That is when they start a new job.

I want to put the Greens's position very clearly on the table here, which is that new employees in any job shouldn't be subjected to unregulated advertising designed to manipulate them into joining underperforming or unsuitable superannuation funds. It is well beyond time that we regulated the advertising of superannuation funds during employee onboarding. That is simple common sense. It's about making sure that people's retirement savings and their choice of superannuation funds are guided by what is in their own best interests, not by marketing budgets. The government says they'll deal with it later, and our amendment will help ensure that that promise is kept.

While we do support the bill, we need to acknowledge the broader reality for more and more workers in Australia at the moment. People are simply being hammered by a cost-of-living crisis. We have corporations, including supermarket corporations, price gouging hand over fist. It is very disappointing that Labor's final announcement in the early days of the election campaign was that it is going to take on price gouging in the supermarket sector, but it's not going to extend across the entire economy, as the Greens bill does. Can I be very clear: yes, supermarkets are indeed price gouging, and, yes, we indeed need legislation to make price gouging by supermarket corporations illegal. We absolutely do. But narrowly scoping the legislation as Labor is proposing to do, so that it only relates to supermarkets, is ignoring the fundamental and bitter reality for millions of Australians, which is that they are getting price gouged by multiple corporations in multiple sectors of our economy. Do you think the big insurance companies aren't price gouging? Do you think the big airlines aren't misusing their market power to price gouge? Of course they are. Do you think the big banks aren't price gouging? Of course they are.

If we're going to make price gouging illegal in Australia—as we should—it absolutely should apply to supermarkets, but it should also apply to corporate price gouging right across our economy. It should capture the banks, airlines and insurance companies. Let's actually stand up to corporate greed, corporate profiteering, misuse of market power and corporate price gouging. Let's protect the millions of Australians who are getting smashed by corporate price gouging at the moment, and let's make price gouging illegal right across the entire economy. I say to Labor: the make-up of this parliament is such that we could legislate for that tomorrow. If Labor wanted to make price gouging illegal across the entire economy, the numbers are there in both houses of this parliament to legislate for that tomorrow.

The only reason that we're not going to legislate for that is a lack of ambition from the Labor Party. You have to ask yourself: why is the Labor Party so lacking in ambition? I direct people who are asking that question to the corporate donations that the Australian Labor Party takes from so many big corporations in this country. I direct them to the photos of the Prime Minister in his safety vests with big polluting fossil fuel company logos on the chest and on the back of them. I direct people to the revolving door that exists out of the parties of government in this place, including the Australian Labor Party, into the corporate boardrooms of Australia. Too many MPs representing the parties of government, the political duopoly in this country, know that if they run the pro-corporate agenda when they're in this place, they can roll out of the door at the end of their political careers into a cushy position in the boardroom of one of those same corporations that they protected when they were sitting in this place. It is small-c corruption that that still occurs, and it is time we put an end to the practice.

To sum up, this is much-needed legislation. It's overdue legislation. It's pro-worker legislation, and it is legislation that delivers on the fundamental Australian value of fairness. The Greens will be supporting it. I move the second reading amendment standing in my name:

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

(a) notes that:

(i) the bill does not include provisions that were included in the exposure draft legislation to regulate advertising of superannuation funds during employee onboarding, and

(ii) regulating advertising of superannuation funds during employee onboarding is an important reform to protect workers from being influenced to join unsuitable superannuation products when they commence a new job; and

(b) holds the Albanese Labor Government to their previous commitment to introduce legislation to regulate advertising of superannuation funds during employee onboarding commencing by 1 July 2026.

As someone that grew a small business from two brothers, a ute and a wheelbarrow into one that employed over a thousand people, I have more experience than most people in this place to talk on this matter. Helping small businesses is a topic that I'm passionate about, so, when a bill like this comes along from bureaucrats and politicians that have never built a business and have never had to manage books or employees or cash flows and they add more onerous compliance measures to struggling businesses, I see red. We're seeing record numbers of businesses go to the wall as they try to navigate the utterly toxic landscape that all levels and all sides of government have presided over. Federal, state and local government have all contributed to the demise of small business. I couldn't agree more that people are entitled to their superannuation, and we need to ensure that businesses are making those contributions. But what most people won't appreciate is just how much those couple of months to pay employee's superannuation matter to a small business, especially when times get tough. It gives employers some breathing room to plan resources, to make sure they are staying afloat and to make sure their employees get paid. Superannuation arriving a few weeks earlier, which you still can't access for 30 years, will cripple some small businesses through lean times.

I've never been involved in or come across a small business that doesn't value their employees, but it shows how little people in this place understand how the world really works. So let me help you out. If the business folds, you don't get paid it all, and we've lost another small business. As if to show how little Labor cares about small business, they are also going to shut down the Small Business Superannuation Clearing House, a facility that was designed to make it simple for small business to make a single lump sum payment of their super obligations and then let the ATO split that up to eligible super funds. This small concession to ease the red tape on businesses is gone. To replace it, just go out and get some commercial software—more cost for small business—like money grows on a tree when you have a small business. Nobody here really cares.

The sad reality for the mum-and-dad businesses out there is that Labor makes the demands, Labor changes the rules, and small business foots the bill. They don't care. They'll act like they're doing Australians a favour as they make owning a small business impossible and push every Australian into the arms of big multinational employers—the only ones that can afford to comply with the never-ending mountain of red tape. But it shouldn't surprise anyone. This is the same Labor government that introduced their much-touted same job, same pay rules, forcing businesses to overpay some workers and underpay others. What about 'same effort, same pay'? Or 'same skill, same pay? What about 'same value proposition to your employer, same pay'? The Labor just sees workers as numbers on a spreadsheet.

In their socialist haze, they don't realise that every worker is different. Some work incredibly hard, are very talented and deserve to see the rewards for their efforts, while others are happy to sit back and let the slack be taken up by others. We've all seen it. Of course, Labor is full of lifelong politicians, coming through the union pipelines, who have never built anything in their lives. They don't care about hard workers getting ahead; they only care about making their union friends happy. Once again, small business suffers as their best workers leave for higher paying jobs because the business can't afford to raise the wages above an average worker to keep them.

People are individuals; they are not interchangeable. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. It's not the government's job to prescribe the value of workers. Even if a business survives the ridiculous industrial relations laws of Labor, they still have to contend with one of the most complex and oppressive tax systems in the world. Australia is in the top three countries in the world in length of tax codes—income tax, payroll tax, FBT, GST, stamp duty, excise, royalties, levies. Australian businesses pay almost $100 billion a year to manage their tax affairs, and that figure only includes the deductible costs, not the value of time lost in dealing with this nightmare. Every time a new tax is brought in and every time a new regulation is brought in, we lose more Australian mum-and-dad businesses to the abyss of bankruptcy. The big end of town might be able to deal with the changes. They can afford to comply with them at a moment's notice with deep credit lines. Small businesses just go under. Who would be an entrepreneur in today's climate? Then the workers have fewer employers to choose from. They have less bargaining power as options diminish. Australia is heading towards complete capitulation, where the only reasonable jobs left will be government jobs, as we snuff out anything that resembles innovation with our ever-mounting rules and regulations.

One Nation won't sit idly by and let small businesses and real competition die out. Successful businesses mean more choices for Australians—more real opportunity. When was the last time the government at any level had any idea to help a small business? One Nation is the only party that will help small business in a meaningful way and bring back an innovative and dynamic Australia where small business can flourish and employees have more options. In summary, I am not advocating that employees shouldn't get their super on time. I am shouting from the rooftops, 'For the love of God, somebody please help small business!'

I'm pleased that I was here in the chamber to hear that contribution, because it gives me the chance to speak to people who might be listening to the work of this parliament and point out how completely divisive that contribution was. I see you in the chair there, Acting Deputy President Sterle, as a man who ran your own business in the trucking industry. I see you as a representative of one of the largest unions in the country, the Transport Workers' Union. While you're in the chair, presiding over the Senate, you haven't forgotten all the struggles you had to get your truck, to keep it on the road, to meet the compliance and to do the work that keeps Australia moving—getting all of your business up and running. Then there is your association with the Transport Workers' Union, representing people with little power who are on wages and also representing the biggest companies in Australia who deliver all the things we need everywhere around this fine country.

Yet, in that contribution, from a person who's come in and styled themselves as a businessman—I just had a quick look. He was born in Gosford. He can't be too bad. I come from that area of the world. It's a beautiful part of the world. I hoped there might be a little bit of joy somewhere in the middle of that contribution. And he's made his money out of earthworks. Well, hey—fantastic! I'm the daughter of an Irish immigrant. I know a bit about dirt and roads. I love it. I ran a small business for my parents. I did all the bookwork from age 11 in that business with pride and determination. We needed to keep that business alive to keep our family going and to keep all those people employed. So every single time someone gets up in this chamber—predominantly from the Liberal and National parties, now joined by One Nation—and diminishes the contribution of senators who bring rich lives to this place, it gets my goat. It gets my goat because it sets one group of Australians against another, and that's all it is designed to do.

This parliament runs better and this country runs better when everybody brings their talents, knowledges and understandings of that complex world out there into the debate in service of the nation, instead of grandstanding and saying, 'Hey, I'm a big business owner, and I'm the only one who knows about this stuff.' It's just a joke, and it diminishes what we do. The reality is it's that sort of attitude that we see today that would have prevented superannuation ever becoming a thing. 'Small business or workers? Workers or small business?' There is this divisive narrative when the reality is that it's workers in great small businesses, which populate the entire country, that drive our economy.

Let's talk about the great small businesses—the really good ones. They don't want to rip off their workers. They want to pay them what is fair and reasonable. They want to pay above award to make sure they keep their staff employed, because that's their business. Their business is an investment in people as well as an expression of their own capacity. I can tell you what small businesses are sick and tired of, whatever sector they're in. Small businesses that are doing the right thing by their employees and paying superannuation properly are sick and tired of being undercut by dodgy businesses who think they can rip off their employees and keep the money themselves. Sadly, that attitude still prevails in part of this country. Not every business owner is doing the right thing by their employees. This isn't a change for the great employers; it's to make sure that the dodgy ones do what they should have always been doing but have excused themselves from doing.

The reality is that this is a battle that has been fought for a very long time. I note that the SDA, the union that I'm very proud to be associated with, have really been making sure that people understand what this payday super thing is about. They wrote to their members in June of this year, and it's as simple as this:

What does pay day super mean?

Currently, there's no requirement for employers to pay your superannuation on the same day as your pay and it is generally paid quarterly.

Well, what's wrong with that? You probably would have heard a defence from Senator Whitten of paying not quarterly but perhaps just once a year. They'll call that efficiency. But thing is that it costs workers. It costs workers because when your super is only paid quarterly the benefits of compound interest are lost for the individual employee. The money is sitting with that employer for three months when it could have been earning interest for that employee.

Who does this most particularly affect? It most particularly affects young people. Every Australian, whether you're 65 or 70 or 16, should get paid properly. You're entitled to be paid for your work and contribution, and this reform in the matter that we're discussing in this debate here in the Senate this evening will help ensure that workers actually receive the super that they're owed. They'll get it when they're owed it with their pay on their payday.

What is the problem that we're trying to solve here? The ATO actually have a pretty good eye about what's happening with some of these matters. In a typical ATO investigation of an unpaid super case, a worker has missed out on nearly two years worth of super contributions. For the average 35-year-old, failing to recover this money could reduce their retirement savings by around $32,000 in today's dollars. How do we prevent that? We enact this piece of legislation so that every Australian who gets their pay will get their super on the day they get their pay. It's a commonsense move, and it gives people a chance to see that superannuation coming in.

What we've seen sadly is that some disreputable business owners who aren't running their business as efficiently and effectively as they should consider the money that should be their employees', the superannuation of their employees, as their own personal loan to do whatever they want to do with. What happens then as that money stays in the employer's account is that not only is the compound interest lost to the employee but if the employer should happen to go bust the impact is going to be even more severe for that worker, be they young, middle aged or older. If you're 35 years old and you're missing out on super from a liquidated business, that could leave your retirement balance over $90,000 worse off in today's dollars. This is an untenable proposition, and that is why Labor is undertaking payday super. It's a once-in-a-generation reform to fix unpaid super and to give Australian workers access to the fullness of the money that they're entitled to by law on the day that they receive their pay.

The scale of this problems is something that has to be addressed, and it would never, ever be addressed by a Liberal-National coalition government. They turned a blind eye to it. They're the ones who rejected superannuation. They were the ones who said, 'It's going to kill small businesses across the country.' If it was up to the Liberal-National coalition, there would be no Australian with superannuation of any kind at all except very wealthy people who seemed to have always had it. But now we have this dignified retirement capacity for Australians. It's Labor's invention, supported, delivered and advanced to the point now where this is an important addition to make sure super does what it's supposed to do.

The Australian Taxation Office have estimated that $5.2 billion in super went unpaid in one financial year alone. That's just one year—2021-22. Think about that across the country. That's people going to work, doing their job, waiting to get paid, expecting that they're going to get their super in a quarterly instalment, not being able to check it in their payslip because it's not there and trusting their employer. Guess how much it's costing? It's $100 million a week. That's a lot of money that could be moving around in regional economies in western New South Wales that I support where employers have decided: 'No, no, no. We're in control of the payslips. We're in control of the time that you get it. We'll choose when you get it.' It's $100 million a week that workers earned and never received documented by the ATO.

We cannot let this continue, not if we are true to our values as Australians. Australians always say out loud and proud that we believe in a fair go. Part of a fair go is getting your fair pay, and part of your fair pay invested in the future that you're entitled to have as a dignified retirement is your superannuation. When we put this legislation through the parliament and it's finally approved—despite the opposition—this will improve the lives of millions of Australians. Every worker will benefit from this.

This legislation does a few critical things. It's going to come into play not immediately but from 1 July 2026. Employers will be required to pay the super guarantee contributions at the same time as the wages are paid instead of quarterly, and I know that there are always challenges with businesses making a transition. But if you can't make a transition in your business by 1 July 2026 you have to wonder how good you might be at running your business, where everything is constantly changing all the time. You have to problem solve every day in multiple ways. Nonetheless that's been taken on board, and the ATO have committed to making sure that there will be a soft approach to this as people get on board. Employers have to ensure that the contributions are received by the employee's super fund within seven business days of payday, and that was a bit of a change that was negotiated with key stakeholders. The outcome we get is the change that will make it easier for employees to track their super, for the ATO to detect mis-payments earlier and before debts become unrecoverable. Track your super, watch to make sure that you're getting your fair share and interrupt a process with your employer if that's not happening as it should be. Under the new framework, the super guarantee charge is going to apply for each payday an employer fails to pay super in full and on time.

These super guarantee changes talk about critical terminology that is really important to getting this right. The first thing is notional earnings. Notional earnings are compensation of employees for the investment returns they missed out on due to a late payment. That's an incentive for businesses to pay this part of your wages, the superannuation part, on time. There's a section called an administrative uplift. That's an additional charge to reflect the cost of enforcement to incentivise voluntary rectification. Businesses can be very, very busy. They can become overwhelmed at times. There might be change in staff. Things go wrong, but the incentive of the administrative uplift is to make sure that people get things back on track in a reasonable time. It's an incentive not to step outside the system, to do the right thing, to give your staff a fair go, to pay, as the law requires you, in full on the day that payment is due for wages and the superannuation contribution.

There is an additional charge called a choice loading, an additional penalty if the employer fails to pay into the employee's chosen fund. Sadly, sometimes employers—and I've very unhappily heard there are some kickbacks for some of the employers—say: 'No, we're not going to put it into the super fund that you want. We're going to put it into the one that we want.' That's just not on. That's absolutely not on. It's your super; it's your choice. You should get what you want. So we're going to make it a little more likely that the recalcitrants will do the right thing.

What I would say to Australians is that Labor in government supports small businesses, fair wages and superannuation. This legislation should pass the Senate because it will improve the lives of Australians as they're earning their pay and, importantly, in dignified retirement. It's Labor's vision for a great Australia.

I rise to speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Bill 2025. I associate myself with the remarks of my colleague Senator McKim. The Greens welcome this bill, and we will be supporting it. It is long-overdue reform, and I want to acknowledge the work of many people that have brought us to where we are today: the Super Members Council, the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia and Super Consumers Australia. They have pushed so hard to secure these reforms.

This bill requires employers to pay superannuation guarantee contributions at the same time as they pay their employees their take-home pay. It intends to strengthen Australia's superannuation system by reducing the superannuation guarantee gap and to help deliver a more dignified retirement for all Australians. It makes it clear to businesses that treat unpaid super as optional, or as a buffer to their own financial management, that this behaviour is not acceptable. This bill finally changes that behaviour. From 1 July 2026, superannuation will be paid at the same time as wages.

But workers need stronger protections and more progressive reform. Superannuation is a crucial right. It's not an optional extra. It's a workplace entitlement that protects a decent life in retirement for millions of Australians. According to APRA, as of 30 June 2025, Australians held over $4.3 trillion in superannuation assets. However, we know that too many workers are missing out on their hard-earned superannuation. The ATO estimates that $5.2 billion worth of superannuation went unpaid in 2021-22. That is an enormous sum, and it's essentially theft. Noncompliance with the superannuation guarantee is unevenly spread across employers, with greater prevalence in small and microbusinesses and in certain industries.

Superannuation has made such a difference to the lives of millions of Australians. Right now, however, Australian women are still retiring with a third less super than men are. A quarter of all women in this country retire in poverty, and many women's organisations and researchers—and I was one of them—across Australia, at the moment that super was introduced, pointed to the structural inequality between the genders that is built into our super system, which piggybacks off our wages system and thus reproduces pay inequity in retirement incomes.

The Greens successfully moved amendments to legislation in the last parliament to criminalise superannuation theft, and now it's a criminal offence for employers to withhold super payments. Those reforms sent a strong message to employers that, if they steal superannuation from their workers, they will pay the price. In the most egregious cases, they will face criminal prosecution and go to jail. Victims of super theft are disproportionately young and low-paid or migrant workers, and most commonly they're working in the accommodation and food services, retail and construction sectors. We know that unpaid superannuation can reduce an employee's retirement income or even delay their retirement. Now superannuation theft is a crime, just like wage theft, and this is what happens when Labor can work with the Greens to enact meaningful reforms for workers.

The Greens believe that we must reform our superannuation system further. Young workers should receive the same financial rights as everyone else. Currently, workers under 18 are only entitled to super if they work more than 30 hours a week. This rule means most workers under 18 miss out on superannuation because they don't work enough hours each week, and this costs them thousands of dollars in lost savings when they reach retirement. We've had them in my office, a number of times, showing me the numbers of the money that they lose, very regretfully, and knowing, as they do, that this will impact on their retirement earnings many decades ahead.

The Greens believe that superannuation is a universal entitlement and that it should be accumulated fairly, regardless of your age. That's why we will be moving an amendment to the payday superannuation bill to make sure that young part-time workers are not left behind. Our amendment makes one thing crystal clear—you can't carve out 16- and 17-year-olds working part-time in retail, hospitality and any other job from receiving superannuation just based on their age and hours of work. These young workers are already some of lowest paid in our economy, and, too often, they're the first to miss out on super. By including under-18 workers, regardless of their hours, in the super system, we can give young people a head start on saving for their future, while recognising their valuable contributions to the workforce, often from a very early age and making a really significant contribution.

We took a policy to the last election to extend the superannuation guarantee to all under-18-year-olds, ensuring they're paid contributions regardless of how many hours they work. Under current laws, to be eligible for super, under-18s need those 30 hours a week from the same employer. However, most young people juggle part-time work with school and with study and, therefore, are unable to reach the required 30 hours a week. As a result, hundreds of thousands of young workers are missing out on super. It's a small, sensible change that we're proposing that will make a big difference for thousands of Australian workers starting out at work while also studying. The Greens believe every worker deserves super on payday, no exceptions, no exclusions and no excuses.

We know that our super system needs improvement in other ways also. We need greater public investment options, fairer rates of taxation, ethical investment structures and to ensure more equitable retirement incomes, particularly for women and other disadvantaged groups. The Greens have circulated a second reading amendment, as my colleague Senator McKim spoke of, that holds the government to a promise that it's already made—to regulate advertising of superannuation funds during employee onboarding. These protections were in the exposure draft of this bill. This is a really important reform that would protect workers from being influenced to join unsuitable superannuation products when they start a new job. The Greens will continue to hold the Labor government to their previous commitment to do this before 1 July 2026.

In conclusion, this is a bill that aligns with Greens values of fairness, economic security and intergenerational justice. However, we do not accept that this where the reform journey ends. Our superannuation system must evolve to meet the realities of modern work and to address entrenched inequality to ensure that women, First Nations people and insecure workers are not left behind. It means that workers and the ATO will spot problems faster. It means unpaid super can be recovered sooner and that fewer workers arrive at retirement to discover that tens of thousands of dollars are missing. Superannuation is one of the key pillars of our economy, and the Greens welcome this simple, fair and long-overdue bill, and we would be delighted to see our amendment supported to ensure that all of those young people, 16- and 17-year-olds, making significant contributions to our labour market are not robbed of their super just because they don't work enough hours, even though their contributions to their workplaces are very meaningful and important.

Fundamentally, this bill is about fairness—fair pay, fair timing and a fair future.

(Quorum formed) I was just getting started and really hitting my stride. I got one line in, but I feel like I've had time to reflect and I can do it with even more gusto this time. Let's see how far I get through.

As I was reflecting, superannuation is not a bonus. It's not optional. It's a legislated entitlement. Yet right now millions of workers are being short-changed. Across this country, super is often paid months late, if it's paid at all. This is not a small administrative delay; it's a multibillion dollar breach of trust. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Bill 2025 and its companion, the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Amendment Bill 2025, seek to fix that. From 1 July 2026, employers will be required to pay super contributions into an employee's fund within seven days of each payday rather than quarterly. Should they fail to do so, under the new framework, the penalties will be strengthened. The framework will include notional earnings, administrative uplifts and penalties for failing to use a worker's chosen fund. As other speakers have reflected on, the worker is the one who chooses the fund that works for them and sets them up for retirement. That should be the primacy of how that choice is made. Repeated noncompliance with this framework can attract penalties of up to 50 per cent of the unpaid amount.

It's only fair. Workers should not bear the burden of another's delay or oversight. It's a simple change aligning super with wages, and it will make the system fairer, more transparent and harder to exploit. It will ensure that unpaid super is detected and recovered earlier, before an employer collapses or disappears. In that sense, it's not a small reform; it's a modernisation of our great $3.7 trillion national saving system—the envy of the world—and it is urgent because time in superannuation is not neutral. A dollar in super delayed by three months is denied its chance to compound. Multiply that by millions of workers, and the national loss can run into the billions. Indeed, Treasury estimates that around 2.8 million Australians miss out on their full superannuation entitlements every year. Collectively, that's around $5.2 billion annually—$5.2 billion that should be building retirement savings but, instead, sits in employers' accounts or is lost entirely.

In my home state of Tasmania, the effects are even starker. I was reflecting on recent analysis by the Super Members Council, which found that 57,400 Tasmanian workers were underpaid their superannuation in the 2022-23 financial year. That's about a fifth of the entire Tasmanian workforce, so it's significant. The total value of their missing super was $83 million in just one year. I had to go back and check the Super Members Council figures myself and go into the ATO raw data because I almost didn't believe how big these numbers were. On average, each Tasmanian worker lost about $1,450—money they earned and money that should already be compounding in their retirement fund. Over six years, that added up to $443 million just in Tasmania. Tasmania is about two per cent of the national economy, and we're talking about nearly half a billion dollars drained from the savings of ordinary Tasmanians. It's money that could be put towards building homes, funding retirements and strengthening our local economy.

It's not isolated to just one region of Tasmania either. In Clark, where Hobart is based, 11,450 workers were underpaid a combined $16.9 million, and nearly $90 million across a six-year period. In Franklin, 12,000 workers were underpaid $19.2 million in that same year, and $89 million cumulatively over the six years. The story is the same across Braddon, $16.8 million; Bass, $15.7 million; and Lyons, $14.4 million. To put it simply, one in four Tasmanian workers is being short changed. It's an extraordinary figure. It's not a rounding error; it's a system failure.

Superannuation is the economic handshake between generations. Each generation works, contributes and retires with dignity without asking the next to pick up the bill. But a handshake only holds if that system delivers what it promises. When contributions are late or underpaid, the people who hurt the most are young and low-income workers, who lose the benefit of early compounding. The gender impact is also stark. Women, who are more likely to work part time or casually, are disproportionately affected. The bill is not only a fairness reform; it's an intergenerational equity reform. It ensures that a 22-year-old hospitality worker in the northern suburbs of Hobart or a 25-year-old apprentice in Devonport is treated with the same respect as a senior executive in Sydney. They should both get their super paid on time, when they earn it—no delays, no excuses.

By closing the gap on unpaid super now, we also protect future budgets. We know that every dollar that reaches a super fund on time is a dollar that won't need to be funded in the age pension later. That's a long-term cost-of-living security, delivered sustainably and fairly.

Some small businesses have expressed understandable concern about cash flow, but this reform has been designed carefully. It doesn't increase the superannuation guarantee rate; it simply changes when super is paid. The start date is not till July 2026, so it gives employers plenty of time to adapt. Most employers already use the Single Touch Payroll System, which is capable of processing super at the same time as wages. Treasury has also modernised the superannuation guarantee charge framework. The penalties are targeted and more appropriate; employers can make voluntary disclosures before assessment; and the system will focus on compliance through technology, not through paperwork. So this is a pragmatic reform—firm with noncompliance, fair with honest employers and fully achievable with modern payroll systems.

This is federal legislation, but its impact will be deeply local. In Tasmania, where the median income is around $68,000, even small improvements in superannuation timing can lift lifetime savings by thousands of dollars. For local families, that's real money, retirement security or the difference between renting and owning later in life. Tasmania also has one of the oldest populations in the country. Strengthening super now isn't just about today's workforce; it's about ensuring the next generation can retire with dignity without adding to the fiscal load of the state or Commonwealth. The bill helps keep that promise, and every dollar of super paid on time also feeds investment back into the real economy. Super funds invest in renewable energy projects, housing developments and infrastructure—including in Tasmania. By ensuring contributions flow consistently, this reform strengthens the capital base that underwrites our state's future growth.

Australians understand fairness; it's in our DNA. When you work a day, you should be paid for that day—including your super. This bill delivers on that principle. It makes the system transparent and accountable. It supports honest employees and protects workers' entitlements. It ensures that no young worker's future is sacrificed to administrative convenience or corporate delay. It is, quite simply, a promise kept: a fair day's super for a fair day's work.

In conclusion, the superannuation system is one of Australia's great social and economic achievements. It reflects a compact between generations: to save today so that we can retire tomorrow in dignity and with independence. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Bill 2025 strengthens that compact. It recognises that fairness delayed is fairness denied. For Tasmania, it means recovering some $83 million in lost entitlements every year. Across the nation, it means protecting $5.2 billion in earnings workers have already earned. For the next generation, it means confidence that their super is real, reliable and respected. That is why this legislation is urgent, and that is why I commend this bill to the Senate.

I rise today to speak in strong support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Bill 2025 and related bill. This is a reform that is long overdue and essential. The bill delivers on a simple but powerful principle: when Australians are paid their wages, they are paid their superannuation at the same time—no delays and no excuses. For too long, our system has tolerated a gap that has allowed billions of dollars in super to go unpaid, disproportionately affecting young workers, low-income earners and women. These are the Australians who can least afford to fall behind, yet they have borne the brunt of a system that hasn't kept pace with fairness.

Superannuation is one of Labor's proudest legacies, a world-leading system that has transformed retirement for millions. But its promise is only as strong as its delivery. If super isn't paid on time, Australians are left worse off. This bill fixes that. It ensures super is paid alongside wages into workers' accounts, where it belongs, compounding for their future and not sitting on someone else's ledger. It's fair, it's practical and it's long overdue.

Every week, Australian workers are short-changed by a mere hundred million dollars in unpaid super. It's not just a number; it's money that people have earned but never received. In total, the ATO estimates that $5.2 billion in super went unpaid in just one year. It was really telling to hear my colleague Senator Dowling talk about the Tasmanian figures. We know that Tasmanians are quite often underpaid compared to colleagues on the big island.

Payday super is a generational reform to end this injustice, because super isn't a bonus; it's a right. It's just like your wages. It's part of what workers are owed in exchange for their labour, and, when it's withheld, it's theft, plain and simple. This bill will put a stop to that. (Quorum formed) As I was saying, payday super is a generational reform to end the injustice, because super isn't a bonus; it's a right. Just like our wages, it's part of what workers are owed, and, when it's withheld, it's theft, plain and simple, and this will put a stop to that. It's important to note that workers' super was never intended to be a part of your boss's cash flow. Super is part of your pay, and now it will be paid when you get paid.

Let's be clear: many employers do the right thing and pay superannuation on time. This law closes the gap with the shonks and reduces the risk for workers. The impact on workers who have their super delayed is real and lasting. For a 35-year-old worker, failing to recover this money could reduce their retirement savings by around $32,000 in today's dollars. And, when businesses collapse, the damage is even worse. Missing super from a liquidated business could leave a 35-year-old more than $90,000 worse off in their retirement. That's why, from 1 July 2026, employers will be required to pay super at the same time as paying wages, instead of paying it quarterly. It means that workers will receive their super in their funds within seven business days of payday. It ensures that workers will receive what they are legally owed, which will add strength to the entire super system. This will make it easier for workers to track their super and for the ATO to detect missed payments earlier.

Then there's the superannuation guarantee charge, which is a penalty that employers face when they fail to pay super on time. The new framework makes sure that your employer pays your super on time every payday. If they don't, they have to pay that penalty, the super guarantee charge. The charge includes a penalty for missed investment earnings, to make up for the money a worker could have earned if they had had their super paid on time; an extra admin fee to cover the cost of enforcing the framework and to encourage employers to voluntarily rectify these missed payments; and a penalty for an employer not using a worker's chosen super fund.

If an employer still doesn't pay super after the ATO gets involved, they could face even bigger penalties—up to 50 per cent of the unpaid amount. However, if the employer owns up to their mistakes and has a good track record, they may get a good penalty, as you would expect. These changes are meant to ensure that workers are properly compensated when their super isn't paid. It's not the employee's fault; it's the employer's responsibility.

These are new changes, and it's fair for Australians to ask how, practically speaking, they will be implemented. To enforce these changes, the ATO will use their Single Touch Payroll data, which employers already report, and match it with data from super funds to detect missed payments in near real time. This data-matching capability ensures the ATO can intervene earlier, reducing the risk of large debts building up and increasing the chance of recovery for workers who aren't getting paid their fair share of super. To support employers to meet their obligations in the first year of this legislation being implemented, employers who make a genuine attempt to comply, even if they face technical issues, will not be targeted by the ATO for compliance.

This reform really is good for everyone. It helps reduce the administrative pressure and the risk of large liabilities for employers. This is because the reform aligns super with payroll, meaning there's pressure taken off end-of-quarter paperwork. When you're talking about the practicalities, this legislation needs to pass through our parliament now. The longer we wait, the more workers miss out and the harder it becomes to recover all the super that is unpaid. That's why we're introducing the legislation now and trying to pass it now, because we know the importance of building a fairer, better system, and we know the impact that a better system will have on the lives of everyday Australians.

Labor is the party of superannuation. We built it, we believe in it and we will always fight to strengthen it. It was Labor that introduced compulsory superannuation. In 1983 the Hawke Labor government, in partnership with the ACTU, laid the foundation for a universal super system to ensure that all Australian workers could benefit. Then, in 1992, the Keating Labor government introduced the superannuation guarantee, giving workers a minimum superannuation rate of three per cent for the first time. We've backed compulsory super from the beginning and we continue to do so for a simple but powerful reason—to ensure that every Australian can retire with dignity and financial security. That's the purpose of super. That is the principle that we support and the intent we continue to support.

Today, working people hold $4.1 trillion worth of investments thanks to Labor and superannuation. This drives the far right and the superwealthy crazy. It keeps them up at night. These are the types who grew up with a silver spoon in their mouth, the types who claim they are for Australians but through their actions try to divide us at every chance they get. They can't stand working people holding so much collective wealth. That's why on the right they keep peddling scams trying to disrupt the super system—scams like super for housing deposits. These scams have drastic long-term negative impacts on retirement savings for workers.

Those opposite attack workers rights at every chance they get. There hasn't been a workplace right or entitlement they wouldn't have cut given the opportunity, so of course they would go for super too. Workers should always scrutinise and question when these grifters and scammers try to encourage use of your super for other purposes, like house deposits or COVID relief money, because their intentions are never in the interests of working people. There's always that agenda. They're all about keeping wealth at the top end of town because they can't stand it when the working class rises.

At the centre of Labor's economic plan is a simple objective: more Australians earning more and keeping more of what they earn. That's the driving force behind this legislation. Our reforms to super reflect our belief that Australians should have access to funds that allow them to have that dignified retirements. Labor governments have raised the superannuation guarantee so it's finally reached 12 per cent. We've boosted the low income superannuation tax offset, which is the payment the government makes to your super if you're a low income earner. It repays the tax paid on low income workers' super contributions so they can get more in their super accounts. This year, we've have raised the income threshold to $45,000 a year and increased how much you can get back through the low income super tax offset to $810, increasing the number of people getting this offset to 3.1 million. We've ensured that parents now get paid super on paid parental leave, ensuring that parents do not miss out on superannuation payments when they spend those critical years out of the workforce, often caring for their children.

Reforming super is by no means the whole story when it comes to Labor and protecting Australian workers. It's the tip of the iceberg. This bill is about fairness, it's about respect for workers and it's about making sure every Australian is paid what they earn in real time every time they get paid. Labor is the party of working people. We are the party of super, and, with this bill, we're strengthening super and we're protecting workers for generations to come. I commend this bill to the Senate.

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Bill 2025. In Australia, we believe that, if you work hard, you should be fairly paid not just your wages but every cent of your superannuation, yet for too long too many Australians have been shortchanged on the retirement savings they have earned. Payday super, a landmark reform of the Albanese government, will change that once and for all. I still remember working in the finance sector. As a woman working for that company, you had to be an employee for 10 years, and then you may have been invited to join their superannuation. We've come a long way thanks to Labor governments.

This legislation is a once-in-a-generation reform to close one of the biggest gaps in our superannuation system. In 2021-22 alone, unpaid superannuation cost Australian workers $5.2 billion. That's $5.2 billion that should have been invested for workers' futures, growing with compounded interest, building security for retirement and easing the burden on future taxpayers.

I know in my home city, where I live, of businesses who have failed to pay superannuation until some years after, and the penalties that those workers experienced—we cannot allow that to happen. What did one business do? They did it a second time. That was no accident, overlooking these things. It was deliberate strategy to not pay that super and for them to have the use of that money.

For decades, unpaid or late super has been quite an injustice in our system. The introduction of payday super is the moment we draw a line. From 1 July 2026, employers will be required to pay superannuation at the same time as wages, not quarterly. It's a simple change with profound consequences—one that strengthens the entire superannuation system and ensures that Australians receive what they are legally owed on time, every time.

Right now super contributions can be paid by employers up to three months after an employee receives their wages. That delay may sound small to some, but it creates a huge problem. It means workers often have no way of knowing if their super is actually being paid, not until months later, by which time it's often too late to recover missing payments. Under payday super, contributions must reach an employee's super fund within seven business days of the payday. That brings super into line with how wages are paid today—promptly, transparently and electronically. This is a simple concept, but it will transform superannuation. It will transform workers entitlements when they get to retirement age, which is why we proudly support and will always defend superannuation.

It will also protect workers entitlements by closing the gap that allows unpaid super to go unnoticed; strengthen retirement outcomes by ensuring that super is paid regularly, boosting compounding returns over time; level the playing field by ensuring that honest businesses are not undercut by competitors who dodge their super obligations; and build transparency and trust, giving workers the ability to check their super payments in real time through their pay slips and online accounts. Put simply, this is about fairness. It's about accountability. When people work, they deserve to know that every dollar they've earned, including their super, is being paid promptly.

Unpaid super is not a minor issue; it's a national problem.

(Quorum formed) According to the Australian Taxation Office, around one in four workers are underpaid or not paid super each year. That means many millions of Australians, often in low-paid, casual or insecure work, are being denied the retirement savings that they will rely on. This particularly affects young workers, women and those in the industries of hospitality, retail and construction—people who can least afford to lose out.

For a worker, every dollar of unpaid super today can mean thousands of dollars less in retirement. For example, a 25-year-old worker who misses out on $1,000 of super contributions today could have around $4,000 less by retirement age, once compound interest is considered. If you multiply that across the years and across millions of workers, the scale of the problem becomes staggering. Payday super will ensure that superannuation is paid on time every time, closing a loophole that has cost workers billions of dollars. It's one of the most practical and impactful reforms to workplace laws in decades, and who has done it? The Albanese Labor government. We believe in superannuation.

The bill does more than just change the timing of payments. It modernises the entire superannuation guarantee framework to make it more effective and fairer. Employers will still be required to pay the super guarantee rate, which is currently 11 per cent, but the timing and enforcement mechanisms will be updated to ensure compliance. Under the reforms, superannuation contributions must be received by the employee's fund within seven business days of payday. Employers who fail to meet this timeline will be liable for the superannuation guarantee charge. The superannuation guarantee charge has been updated to better target employers' behaviour, which means penalties will focus on those who fail to pay on time, while ensuring that employees are compensated for any delay, through the accrual of notional earnings on unpaid super. In other words, the system will now reward employers who do the right thing and will ensure consequences for those who don't. It's a modern, fair and transparent model of compliance.

The government recognises that reforming a system as large and interconnected as superannuation cannot happen overnight. That's why implementation will begin from 1 July 2026, giving employers, payroll providers, super funds and the ATO ample time to update their systems and processes. This legislation is a high priority, and the government is seeking the bill's urgent passage through parliament to allow preparation to begin immediately.

Employers will benefit from clearer obligations and simpler processes once the new system is in place. Payroll providers and super funds are already working closely with Treasury and the Australian Taxation Office to design systems that will automate compliance and integrate super payments seamlessly into pay cycles. Ultimately, this reform is about making compliance easier, not harder. By aligning super payments with payroll, we make it simpler for employers to meet their obligations while providing workers with greater transparency and confidence.

The Australian superannuation system is the envy of the world. We should be proud of it. That's why Labor will always protect it, unlike those opposite. It has turned retirement savings into one of our nation's great economic strengths. Over $3.5 trillion is invested on behalf working Australians. But a system that is big and important cannot afford to have cracks in the foundations. Unpaid super is one such crack, and, if left unaddressed, would undermine the integrity of the whole structure. Payday super closes that gap by ensuring that super is paid promptly and regularly. The reform will help super funds manage inflows more efficiently, improve data accuracy and give members clearer visibility of their growing savings. It will also support faster detection of non-compliance, allowing the ATO and super funds to step in earlier if contributions are missing, which is so critically important.

This reform strengthens not only individual retirement outcomes but the broader economic resilience of our country. Every dollar that flows into super on time is a dollar that can be invested productively in housing, in infrastructure, in innovation and in Australian businesses. Critics of reform often claim that stronger regulation comes at a cost to business. But payday super demonstrates that fairness and economic responsibility can go hand in hand. By integrating super payments with payroll, the administrative burden on employers is actually reduced. Most modern payroll systems are already capable of handling real-time or near real-time super payments. This reform simply brings the law into line with technological reality. By preventing unpaid super from accumulating, payday super reduces the need for costly enforcement and recovery actions later. It's good policy, good economics and good governance. For workers, it means confidence. For businesses, it means clarity. For the economy, it means fairness backed by efficiency.

The payday super reform embodies what Labor governments do best—practical reforms, grounded in fairness that make a real difference to people's lives. It's about ensuring that the social contract between worker and employer is honoured and that, when you go to work, you get what you earn. It's about lifting standards across the board, not lowering them, and it's about protecting the dignity of retirement for every Australian. You work hard all your life. You deserve respect. You deserve dignity, and you deserve to be able to live a comfortable life.

From the introduction of universal superannuation under the great Paul Keating government to this latest reform under Prime Minister Albanese's government, Labor has always been the party of fair retirement savings. Payday super continues that proud tradition, ensuring that the promise of superannuation—a comfortable and secure retirement for all—is finally delivered in full. When this reform takes effect in July 2026, it will transform the experience of millions of workers. Superannuation will no longer be an afterthought. It will be an automatic, reliable part of every pay cycle. Workers will be able to see their super building alongside their wages and know that their hard work today is securing their future for tomorrow. This is how we built a stronger, fairer, more resilient Australia—by tackling longstanding problems with smart, practical solutions that put people first.

Payday super is more than just an administrative reform. It's a statement of values that says that fairness matters, that every dollar earned counts and that the dignity of retirement is not a privilege but a right. The Albanese government is acting with urgency and determination to pass this legislation because when Australians work hard, they deserve to be paid properly—not just now but for the rest of their lives.

I've seen the transformation that compulsory superannuation has made. Why should a woman have to work for a company for 10 years before she may be—there's no guarantee—invited to join the superannuation fund? That's the good thing about Labor. We deliver real reform that benefits not only individuals but our economy. We are leading the world when it comes to superannuation. I'm proud to be part of the Albanese government. I've always been very proud of Paul Keating and what he's done. Still, today, he stands up for what he believes is essential, and that is having superannuation. This takes that next step.

I'm proud to support this legislation and I hope everyone else in this chamber will do the same thing, because every Australian—whether they are a young worker, whether they are working in retail, whether they are working in a warehouse, whether they are collecting garbage or whether they are sitting in this chamber—needs to be able to rely on superannuation being paid so they can get the benefits of that in the longer term.

It's been a genuinely interesting experience to listen to the contributions of senators this evening on this important legislation, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Bill 2025 and related bill. I would particularly like to associate my remarks this evening with the remarks of Senators McKim and Pocock and put on the record my support for the amendment moved by my colleague Senator Barbara Pocock of South Australia in relation to the payment of superannuation to those below the age of 18.

As the Greens spokesperson for youth affairs, I've heard from many young people across my home state of Western Australia and across the country about the real challenges and struggles of young people right now, confronting the reality of the cost-of-living crisis. Last week I shared with the chamber an individual's story shared with me as part of the Raise Our Voice Australia campaign, where they outlined very clearly the challenges of being a young person trying to make ends meet when age based wage discrimination in Australia is a reality. And I would take that argument further. It is a shame upon us that, right now, young people in Australia who are below the age of 18 are often not paid their super. They have to jump through these additional hoops to be able to get the super that should rightly be theirs. It's. quite frankly, ridiculous that in Australia in 2025 a person who is below the age of 18 needs to work-30 plus hours for one employer to be able to qualify for the provision of superannuation. Anybody who has taken a moment to look at the dynamics of work among that particular age cohort knows that if you are below the age of 18, you are much more likely to work for multiple employers in part-time positions as you seek to make ends meet and to find yourself fully employed. So I very much support Senator Pocock's amendment and would commend it to the Senate.

I want to mention two other groups here in relation to superannuation and this bill—firstly, disabled people in Australia. We know that disabled people in Australia, as a community, experience far higher levels of unemployment and far higher levels of underemployment than the rest of the Australian community. Because of those factors, we have far less in our retirement savings than the rest of the Australian community. We also continue to live in a reality where it is legal in 2025 in Australia, under Australian law, to pay a disabled person less than the minimum wage purely because they are disabled. We have wage based discrimination as the law of the land in Australia. That means that many, many workers work in so-called sheltered workshops or Australian disability enterprises for dollars on the hour, and that affects the amount of money that they have in their superannuation. A friend of mine who was in an ADE for six years, I believe, managed to accrue some $300 over that time in paid superannuation. So, when we look at reforming the super system, we need to take account of the fact that many disabled people are starting from far, far behind the rest of the community.

Finally, I would draw the Senate's attention to some superb reporting that has been done by the ABC and by the Guardian over the course of the last few weeks. They've drawn the community's attention to a rather horrifying fact, and that is that, between 2018-19 and the financial year 2024-25, there has been a 1,200 per cent increase in the amount of money withdrawn by Australians from their superannuation for the purpose of paying for health care. Overwhelmingly, the reason that they are withdrawing that money is to pay for dental care. In the last year alone, Australians withdrew some $817 million from their superannuation in order to pay for dental care. In 2018-19, that figure was $66.4 million. That represents a colossal loss of retirement security which Australians otherwise would have enjoyed, but they had to take it out to pay for the dentist.

Some might be thinking, as you listen to this debate tonight, that potentially people withdrew this money for non-essential care. Maybe you're thinking that people have somehow found a way to utilise the hardship loopholes within the superannuation system to withdraw super for cosmetic reasons. But, again, the good journalists that are on the case, this time last week on 7.30, showed us really clearly what the reality is—what is actually going on. They brought us stories of Australians who are survivors of cancer—head and neck cancer. They've taken it on and they've beaten it with the help of their families and their healthcare professionals. When they confront and look down the barrel of the journey back to what life was before—the restorative work that is so necessary to live well again post head, neck or oral cancer—they discover, and their treatment team discovers, that there is this completely unjustifiable gap in our cancer treatment system. The gap is that, if you are seeking restorative care—prosthetics, surgeries—to regain function and if it's for the mouth or some parts of the face, then it's not covered under Medicare. So what do people do? They are having to turn to the remortgaging of their homes and, yes, the withdrawal of tens of thousands of dollars from their superannuation. One story in the most recent reporting quoted an individual who had to withdraw $50,000 to afford the restorative dental care post their victory over cancer.

Situations like this are why Jonathan Clark, who is the head of neck and head cancer at the Chris O'Brien Lifehouse hospital, was driven to give a quote to the ABC about this situation. He was asked what he thought about people being confronted with these unthinkable choices and unthinkable decisions—whether to live your life in pain and in physical shame or to go to so deeply into debt. His response was that it made him feel 'ashamed' to work in a health system that thinks that's an acceptable choice for people to have to make. I share that sense of shame with Chris.

We as a legislature should never have let our community arrive at 2025 with gaps like that still remaining in the system. It's just not okay. I'm really pleased that, last week, the government supported the second reading amendment that I moved in relation to the commissioning of a study into what it would mean to bring head and neck cancer restorative treatments fully into Medicare. That's a great first start.

We have to take the passion, the historical knowledge and the care and commitment that so many have displayed in the course of this debate in relation to superannuation, a scheme which is close to the hearts of many people in here and, I would say, every single one of our electors—we have to take that energy and direct it towards a clear-eyed assessment of what is currently happening in our community, which is a mass transfer of retirement savings from super accounts, where those savings were intended to stay and to accrue interest so that people could have a nest egg. That money is flowing out and into this gaping hole in our public healthcare system. It's a gaping hole that will only be filled when we finally take the step of bringing dental care fully into Medicare.

That's what we must do to solve this problem. I know it can't happen overnight. I know it is a significant reform. But let's start somewhere. Let's start by bringing head and neck cancer rehabilitative treatment into Medicare so that nobody ever again has to raid their super to be able to afford a prosthetic that allows them to smile, or a surgery or treatment that gives their teeth enamel and allows their mouth to function, because the radiation that saved their life also fried their salivary glands. Let's end that for people. While we're at it, let's introduce a seniors dental benefit scheme for those older Australians who are doing it tough, so that they can get some basic dental care. Let's take those first three steps towards that world where dental care is covered by Medicare. Among the many benefits that that will bring will be that so much more will remain in people's superannuation accounts, where it was intended to be in the first place. Let's do that. Let's provide full coverage and provision of superannuation for those under the age of 18, as suggested by my colleague from South Australia, and let us make sure that all disabled people in Australia are paid a full wage, regardless of their disability. I commend this legislation to the Senate.

I thank other senators for their contributions to the bill and I commend the bill to the Senate.

The question before the Senate is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.

Bills read a second time.

I believe amendments have been circulated in my name and Senator Barbara Pocock's name. In respect of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Bill 2025, I move:

(1) Schedule 1, item 11, page 7 (after line 28), insert:

(3A) The regulations must not (despite subsection (3)) prescribe any of the following:

(a) if the regulations are made for the purposes of subparagraph (3)(b)(i)—a part-time employee who is under 18;

(b) if the regulations are made for the purposes of subparagraph (3)(b)(ii)—work done by a part-time employee who is under 18;

(c) if the regulations are made for the purposes of subparagraph (3)(b)(iii)—earnings or remuneration of, or payments to, a part-time employee who is under 18.

Before we put that amendment to the vote—and, of course, other senators may wish to make contributions—I want to ask Senator Gallagher, if I might, whether she could provide advice to the Senate on why the provisions in the exposure draft of this legislation that related to regulating advertising of superannuation funds during employee onboarding were not reflected in the version of the bill that we currently have.

To assist the chamber, the second reading amendment that has just passed, moved by the Australian Greens, did relate to the regulation of advertising of superannuation funds during employee onboarding. I was very pleased that it passed with no dissent. I acknowledge and thank colleagues both in the opposition and the government for their concurrence with that motion. I think it's important that there is legislation introduced to regulate advertising of superannuation funds during employee onboarding and that that legislation be introduced in time to commence by 1 July next year.

Minister, can you explain why the government made the decision not to include those provisions in this bill? Was it a matter of needing more time to consult or to address the detail of those provisions? Our understanding from the consultation process on the exposure draft of this legislation is that most if not all stakeholders did support those decisions. If you're able to provide the Senate with any update or explanation, that would be appreciated.

Yes, I can. As you pointed out, we just supported the second reading amendment. It is a commitment of the Labor government to do these reforms. Stapling and ad ban reforms will support the payday super reforms. However, they are important in their own regard as separate policies. These reforms are no longer part of this package, as you point out, and the government is intending to introduce the relevant legislation in a separate package in time for the payday super reforms to be enacted on 1 July. We're in the hands of the parliament, but they will be introduced with enough time for them to be in place by 1 July.

I thank the minister for that response. I'm very pleased that that remains the government's timetable. I think given we're going to move into the adjournment imminently—

We've got four minutes. Let's make every moment count.

I'm happy to move them, but I expect that there will be divisions. I'm not sure we can get you're bill through today, but these are the processes of the Senate. I'm very happy to move them. Although, I see Senator Scarr on his feet, and I'm very happy to cede the call. (Quorum formed.)

Progress reported.

I'll add a bit of excitement this evening, because quite frankly this week is an exciting week. It's exciting because we are riding high in the state of Victoria with the Spring Racing Carnival running from August to November, hitting its full stride at the moment. While I can't be at Flemington for the Melbourne Cup, being here at the Senate and celebrating the industry and its people feels like the next best thing. I must say, dress for the occasion too. For any lover of horseracing—as Senator Chisholm will no doubt attest—the Melbourne Cup carnival, headlined by the race that stops a nation, captures the spirit, splendour and passion of Victoria.

But it's not all about the horses, the jockeys, the trainers, the fast finishes and the fashion; it's about the people, the communities and the enormous work that brings the carnival and the wider industry to life every single year. Victoria's thoroughbred racing industry delivers a remarkable $3.8 billion in economic benefit each year, with $1.8 billion flowing directly into regional areas. Last year's Melbourne Cup carnival delivered a record $502 million economic benefit to Victoria—that's 81c of every dollar spent—while contributing over $1 billion nationally. Across the four days, the carnival drew more than 285,000 visitors—with 45 per cent of general-admission ticket holders aged under 35—and 20,000 of the 285,000 were from overseas. These figures highlight that the carnival is a powerful economic engine for Victoria and our nation.

More broadly the Victorian racing industry supports 25,000 full-time-equivalent jobs and involves over 65,000 racehorse owners, many in regional parts. Across the state, 67 racetracks host more than 530 racing meetings each year, with over 75 per cent taking place in regional and country areas. Events like the 26 country cup meetings see small towns like Dunkeld swell from 600 to 10,000 people on cup day. These race days form the beating heart of many regional towns across Victoria, driving local businesses and tourism. Nationally, thoroughbred racing generates $9.5 billion a year, supports 75,000 full-time jobs and involves more than 140,000 racehorse owners. The carnival also highlights the sport's international prestige, attracting horses from the USA, England, Ireland, France, Germany, Japan and New Zealand. This year, Parchment Party becomes the first US trained horse to run in the Melbourne Cup.

Equally important is the significant work being done in equine welfare. Since the introduction of 41 new safety measures back in 2021, the Melbourne Cup has recorded no significant injuries, setting a global benchmark for equine welfare and safety. Since 2017, Racing Victoria's prizemoney contribution, now at two per cent, has enabled an investment of $44 million in welfare programs. Through its 2023-27 equine welfare strategic plan, Racing Victoria addresses seven focus areas, including physical and behavioural welfare, traceability and life after racing. Since 2021, we've had 4,200 welfare checks that have been conducted, 670 subsidised scans have been provided through the so-called 'Medicare for horses' diagnostic imaging program, 2,300 thoroughbreds have been retrained and rehomed, and 15,000 retired racehorses now compete in the off-the-track events. These programs reflect Victoria's leadership in horse care and integrity.

This is a whole-of-industry effort with trainers, owners, breeders, vets and Racing Victoria all working together to ensure every horse receives the care and protection it deserves. That is why I am proud to celebrate this vital industry—one that sustains jobs, connect communities, drives economic growth and showcases Victoria and the nation to the world. The Spring Racing Carnival isn't just a celebration of competition and tradition; it's a celebration of the people, places and horses that embody Victoria's spirit, excellence, care and community pride. As the Melbourne Cup carnival thunders down the home straight, I can only say this: if parliament had a photo finish, I reckon we all know which chamber would be first past the post.

I rise this evening to acknowledge the Australia-Japan Society of Western Australia and to place on record my appreciation for the exceptional work it does to strengthen the relationship between Western Australia and Japan. For more than six decades, the Japan society has served as a bridge, connecting communities, fostering understanding and celebrating the shared values that underpin one of our state's most important international partnerships. Through its language programs, cultural festivals, educational exchanges and community outreach, the society has helped generations of Western Australians gain a deeper appreciation of Japanese culture, history and values. These efforts do not merely enrich our social fabric; they sustain the trust and mutual understanding upon which modern diplomacy depends. The Japan society's work gives these links meaning. Whether through its support for Japanese language education, hosting cultural events or building partnerships with schools and universities, it ensures that our friendship with Japan is lived and experienced, not just spoken about.

The friendship between Western Australia and Japan is one founded on trust, respect and decades of cooperation. A defining moment came in 1966, when the first trial shipment of iron ore from Rio Tinto's Mount Tom Price mine left Dampier on the Houn Maru bound for Yawata Iron and Steel in Kitakyushu. That single act was the beginning of a partnership that not only transformed our economy and helped fuel Japan's remarkable post-war recovery but changed the face of Western Australia forever. Nearly 60 years later, the partnership endures—broader, deeper and more ambitious than ever.

Japan remains one of Western Australia's largest and most valued trading partners. Our state supplies the iron ore, LNG and, increasingly, the critical minerals that power Japan's industry and energy needs. In return, Japanese investment has built much of the backbone of our modern economy—our ports, railways and resource projects. It is a partnership of mutual benefit. But the true strength of this relationship lies beyond trade. It lies in the human stories—in the teachers and students learning each other's languages and in the artist, engineers and entrepreneurs.

Through initiatives like those of the Japan society, Western Australians and Japanese alike experience firsthand the value of understanding curiosity and respect. Our sister-city relationships, from Perth and Kagoshima to Belmont and Adachi, are living examples of this cooperation in action. They show that international friendship begins at a local level, where people share culture, knowledge and opportunity. As we both look to the future, our shared values of democracy, innovation and mutual respect will guide us through new challenges. Through the people-to-people links sustained by organisations like the Japan society, the next generation will inherit a partnership strengthened by understanding and friendship.

The Australia-Japan Society of Western Australia continues to remind us that diplomacy is not only the work of governments; it is the work of communities. It is found in classrooms, cultural centres and family friendships that span the Indian and Pacific oceans. To all who contribute to this mission, I extend my gratitude. Your work ensures that the friendship between Western Australia and Japan, forged in trust and respect, will continue to flourish for generations to come.

I just want to reflect that when I go down to my local corner store and asked the shopkeeper what's on her mind, I don't hear strident commentary about the National Party's latest stance on net zero or even idle speculation about who's moving where in the coalition ranks. That's the last thing on the minds of ordinary Australians. They've got better things to do. What I hear are the stories of everyday Australians—the stories that make up the fabric of this nation.

My shopkeeper tells me that her little girl has been unwell, had a fever and was up late at night. There was a trip to the urgent care clinic, a course of antibiotics and the worry that comes with that. She tells me she was late dropping off her daughter to child care this morning after the little sleep that she had, and that's the same child care that's finally affordable for her now because of Labor's reforms. So my shopkeeper is able to keep her job without having to make the choice to stay at home because she simply couldn't afford unsustainable child care. These are real and pressing concerns.

Australians experience government in their real life. They are far less interested in headlines and slogans than would be perhaps presented in the image of this place. Australians understand that they need real and practical assistance in ways that the government touches their lives to enhance their lives. That's why the open warfare we see on the other side of politics is so unedifying—the sniping, the friendly fire. It's not just embarrassing. It's revealing. It shows us a grouping, known as the LNP coalition, that was never serious about serving the people in recent times. It's a party mired in ego and personal gratification. Australians saw that. They saw it coming, and they clearly voted accordingly on 3 May.

In the Liberal and National parties, we see a group of people, not really a party. That would indicate some connection. But the LNP now is a cobbled-together cacophony of discordant voices—no harmony, all dissonance. It's a disaster for the old LNP of Menzies and Howard. It's a shaking shadow of its former self, and it matters. It matters for our democracy. For democracy to be healthy an alternative government has to be credible. It has to be ready. It has to be serious about meeting the moment, the many moments of need and desire of the Australian people, who is should be serving. Business and community leaders alike look to an alternative government to gauge the country's direction. Australians want stability. Australians want certainty, but what they're seeing from the coalition is absolute chaos.

Take climate policy. The fact is the climate is changing and so is the world around us. Investments made by past Labor governments are now paying dividends with renewables being the cheapest form of energy and coal now being the most expensive. Yet the National Party has abandoned the facts, dragging the coalition into climate denial and forcing businesses to factor that denial into their decision-making. It's a disaster for the nation. The chaos and craziness of it is almost unbelievable. While Labor ministers are lifting the ceiling, the coalition is busily lowering the floor. It's not new. We saw it in the last term of parliament—negativity and division dressed up as policy. When global inflation hit and the Australian people needed help, Labor stepped up with cost-of-living relief, energy rebates, cheaper child care and fairer tax cuts for every worker. What did the coalition do? They just said no—no to help for families, no to cheaper medicines, no to support for small business and no to tax cuts—because for them opposition is an identity not a responsibility. Australians deserve better than that. They deserve a government that governs, one that listens and works, and they deserve a far better opposition.

I was delighted on Sunday to attend the Oakleigh Glendi in Melbourne with the opposition leader the Hon. Sussan Ley MP and our wonderful Greek Australian community. Held over two days the festival attracted an extraordinary 40,000 attendees. I pay tribute to all of the organisers, sponsors and volunteers. I'd like to pay special tribute to Oakleigh Grammar, who were integral to the event; to Father Stavros Kakavas, parish priest and school chaplain; to Chris Damatopoulos, the board chair and the driving force behind making the Oakleigh Glendi such a successful and important event; and to all the other board members.

I'd also like to pay tribute to the wonderful principal, Mark Robertson. People spoke so highly of the principal and how important he's been to the success of Oakleigh Grammar. He said on the day that he was a very proud principal, and he should be a very proud principal. He should be proud of the flag-bearers from Oakleigh Grammar, proud of the wonderful band from Oakleigh Grammar and proud of the choir, who did an amazing job, from Oakleigh Grammar. It is just an outstanding school community. Well done to everyone involved with the festival.

It should be noted that the festival was held in part to commemorate 28 October, which is Ohi Day, a very important day for our Greek Australian community. On 28 October 1940, Greece courageously responded to a demand from the Italian fascist Benito Mussolini to invade Greece and to occupy strategic parts of Greece. Greece said no and Greece heroically resisted over quite a number of months. Indeed, it was only the intervention of Nazi Germany that led to Greece's fall. It should also be remembered and noted that there were approximately 17,000 Australians who fought shoulder to shoulder with their Greek brothers in the name of freedom and democracy in Greece. That is a bond which can never, ever be broken.

A very disturbing report was released over the weekend by Digital Finance Analytics that showed 43.2 per cent of mortgage holders in my home state of Queensland suffering from mortgage stress. What does that mean? I want to quote to you from the data scientist and analyst Martin North from the Digital Finance Analytics organisation. He painted a chilling picture of the consequence of that mortgage stress. According to an article:

"(Mortgage) stress shows households have cash flow pressure, so they cut back on spending, and hunker down, leading to lower economic activity. If this continues some people may eventually default on their mortgage, but this process takes a long time, and banks try to 'extend and pretend' by extending loan terms or offering interest only," he explained.

"(It also means) more people (are) working more jobs, more social pressure …

In the list of suburbs across Australia, it was quite extraordinary to see in Queensland two of the top four suburbs for mortgage stress in my home state of Queensland are in the region where my office is located in the greater Ipswich region. Pine Mountain is, in fact, ranked No. 2 in Queensland for mortgage stress and 11 in the whole of Australia. The mortgage stress level is rated at 90.9 per cent. In Ipswich, the mortgage stress level is rated at 70 .9 per cent. It's ranked No. 4 in Queensland and No. 22 across the whole of Australia. In Pine Mountain and Ipswich there are so many Queenslanders doing it tough at the moment under mortgage stress. In that context, we should know that inflation surged to 3.2 per cent on an annualised basis last week, well above expectations and outside the RBA's target range of two to three per cent. As Digital Finance Analytics said, even a 50 basis point cut to interest rates wouldn't ease the pressure on those households under mortgage stress.

My thoughts are with the people of Ipswich at this point in time suffering mortgage stress.

Senate adjourned at 20:18