If there are no objections, the meetings are authorised.

I thank the chamber, and I won't take up too much time up this morning. I want to table a letter that I have written to you, President, in relation to order for production No. 10 that was passed last week explaining the government's position about why I have not been able to provide that document and also offering a briefing to the Finance and Public Administration Committee on the report in camera. I've provided that to all leaders, and I seek leave to move a motion in relation to that.

Leave granted.

I move:

That—

(a) the Senate resolves that the order for the production of a document relating to the review of public sector board appointments processes has been satisfactorily complied with; and

(b) the order agreed to on 29 October 2025 relating to arrangements for question time no longer apply.

I want to speak very briefly to this. I acknowledge the Senate's interest in this and the important role that orders for the production of documents play in terms of a power of the Senate, and I really appreciate the discussions that I've been able to have around the chamber, in particular with the opposition and the Greens, around ways to comply whilst that document remains an active document before cabinet. In fact, cabinet is considering it presently. I am hopeful that this offer of a briefing finds that interim step until we are in a position to release that document once cabinet has finished considering it. In the letter, I have said that will be before the end of this year. I move this motion, and I seek the Senate's support for it.

I move:

At the end of the motion add:

(c) if order for the production of documents no. 10 has not been fully complied with by 31 December 2025:

(i) the order of the call for question time be as follows:

(ii) the Senate requires the Minister for the Public Service to attend the Senate at the start of proceedings each sitting day to provide an explanation of the failure to comply with the order, and that:

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

(B) any such motion may be debated for no longer than 60 minutes and shall have precedence over all other business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each.

It was circulated electronically. Parties may not yet have it, so I'll just speak to it briefly. Our amendment to the motion outlines that if the order for the production of documents hasn't been complied with by the end of this year, 31 December, question time will revert to the order and number of questions as was stipulated in the motion that the government is seeking to overturn—15 questions per day with questions 11 to 15 being for non-government senators only. There's an additional element to the motion which requires the Minister for the Public Service to attend the Senate at the start of proceedings each sitting day to provide an explanation of the failure to comply with the order and that any senator may move to take note of the explanation. Any such motion may be debated for no longer than 60 minutes. It will have precedence over all other business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for no more than five minutes each.

While we appreciate the government's attempt to comply with an order they should have complied with some time ago, we want to put in place this measure to ensure that this transparency which we are now being told we will be provided—there will be a briefing to the committee, and I accept that. But we want that document tabled. In order to ensure that it is provided—as the government has promised it will be—and in the spirit of seeking transparency and making sure this government actually honours the promises it made not just at the last election but at the one before that, the opposition will be putting in place this amendment.

We hope the crossbench will support this, and, indeed, if the government is true to its word and will table this document by the date that they have specified, it will support this amendment as well.

On this motion put forward by the government today, I actually think this is a very good discussion that we're having here this morning, because it really is focusing the Senate's mind on how we use the powers of this place, which are incredibly important to ensure transparency and accountability of government.

We're in this position because we have asked numerous times for this document. We've also asked numerous times for other documents, and there is a growing view—not just across this chamber but outside this chamber in the community—that this government is not being upfront nor as transparent as they promised to be. I think that's a problem for the government, and I urge ministers, whether they're in this place or the other, to think hard about how they want to reflect the values that they promised the Australian people at the election.

Our job in the Senate is to hold the government to account, to scrutinise legislation, to scrutinise regulation and to ask the tough and difficult questions so that the public can have certainty that the government is doing what it promised to do. It's also part of our job in this scrutiny role to try and improve the processes not just in the parliament but within the government. Is there legislation that needs to be amended to be made better? Are there government processes that need to be fixed because they're failing to deliver for the community? Is there more need for transparency in areas because the government isn't responding the way they should?

Of course, this isn't just about being on the other side of the government; this is actually about trying to deliver better outcomes for the community and for people. That's actually why these powers that we have in the Senate, which are extremely important, exist. It is up to us, and it is our responsibility to make sure that we can get better outcomes for people, get better outcomes from government decisions and ensure that communities are getting not just the information but the services that they deserve.

We know that the community has been increasingly worried. They were worried under the previous Morrison government, and 'jobs for mates' was an issue. There's a reason why this report was commissioned in the first place. It's because there has been a problem. There is a view that 'jobs for mates' is an issue within successive governments. That's the whole point of this report. I commend Minister Gallagher for commissioning the report in the first place. It's an important piece of work, but that is why we have insisted that it be released.

I want to acknowledge that this is a step forward. We've had quite a bit of argy-bargy in this place—some serious, some not so serious, sadly—over the last week as to how we can force the government to comply with orders of the Senate. I want to acknowledge that this is an important step forward and a way of acknowledging the powers that the Senate has—the importance of our role as a chamber that scrutinises and that can hold government to account. I also acknowledge that we referred the matter of OPDs and transparency to the Senate Standing Committee on Procedure last week. We've had one meeting so far, and I think, so far, it's good. I think there is a general sense across the parties that how we manage OPDs—orders for production of documents—and how we manage and use transparency levers in this place more effectively are good. But that work is not complete.

I put it to both sides—the opposition and the government. I understand that this motion will pass today because the two of you have agreed. The parties of government have agreed—reverted back to the parties of government. But I put it to you that this broader issue of transparency is not going to go away unless we reset how the government responds to orders for production of documents, how this chamber manages that serious power and how we go through the steps of requiring transparency at various stages. I urge the government to do more to ensure that, when we ask for information on behalf of our constituents, the government give it and are willing to be transparent with their own constituents and with their own communities and work with us across all sides to do that.

I understand that the Labor Party and the coalition have agreed that this is a reasonable step forward. We think it's too weak. We would prefer the document to be released as requested, but, of course, it's going to go through because the parties of government, the two big parties, have decided to sort it out. After a spat over the last week, they've decided to work it out. They're hugging it out. Look over there; they're hugging it out over there! I think, however, that the role of the crossbench in this debate over the last week has been a good one, because, for too long and so often, the major parties think that they only have to share information amongst themselves and that if the Liberal and National parties—or do I just say the Liberal Party these days? If the coalition and the Labor Party come to an agreement, it doesn't really matter what the crossbench thinks. Well, we are showing you more and more and more that we will insert ourselves in these discussions, because our constituents deserve it. They expect it, and we will use the powers we have.

I acknowledge the coalition's amendment to the government's motion this morning, and I move:

"Omit 31 December 2025", substitute "24 November 2025".

This is so there are some parliamentary scrutiny and consequences for noncompliance. It's also so that the report isn't dropped out on Christmas Eve, buried as governments are known to do—put out the trash when Australians are busy doing other things. There's a growing number of people concerned about what is promised by major parties in opposition and what is delivered in government. Transparency is one of those issues that cuts to the core of it. Today's motion is a concern, given the Senate has very rightly rejected the government's claim of cabinet in confidence and, I believe, has done that in line with Odgers'. I think it would be worth reading from Odgers' Australian Senate practice.

Odgers' on page 665 says:

There has been a tendency for governments to claim that anything with a connection to cabinet is confidential. A claim that a document is a cabinet document should not be accepted; as has been made clear in relation to such claims in court proceedings, it has to be established that disclosure of the document would reveal cabinet deliberations. The claim cannot be made simply because a document has the word "cabinet" in or on it.

I simply don't see how a document that was prepared with the intention for public release—when Minister Gallagher said that the government would release it, there were no caveats. There was no 'subject to cabinet discussions' or 'subject to whatever else there was'. No; this is something that is clearly in the public interest and will be released. Now we're being led to believe that releasing this document would somehow reveal what's happening in cabinet. It seems totally implausible, and I think the Senate should continue to reject this claim and force the government to release this document.

During the Morrison government, Minister Gallagher chaired the select committee on COVID-19. Looking at the report recently, I saw that the committee during its time was continually stonewalled by claims from the former government of cabinet confidentiality, so much so that the committee dedicated a whole chapter of their report to this issue. I think it would be useful to actually quote from that report as well. It says, with regard to claims of cabinet confidentiality:

… such claims must be accompanied by sufficient detail to enable the committee to determine the specific merits of each claim on a case-by-case basis. Each claim must establish that disclosing the particular information requested would reveal Cabinet deliberations and cause harm to the public interest. It is not adequate to refuse to provide information merely on the basis that the information has a connection to Cabinet …

Minister Cash's claims make broad, general statements that it is 'longstanding practice' not to provide information relating to Cabinet and that Cabinet's deliberations should be 'conducted in secrecy'. Minister Cash's claims also rely on a general statement that disclosure is not in the public interest as it may impair the government's ability to obtain confidential information and make related decisions.

To cut a long story short, the committee chaired by Minister Gallagher urged the Senate to reject claims of cabinet confidentiality being advanced by the then government on the basis that (1) they were vague in nature, (2) they did not provide enough detail to determine whether cabinet deliberations would be revealed and (3) they did not provide information to determine the harm that would be caused if the documents were released. We are confronted with the exact same circumstances today.

I'll quote Minister McAllister, at the time Senator McAllister, on 25 August 2020 on the Morrison government:

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

You have to see the frustration of crossbenchers who are sent to this place to represent our state or territory and ask questions and we don't get answers—when we have OPDs supported by the entire Senate and we get nothing out of the government. It surely can't be a surprise when the crossbench tries to escalate things and say: 'We're actually the Senate, the house of review to hold the government to account. Let's actually do that.' That's what we heard from Labor when they were in opposition. Now we see compliance rates on OPDs at an almost all-time low. We see insane redactions when you're seeking advice—redactions of talking points for a public event. How is that something that we should allow to continue? I thank the Senate on this for actually drawing a line in the sand and saying: 'No; we voted for this OPD. We voted for the compliance and attendance motion. We've gone through every step of what we should do in this chamber, and now we've added consequences. It is disappointing to have a motion that potentially lets the government off the hook from actually doing what's in line with the standing orders of this chamber. I find it very hard to support this motion. As I said, I'm moving an amendment to the opposition's motion to bring forward that date. I think this report does require scrutiny and I remind the chamber that it seems the only reason why this report was commissioned was that the member for Mackellar in the other place, Dr Sophie Scamps, gave the government a heads up she was introducing a bill on the Monday to end jobs for mates. On the Sunday, out comes Labor with their independent review, totally gazumping the member for Mackellar's introduction of her bill. It's hard not to be a little bit cynical when you have that sort of timeline and then two years pass where the government is sitting on a report. In the meantime, as I've said in this chamber before, there are all sorts of former Labor politicians copping some pretty sweet gigs. They may very well have had the experience and expertise for those jobs, but how are we to know? After two years, you've got to get suspicious. I will be supporting the amendment, but I will not be supporting the government's motion this morning.

It's pleasing that the government eventually came to the table and agreed that it will release the report that is the subject of the motion that is before this chamber at the moment. But what we would say, in terms of the motion that's been put forward by the government, is that we will be seeking to vote separately on part (a) and part (b), because we do not believe that the government has satisfactorily complied with the order of the Senate. They have given notice of an intention to comply with the order of the Senate, but it is yet to be done. The opposition will not be in a position to be able to support part (a). However, we will be in a position to be able to support part (b), relating to the arrangements that currently are in place for question time to be revoked. However, our amendment to this motion provides the contingency that says that, if the government fails to actually comply when they have promised to do so, we will put in place the existing arrangements as they are currently in the Senate at the moment but will increase those arrangements such that the Minister for the Public Service is required to attend the chamber and give an explanation every day as to not only why they haven't complied with the original order but why they have breached the conditions or the commitment that they've given to this chamber this morning.

Whilst it is very late in the piece, I want to commend the chamber and particularly commend Senator Pocock for bringing forward this motion and working constructively with the non-government parties and members in this chamber to show to the government that you cannot be contemptuous of this place. To that end, I want to absolutely put the government on notice that, whilst this particular issue has a process with which it can be resolved that's been put on the table today and that the opposition will support, this doesn't say that the will of the chamber cannot be expressed at every other time that this government seeks to be contemptuous of this place and not provide the information that has been asked for by this chamber. We will continue to work with the other non-government members and parties in this place to make sure that we are holding the government to account and that they cannot abuse the power that they have because they are in government, because they do not have the numbers in this place when all non-government party members choose to ask the government to do something.

Can I also make sure we are very clear in relation to the amendment that has been put forward by the opposition to the motion moved by the minister, and that is that part (b), which requires the minister to attend the chamber for one hour until such time as the motion is complied with, subject to government not complying with its commitment, will take effect from next year—all sitting days next year. Part (b) of our motion applies only to that.

To Senator Pocock's amendment: the letter that's been provided by the minister says that they will release the document by 31 December, by the end of the year. We would certainly encourage the government, in responding to the concerns that have been put forward by Senator Pocock, to release the document as soon as possible. I note your letter only says by the end of the year; it doesn't say it won't be released earlier, and we would certainly encourage the government to release it earlier given that the document has been in the hands of the government now for 2½ years. The minister herself did give the commitment that she would release it, which she has now given again today. To that end, just to be clear, we will be seeking to vote separately on part (a) and part (b) of this motion today.

I just have a brief contribution to make on the motion and the amendments before the chamber. Last week, we had an unprecedented moment in the Senate where all non-government senators chose to hold executive power to account. The juvenile response by the government in response to the order of the Senate in question time last week and in their tactics again yesterday showed that they were in no mood to actually respect the decision of the Senate. So I welcome a resolution to the request of the Senate for this document to be released, for the government to keep its word but, more importantly, to comply with an order of the Australian Senate. For all the shouting outside of parliament about the lack of transparency and the lack of trust in our institutions, it is actually beholden on all of us here to sometimes put our own political purposes and benefits aside and act in the national interest, and this chamber was purposefully set up under our Constitution to hold executive power to account. Serious and significant powers are vested in what we do here in order to hold governments of all persuasions to account on behalf of the Australian people. What we were able to do last week was start a process by which that can happen.

I recall, as I was listening to Senator Hanson-Young's contribution and the sideswipe at the major parties—insert Greens outrage—

You're not a major party anymore!

Senator Hanson-Young!

Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate your protection there from the sidelines. There was a motion before the Senate to bring Alan Joyce before a Senate committee, and the Greens voted against it over and over again. That also was in the national interest. I think it's just useful to remind people who are listening to this debate that actions and consistency of actions speak louder than words. What we've all been beneficiaries of today is this chamber behaving as our constitutional authors sought and a resolution being found that will be in the interests of the Australian people and transparency. The Nationals will obviously be supporting the opposition's amendments.

The question is the amendment, as moved by Senator David Pocock, to the opposition's amendment be agreed to.

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

Question agreed to.

Senator Ruston has indicated that the opposition wishes to separate parts (a) and (b) of the government's amended motion. The question is that amended part (a) of the motion moved by Minister Gallagher be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

So we don't lose time on a division, can we just have it recorded that the government supported subsection (a).

Question agreed to.

Now we will put the rest of the motion as amended. The question is that part (b) of Minister Gallagher's motion, as amended, be agreed to.

I rise to speak on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) Bill 2025, something I speak of with enormous pride because this bill goes to the heart of fairness, equity and recognition of the sacrifices that are made within Australian families. It represents a genuine step forward to ensuring that every single Australian can look forward to a dignified and secure retirement, especially women. This bill amends the superannuation legislation to give spouses the opportunity to split their collective superannuation balances evenly between them. The partner with the higher superannuation balance will be able to roll over an amount from their fund to their spouse's superannuation fund to make the two funds more even.

Financial security in retirement should reflect a lifetime of shared contributions, not just paid employment. This bill is a proactive measure designed specifically to tackle one of the most persistent and unfair challenges in our superannuation system, the gender super gap. While estimates vary, women retire with significantly lower superannuation balances than men, somewhere between 20 to 25 per cent lower. Why is this? It's rarely a result of personal choice; rather it stems from deep-seated structural realities in our society and in our superannuation system.

According to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, one-third of the gender super gap can be attributed to time spent caring for family and interruptions to full-time employment. Women are far more likely to take time out of the paid workforce to care for children or for elderly parents and to shoulder the responsibilities of unpaid work that keeps families and our economy running. When one partner, typically the mother, takes time away from work to raise children, her superannuation savings often halt for years, even decades, while her partner's continue to grow. This is the motherhood penalty in action, leaving women financially vulnerable in their later years. The Prime Minister himself has acknowledged that no mother should be penalised for taking time away from work to do the most important job there is.

Let's be honest. These decisions, these sacrifices, benefit both partners in a relationship. They're not individual choices; they're family choices. So why should the financial security that comes at the end of a working life reflect only one person's income rather than the partnership that made that life possible? This bill creates a simple, entirely voluntary mechanism for fairness that makes it possible for couples to split their balances evenly between them. The person with the larger can add to the super fund balance of their spouse using money that's already in their superannuation rather than through making additional contributions from outside of super. That way, they can both retire on an equal footing.

It's important to understand that this bill is specifically about splitting balances; it's not about superannuation contributions. This is an important distinction to make because that mechanism is one that already exists to make contributions on behalf of a spouse. However, the take-up of this mechanism is incredibly low. Only about 1.1 per cent of Australians used it in 2021-22. Why is that? It's because it's clunky, it's complex, and eligibility is very limited. There is a complete lack of awareness, and, critically, there is no real incentive for most people to use it.

This is about splitting balances, using a rollover from one fund to another, and it's a genuine structural change to our superannuation system that directly tackles the gender super gap, which is one of the systemic structural failures of our superannuation system. And it uses existing mechanisms to do this. Already in Australia, equitable splitting of superannuation is considered during divorce proceedings, so the rails are there. In the old days, this used to require a court order, but that's no longer the case. There are now standard forms and recognised tax treatments of a rollover amount from one partner's super account to the other's at the end of a relationship. So why not allow it to occur during a relationship? Why not make this proactive, voluntary planning an accessible part of the whole superannuation system from the very outset, allowing couples to make these decisions for themselves when it suits the couple to do so?

Let me be clear. This does not force a couple to do anything. It simply gives families an option to share what they've built together, in recognition of the unpaid labour, broken work patterns and professional sacrifices that so often fall to women. The tackling the gender super gap bill explicitly recognises the economic partnership that's at the heart of families. It empowers couples to plan for their retirement together, collectively, allowing for a more even distribution of superannuation during the accumulation phase.

To maintain integrity in the superannuation system, this bill includes guardrails and limitations on how the mechanism can be used. First—and this is very important—the amount transferred from one spouse to another spouse is not considered a contribution. Rather it's treated as a rollover; it's considered to be rolled over. This distinction is particularly important because it ensures that the amount transferred between spouses does not attract or avoid any additional taxes. Second, the amount that's rolled over from one spouse to another retains its original characteristics. Specifically, it retains the fund's proportion of concessional versus non-concessional components. This is an important guardrail because it means that, when someone dies, the amount that has been transferred doesn't have additional tax benefits to beneficiaries.

Third, the ability to roll over an amount from one spouse to another is only available to those transferring from or to a defined contribution scheme. It's not available to those that are in a defined benefit scheme; that is far too complicated and restrictive. Four, the ability to roll over from one spouse to another is only available to those couples that have one superannuation fund each. Five, again, both of those funds must be in an accumulation phase. Why this is an important integrity measure is that there may be unintended consequences in the calculation of how much can be rolled over from one account to another for persons that have multiple funds. These are the guardrails around this bill that will ensure its integrity.

Six, the amount that can be rolled over from one spouse to another is limited, and it's limited in two ways. Firstly, the amount that's rolled over from the original fund cannot leave the original fund with a lower balance than the receiving fund. It's all about evening up your balances; it's not about using this opportunity to roll everything from one account into another. Secondly, the amount that's rolled over cannot cause the receiving fund to have a higher balance than the transfer balance cap. The transfer balance cap is currently at $2 million, but it's an indexed amount. We don't want to attract additional taxes by having this mechanism in place.

For example—and I'm using very big balances as an example, but obviously this is something available to anybody, no matter what their balance is—if person A had, as I say, a big balance of $5.5 million in their superannuation fund and person B had half a million dollars in their superannuation fund, that means that person A can roll over up to $1.5 million into person B's account. That brings person B's account up to that transfer balance cap of $2 million for the current financial year. Alternatively, if person A has $2 million in their superannuation account and person B has half a million dollars, $500,000, in their account, person A can roll over up to $750,000 to person B, and that brings both balances up to $1.25 million. This limits the amount that can be rolled over from one spouse to another, and they are ceilings, but they're not floors.

Spouses might choose, for whatever reason, to roll over an amount that is lower than that spousal redistribution limit. If it is within the rules, a couple has the opportunity to make their balances even, but it's entirely up to the couple how much they want to transfer between them. For instance, a couple could choose to do a one-off, single lump sum rollover or, alternatively, take the opportunity to utilise the mechanism each year to make a spousal redistribution rollover of smaller amounts, or they could choose to not do it at all. While the examples, as I said, are very large, they are certainly not limited to people who have low balances, because, let's face it, it might be a very attractive mechanism to those couples for whom equality and fairness is profoundly important.

It's all about choice. It's about allowing couples to manage their collective retirement savings to reflect their collective choices throughout their lives. The benefits of this reform are clear and far reaching. It's about more than just superannuation; it's about closing that gender super gap. Even though the gender pay gap on average weekly earnings has come down from around 18.5 per cent in 2014 to around 11.5 per cent now, the gender retirement gap remains stubbornly wide. Tax office data shows the difference between the average super balances of men and women over every age category was 26 per cent in 2014. In March of this year, the Minister for Women, Katy Gallagher, reported that women still have 21.3 per cent less superannuation than men.

When you unpack the tax office data further, the gap is even worse for older women—those women who are approaching retirement and who haven't had the benefit of part-time work or flexible working options or child care as part of their working life. This contributes to the alarming fact that women over the age of 55 are the fastest growing group experiencing homelessness in Australia, and members from both sides of this place have rightly observed that the relationship between lower retirement savings and homelessness in women is direct and clear. While the difference between men and women's super balances is lower for women in their 20s and 30s, between the ages of 40 and 64 that gap is much more pronounced, averaging between 23 and 24 per cent. It's hardly changed over a decade.

These are the structural inequities within our society reflected in our retirement outcomes. Let me be clear. The goal here is not to penalise men or privilege women. It's about acknowledging the value of care giving and ensuring those who take on those vital responsibilities are not financially disadvantaged in their retirement. A more equitable superannuation system benefits not only women but also families, communities and the economy as a whole. This is good for wives, good for husbands and good for families.

The gender super gap isn't going to close itself. It's not going to happen on its own unless we do something about it. It requires deliberate and equitable policy interventions, like the ones set out in this bill. The changes to superannuation that have been proposed and that are contemplated by those opposite are only about how the government can get their hands on more super—how they can tax your super more. Those sorts of changes do nothing to support the integrity of the system; they only risk the integrity of the system.

If Labor really wanted to do something for super, they should be looking at how to make the system fairer. They will tell you that they put superannuation on paid parental leave, but that's such a narrowcast policy. It only deals with women who are having children today. It does nothing for the women who have had children and are still of working age and within the superannuation system but are suffering from the gender pay gap. And let's be honest, it doesn't even touch the sides, yet it costs the budget around $2 billion.

This doesn't cost anything like that—nothing like that. This is all about couples using their own money, not taxpayer money, to make these decisions. It's a well-acknowledged fact that more work is needed to equalise super balances between men and women. There's a very intelligent woman named Rebecca Pritchard, who's a senior financial adviser with an organisation called Rising Tide. She has quite a high media profile in the financial advice industry. She said that more changes were needed. She said:

A lot can be done on the gender side of things. The gender superannuation gap is still—

she used the word 'hideous'.

This bill, the tackling the gender super gap bill, is an opportunity for our parliament to come together to genuinely improve the retirement outcomes for all Australians and help tackle the gender super gap—that intractable problem. Let's not accept a system that punishes women for caring for children. Let's not allow inequality in retirement to be inevitable. We can change it, so why not change it now? I urge this parliament to support this bill for a fairer, more dignified retirement for every single Australian but particularly for Australian women. I commend this bill to the Senate.

Whilst I agree with many of Senator Hume's comments this morning on the drivers of the gender pay gap and the need to tackle this 'intractable' or 'hideous' problem in our community, this bill, the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) Bill 2025, is not the answer. Tackling economic inequity is core business for this government, and of course closing the gender pay gap is part of this because women must have economic security to enable them to retire with dignity.

But the Albanese government is doing much, much more to address the gender pay gap than simply putting superannuation on paid parental leave, as was identified by Senator Hume. Whilst the Albanese government are legislating to pay super on paid parental leave, we are also legislating to expand the low-income superannuation tax offset, which will benefit 3.1 million people, and 60 per cent of those are women. That is why we are legislating to oblige employers to pay super on payday instead of six months later. The government introduced the legislation to deliver on payday super, which will particularly benefit women, who are overrepresented in lower paid, casual and insecure work and are likely to miss out when super is paid less frequently.

There have also been improvements in other key drivers of the gender superannuation gap. The gender super pay gap, which Senator Hume pointed out, has reduced from 22.8 per cent in 2021-22 to 21.1 per cent in 2023-24. Improving the gender super pay gap provides better outcomes for women both in their working life and in retirement. The Labor government is working at every point across a woman's life to make sure she is earning more and keeping more of what she earns across her lifetime. We want women to earn more and retire with more—because your retirement savings are a reflection of your lifetime's earnings.

We are investing in increased wages in our critical aged-care and early childhood sectors, where women predominate. We have consistently supported increases to the minimum wage, where women predominate. We are delivering tax breaks for every taxpayer, and this is working. Under Labor, women are earning $255.10 more a year on average now than when Labor came to power. That is addressing the gender pay gap, which is addressing the gender pay gap in superannuation. The gender pay gap is 11.5 per cent, the lowest on record, compared to 14.1 per cent when we came to government, and women's workforce participation is at an all-time high.

The Liberal Party has form on attacking super, so let's not be hoodwinked by this legislation. Their answer to many things is to raid your super, and one of their election policies was to attack super on paid parental leave—to support that contribution being cashed out instead of being preserved for retirement. That is why the Albanese government will not be supporting this bill. We are taking many, many actions to address the super pay gap because we are addressing issues to close gender inequity at its core. If we are serious about closing the gender pay gap, then that is what we need to focus on, and that is what we are focused on. All of this is part of our comprehensive plan to tackle gender inequality across a woman's lifetime.

This bill might nominally put a few more dollars in the pockets of a handful of women, but it would do nothing to change the factors that drive the gender inequity at the heart of the issue. The bill is nothing more than locking the stable door when the horse has well and truly bolted. It proposes allowing a person to top up their spouse's super balance in the name of fairness. Senator Hume used an example of a couple where person A has a $5.5 million balance in their fund and person B has $500,000. I think we can reasonably assume that person A is a man and person B is a woman, given that the title of this bill is 'tackling the gender super pay gap'. The bill would allow person A to gift the modest sum of $1.5 million from their fund to their spouse's fund. I've got one thing to say about that. A man is not a financial plan. Allowing a man to gift or to roll over $1.5 million to his wife right before retirement doesn't erase the fact that he earned a whopping $5 million more than she did in superannuation over the course of their careers. It means that, after spending her entire working life reliant on a husband, she will spend her retirement relying on him too.

Loosening the rules governing spouse rollovers and spouse contributions would provide the most benefit to a very small group of high-wealth and high-income individuals. It would allow these individuals access to more superannuation tax concessions, which would increase existing inequities in the income system in retirement. It would not benefit single people, including single older women, who are often the most disadvantaged and at risk of poverty in retirement. Allowing couples the scope to roll over existing super savings from the super fund with the higher balance to the fund with the lower balance to optimise tax treatment would also be a significant departure from the existing longstanding superannuation and tax system settings, which are generally based on an individual unit rather than a couple.

We know that the super gap happens in part because women more often take time away from work to raise children. This bill does not provide a solution to the motherhood penalty. It accepts it. It reinforces the idea that women's economic security is reliant on the goodwill of their husbands. I'll say it again: a man is not a financial plan. It feels positively archaic. It treats women like they're Charlotte Lucas in the 2005 adaptation of Pride and Prejudiceaged 27 with no money and no prospects, already a burden on their family and tired. Well, I'm tired. I'm tired of the sorts of approaches that those opposite have to superannuation, to women and to tackling gender inequality.

Giving men with super balances of $5.5 million the power to gift their wives a lump sum doesn't close the super gap. Our focus needs to be on accumulating and preserving the savings of workers today, as they are earned. The fact that we are talking about super balances of $5.5 million also sets off alarm bells in my head because these are not the people most impacted by the super gap. Most people don't get close to these amounts. In 2022-23 only 103,000 people had a super balance of $2 million or more. That is not the vast majority of women in our country. This bill might even the score between a small number of couples, but it would also allow them to partake in financial planning which also allows them to minimise their tax bill. A bill that makes it easier for wealthy couples to optimise their tax arrangements and game preservation rules just sounds like another way for the rich to get richer.

A bill that empowers the generationally wealthy cannot seriously be discussed as one that reduces gendered economic inequality. It would do nothing to benefit the older single women who are at the highest risk of poverty in retirement. That is why the government does not support this bill—because it is more about giving the wealthy a leg-up than it is about striking gender inequity at its roots and because we know that a man is never, ever a financial plan.

I rise to speak to the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) Bill 2025. On the surface, this bill sounds great. Tackling the gender super gap—okay, sign me right up. As Senator Hume said, we need action to deal with the structural gender inequality in our super system—a hideous gap, as the senator put it. But, of course, as with everything in the coalition, the devil is in the detail. This is a classic Liberal Party approach to financial equality in that it will do nothing for single women, nothing for single parents and nothing for women in low- or even medium-income households struggling to save for their retirement. What it will do is allow already very wealthy Australians to funnel even more of their wealth into their super.

The superannuation system was designed to provide a dignified retirement, not a tax haven. In effect, this is a policy that will allow a wealthy man to avoid paying tax in retirement by pre-emptively shifting part of his super balance into his spouse's account to avoid the transfer balance cap of $1.9 million.

The Greens want to restore super to its original purpose of providing a dignified retirement for all Australians. This bill won't do that. Tax minimisation for men does not equal economic opportunity for women. This is such a shameless attempt by the Liberals to present a tax minimisation strategy for wealthy couples as a way for women to get ahead. The super gap is a genuine issue for women. At its worst, for people aged 55 to 59, the retirement savings gap is a shocking 48 per cent. Just as people hit retirement, the gender super gap is at its worst.

This bill does nothing to address the structural issues that cause women's retirement savings to be so much lower than men's. Women do the vast majority of unpaid care work—child care, housework and looking after ageing relatives—which has lasting impacts on their capacity to do paid work. They're also more likely than men to work part time and to work in industries and jobs where they earn less than men. Current super tax settings magnify these differences in lifetime savings.

When they were last in government, the Liberals created carry forward contributions, deceivingly presented as an achievement for women's economic security. That policy change allowed people to retrospectively top up their super over the previous five years, ostensibly to make up for the time women spent out of the workforce, but the data shows it is high-income men that this policy is benefitting the most.

There is one technical detail that shows that there has been some consideration for women in the drafting of this bill in that the women receiving any transfer would have to consent to it. This at least addresses concerns about financial control through unsolicited gift-giving, which is sometimes an avenue through which domestic violence and coercive control is perpetrated.

I understand the sentiment, and I support the bringing forward of ideas to assist women's retirement savings. This bill, however, is not the solution. If a relationship breaks down, then, under law, mothers are rightfully entitled to their share of their partner's superannuation. This bill could actually complicate those calculations, when couples split. This bill doesn't constructively add to either of these two scenarios; it just adds opportunities for tax minimisation.

If Senator Hume and the Liberals want to address the structural issues of the retirement savings gender gap, then they should advocate with the Greens for part-time and low-income earners to receive the same tax benefit on super contributions as higher income earners. Take the LISTO, for example. The government's recently announced changes purport to benefit low-income earners by ensuring the tax they pay on super is not higher than their income tax. But it doesn't address the longstanding regressive features of our super system that mean that someone on $200,000 can reduce their income tax by spending more of their pay into their super, giving them a 30 per cent benefit for every dollar, while someone below $45,000 and eligible for LISTO gets no tax benefit at all. This is all wrong and it's a structural problem we need to fix.

The punitive interaction of income tax, childcare and family support settings means that women with kids in early childhood education and care who want to return to the workforce face an effective marginal tax rate of 80 per cent. Meanwhile, someone selling an investment property in their self-managed super fund enjoys an effective tax rate of just 10 per cent. The system is set up to fail women and uphold and reinforce the gender pay gap and the gender super gap.

I'd like to acknowledge that Senator Hume did have carriage of the bill to remove the $450-a-month rule that punished low-income women's retirement savings, so I know she's previously worked to reduce the structural issues causing the ongoing gender super gap. But there's plenty more to do, and this bill does not address the many issues that we need to in order to deal with the structural inequalities that drive the gender super gap. There's so much that can and needs to be done to fix the gender disparity in both income and super tax so women aren't retiring into poverty. The Greens are ready and willing to tackle this issue and genuinely close the gender gap in wages and super, but both the Liberal and Labor parties need to get serious about it.

I'm going to start by addressing some of the remarks made by Labor and the Greens which are really quite extraordinary, and there were some that I personally found quite offensive, that a man is not a financial plan. Nowhere in this bill, the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) Bill 2025, does it have any kind of connotation that a man is a financial plan, and unless Labor and the Greens have some kind of magic solution that is going to mean women like me—I've had three children, which have necessitated me having to take time off work to have those children. Unless Labor and the Greens can solve that issue for women, why shouldn't a family—a man and wife, a wife and wife—decide that, for the care of children, they will actually share their super contributions and make that decision on an annual basis? What it tells me about Labor and the Greens is that they don't value the unpaid work that happens in child care and child raising that happens within the family—that they don't value that and they don't respect that. Rather than coming up with actual issues with the structure of this bill, all they are doing is throwing out very crazy, reckless ideas that somehow women are dependent on men asking for this.

I can tell you that in my family situation, even though I was the one who had time off work, my super balance is actually higher than my husband's, because he's self-employed. I was very lucky to have a high super. Why couldn't I do it the other way and share with him? Why are Labor and the Greens assuming that this only goes one way when it comes to super? Of course my situation is probably not what most Australians experience, but there would certainly be a lot of people in that situation. What this bill is trying to do—and I congratulate my colleague Jane Hume for introducing this bill to the parliament, because we all know that women aged over 55 are the largest growing group experiencing homelessness in Australia. That is largely because they have less super. When there is a marriage breakup or a relationship breakdown, it is women who are financially significantly behind. A lot of them might have taken time off work to raise children. It might be that they're now empty nesters and have spent that time doing the care work around the house. It's difficult to find employment. You might not have a very large super balance. These women are now disproportionately showing up in our statistics for homelessness. This bill is trying to address that.

Rather than finding frivolous reasons why to not do something—because you want to do something and fix everyone's problems—why don't we tackle this one particular problem, which I think this bill actually does, making the superannuation system fairer for women and enabling families to make a choice of what they would like to do with their money? What we hear from Labor and the Greens is that they hate Australians having choice. They don't want you to be able to decide what you can do with your money. They want to tell you what will happen, and—let's be honest—superannuation accounts are just a piggybank for Labor. When they run out of money, they will absolutely come after yours. They will come after Australians' superannuation balances, so the idea that we're actually going to start making the superannuation system fairer for women, in particular, scares them a little bit. Labor's solution to this problem—and they've given us a long list of things that they say they're going to do—is that, just by addressing the pay gap, it will magically fix super. Once again, I would say that unless there is a solution whereby women don't have to take time off work for childbirth—and, I can tell you, after having three natural deliveries, I was very grateful to have some time off work, and it certainly exceeded what my sick leave allocation would have been—addressing the gender pay gap is not sufficient. That is not a sufficient measure to address what is happening in the reality of superannuation in this country.

Labor don't value family, they're not valuing the unpaid work contribution that Australians make within their own family situation, and they don't value Australians having that personal responsibility and that personal choice to do it. I will say that the example of the, I think, $5.5 million, was just to demonstrate the guardrails that are in place for the bill. That's not saying that Australians have that super balance and that it is a normal balance; it's just to demonstrate that there are guardrails that have been put into this bill to show that you can't just transfer whole balances over from one partner to the other. I think it is a little disingenuous to say that it's a disturbing number and that a man is not a financial plan.

After the care that women across our country put into raising children and having children, why shouldn't they be able to split superannuation? Couples might split the electricity bill; they might split the mortgage payments. You're able to split superannuation and, legislatively, you're required to aggregate superannuation at the time that a relationship or a marriage dissolves. Why can't you choose to do that when you're happily together? Why does it have to be only on the dissolution of a relationship that there is some equity that's put into the superannuation system? What this bill does is create a way for one partner to say to the other, 'I'm valuing what you're doing, staying at home, raising and caring for children, and we can split the super so that it's fair.' One partner can say to the other, 'I accept,' and it is usually the woman—or the mother—who stays at home to raise the children. The other partner says: 'That's great. I'm valuing what you're doing by staying home and not being in the workplace. I accept that you may not be getting paid for that work.'

There are a lot of reasons why Labor have said they don't support the bill. What I haven't seen is a good reason not to. This is really about giving individuals the opportunity to decide what works best for them and their families. I think the coalition has a fantastic record on superannuation. Unlike Labor over there, who use it as a piggy bank—it's run for their union mates—the coalition, in the time we were in government, made superannuation far fairer, more efficient and more transparent. We capped fees on low balances; we banned fees on rollovers and investment switches; we made expensive insurance premiums opt-in, rather than opt-out, for young people; and we abolished the $450 rule. On this side of the chamber, we in the coalition certainly have a very, very strong record when it comes to making our super system in Australia fair. This isn't also necessarily for older people. Younger people can choose to opt in to this scheme as well. The coalition has the Your Future, Your Super reforms. That ensures that workers' funds follow them from job to job so that young workers don't have to join a new super fund every time they change employers. It is like Labor to say that they invented superannuation, but it took a coalition government to make superannuation work for members instead of the unions and super fund managers. Tackling the gender super gap is the next step to ensuring that superannuation in Australia is more flexible and fair, particularly for women, and making sure that your hard-earned dollars in your superannuation accounts are working for you and your family and not for Labor and Labor's mates.

I also rise to speak in support of Senator Hume and the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) Bill 2025. This bill amends existing legislation, including the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to provide couples with the opportunity to evenly share their superannuation balances.

I fully support this bill, and I commend my colleague, Senator Hume, on bringing it to the floor of this chamber. The reason is this: it sends a message to the Australian people that families are best placed to make financial decisions that best suit their own households. This bill does this by creating a simple mechanism to allow couples to split their collective superannuation balances evenly during their relationship on an ongoing annual basis. It gives spouses the option—it gives them the choice—to split their collective superannuation balances evenly on and ongoing annual basis. To ensure equity between couples, the bill contains a spousal redistribution limit to ensure that the transferring spouse does not end up with less money in their fund than the receiving spouse after the rollover.

Why are we doing this today? There are very few things that I agree on with those on the other side, but on these points I can agree. Let me share a little quote from Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on 12 September 2024. He was speaking to the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024. He said:

No mother should be penalised for taking time away from work to do the most important job there is.

I wholeheartedly agree with that; being a mother is the most important job a mother can do.

Katy Gallagher, on 20 March 2024, in response to questions without notice said:

It's part of the fact that, throughout their careers, paid and as family carers—primarily carers in families—they have either had career breaks or been out of the workforce for long periods of time, and during that time when they've not been earning, when they've been caring, they have not been accumulating superannuation.

Let's turn to Senator Jess Walsh. On 18 September 2024 , also in response to the paid parental leave amendment bill, she said that the inequality and the gender superannuation gap are linked to two major factors: the gender pay gap and the career interruptions that are caused when people, predominantly women, take time out of work to raise children. So here we are with this important bill, trying to address these issues.

The important part of the bill, to ensure a spousal redistribution limit, levels the playing field for families where one parent has taken time out from the workforce to raise children. As I said, this is one of the most important jobs a parent will ever do. We in the coalition respect that. It's also a mechanism that prevents spouses from unfairly taking too much of their partner's savings. This is an equalisation measure. To ensure that the amount transferred from one spouse to another does not attract or avoid any additional taxes, it's treated not as a contribution but as an amount rolled over. This is fair. This bill assures couples that they will face neither penalty nor financial disincentive to transfer money from one account to the other. Again, this tax provision signals to parents that they should not be penalised for making choices about who goes to work and who stays home to raise children—because we are the party for families.

It's important to stress this bill only gives couples the option to share their superannuation balances. It does not force them to do so. The bill is not about dictating how couples are to manage their superannuation funds, because we are also the party for choice. Importantly this bill does not prescribe how much superannuation money a couple can transfer to each other. Aside from the rule on the spousal redistribution limit, which limits rollovers to equalisation, the transferring spouse can transfer as much or as little as they like. The bill reinforces the liberal principle of choice, by giving the couples the freedom to share the savings of their respective superannuation accounts with as little impediment or financial disincentive as possible.

This bill recognises the importance of family. It makes it easier for spouses to manage their superannuation finances at all stages of their relationship. It ensures any parent can be financially rewarded for the unpaid domestic work that they do for their family. Given that women typically shoulder the domestic responsibilities of caring for children or elderly parents, they are more likely to take time out of the paid workforce. As a result, they generally accrue less superannuation than men over their working lives. While estimates vary, women retire with significantly lower superannuation balances than men—between 20 to 25 per cent lower. The gap is worse for older women approaching retirement, and this bill aims to address that. Over nearly a decade of recorded data, these gaps have hardly closed, despite progress on many other fronts, including average weekly earnings.

I would like to acknowledge, alongside my colleague Senator Blyth, the alarming fact that women over 55 are the fastest growing group experiencing homelessness in Australia. I call on the Albanese government to ensure that all homes released under the Housing Australia Future Fund go first to vulnerable women and children. If anything good is going to come from the HAFF, surely this should be it. I did ask in Senate estimates, just a few weeks ago, whether this would be the case, but we got no answers on that.

Back to Senator Hume's bill, facilitating the sharing of superannuation balances between spouses ensures that more parents can retire on an equal financial footing, giving choice back to families. The coalition has a proud history of contributing to better design of the superannuation system, starting with the significant contributions of the late senator John Watson in the early 1990s to ensure that the impending superannuation scheme worked for all Australians not just the unions.

Amongst other things, our superannuation reforms in government ensured that the workers' funds followed them from job to job without incurring more fees to the worker. This is what we're trying to do within the family and within the household, recognising that the household is the best place to make financial decisions that work for them, and they should not be penalised in doing so, which is why one of the qualifiers in this particular bill is to ensure that any rollovers between spouses do not incur any additional taxes or fees. We also made superannuation funds performance more transparent by listing their fees and performance on the Australian Taxation Office website—again, promoting the choice of the worker.

I want to talk a little bit about Labor and what they do with superannuation. Labor likes to claim that they invented superannuation. If anybody had the privilege of listening to the condolence speeches on the late senator John Watson, just a few months ago, you would have heard about the very, very significant contributions that he and the coalition made to ensuring that superannuation, as I said before, worked for all Australians. The problem is that the superannuation system that Labor has taken a hold of has invented a system that has structurally disadvantaged women. When Labor tied superannuation to wages, lower super balances for women became a deliberate design feature of the super system, and so this is where we're at now, and we are trying to rectify that.

The government solution to attempting to close the superannuation gap is by paying super on paid parental leave. This comes at a cost of $1.1 billion over four years, and it's only going to slightly improve the gender super gap. So what we're trying to do here—and what Senator Hume is trying to do here with this private member's bill—is provide an equitable solution, an intervention that will address the gender super gap and something which addresses this structural disadvantage for women. But, importantly, it's a choice for households to take up if they choose to and if it works for them.

I highly commend this bill to the Senate. I think Senator Hume has done a terrific job on bringing the conversation back to families and households. The Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) Bill is the next step in ensuring that Australian superannuation is fairer and more flexible for parents and, particularly, for women. It will make sure that their hard earned savings and superannuation are working for them and their families. I believe that this bill quintessentially reflects the Liberal Party's values of personal choice and family. I am proud to support it, and I commend it to the house.

I rise to give strong support to this bill, the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) Bill 2025, and compliment my colleague Senator Jane Hume for bringing it forward. I support this bill because it treats husbands and wives as the teams that they should be. I definitely try and do things with my wife. I love her greatly, and it's the greatest thing in my life to be part of her team, and we do everything together. I'm away from her a lot in this place, unfortunately, but I try and do everything together with her, and it does seem strange to me that we can't manage our retirement funds together.

What this bill does is allow husbands and wives, spouses, to work together on their retirement plans and to share the financial benefits that one or the other is able to achieve. I think most married couples who are earning money are putting money towards superannuation so they can help each other when they ultimately reach that retirement age. So we need to do more in our laws to treat a family as one unit, as together, because the more that our laws recognise that fact, the more, we would hope, those teams—those families—can stay together, and that's a good thing. Not all marriages can stay together. It's a little sad when marriages don't stay together. So the more we can have our tax laws, our superannuation laws and our family benefits laws treat families as one unit, the better it will be for Australian families and the stronger our whole country will be. It's good for children as well.

It's a very simple change. This bill would simply allow a spouse, one partner, to transfer superannuation to the other partner, and it uses the existing provisions of the superannuation law to do that. At the moment, you can transfer money between superannuation accounts in your own name—you have been able to do that for some time—and this law simply piggybacks on that mechanism to say, 'If this other account is in your spouse's name, you're able to make that transfer.'

When Senator Hume first mentioned it to me, it was one of those ideas where I felt, 'Why didn't I think of that first?' It seems so logical and so simple. Why haven't we done this already? Given that that's been, I think, the common reaction from my colleagues since Jane briefed us on it a week or so ago, it seems like: 'Let's pick it up, guys. Let's do it.' I hope the government and other parties aren't too proud to say, 'Just because someone from a different political party has come up with this idea—why not just do it and get this done? As I said, it's very simple and will help families manage their own finances.

It is an important issue that many others have raised in this place, and I heard Senator Collins raise it earlier—that there is a gap between the superannuation balances that men typically have and the superannuation balances that women typically have. Obviously, there are some natural reasons for that. Women often have to leave the workforce to look after children. I don't really want to say 'have to'. It's actually a great blessing to have children; it's the greatest thing you can do in your life. For me, it's been the greatest joy. But it does come with a sacrifice. Having children requires sacrifice, and quite often it is the mother, particularly of young children, that is left to leave the workforce while they have significant duties of breastfeeding and looking after the child. It's hard to maintain full-time work while that's happening.

That's certainly what happened in my family. We've had five beautiful children. We're very lucky. We made the decision early that it would be good, it would be nice, if my wife could stay home and look after the children when they were young. As I said, it came as a sacrifice to my wife's career. I have great admiration for the sacrifices she's made for us to do that. Of course, it came with a financial sacrifice as well. It's quite the opportunity cost, but we're lucky enough to be able to bear that. The consequence of that, of course, has meant that, as I've maintained full-time work and my wife has not, our superannuation balances have diverged. There's nothing I can do about it. It seems very strange to me that we have joint bank accounts, joint mortgages, joint credit cards—everything is together—but, when we calculate what we've got with superannuation balances, they're in separate names. If this bill passes—I'll make this public commitment to my wife right now—she's getting half or whatever I can do. I'll make sure it's equal because I see no reason why she shouldn't—she definitely deserves it—have half of what I've been able to earn in paid employment. That would—at least for our own family and I think for many Australian families—automatically fix the gender gap for superannuation.

As I said, there have been many contributions in this chamber about this issue. It's an issue that there is this gap between men and women in their superannuation balances. It's been, to date, a hard one to fix—because we continue to speak about it. If it is an easy fix, why hasn't it—I mean, it's just been done. As I said, there are some natural reasons it occurs. Here is an opportunity to, with effectively one stroke of the pen, solve this problem for many families. Not everybody will be able to do it; not everybody may do it. It's obviously going to be voluntary, but it would make a big dent, I would say, in the superannuation gap between men and women. So, again, why don't we just do it and get on with it? To me it seems so simple.

I do support this simple change which would help achieve the beneficial outcomes of equalising wealth between men and women in this country, but I also think—at some point, given how good this idea is—we should look at why people can't have a joint superannuation account. As I said, this bill doesn't quite do that. I still think we should do this one because it's simple and easy and can make a difference straight away. I have mentioned to Senator Hume, as we've been talking about this, that it would also be great to have a joint account. Why not? I've a joint bank account. I get paid my salary into an account my wife has full access to, and I've had no problems with that. Why can't I have a joint superannuation account with my wife where she automatically has equal footing with me without having to transfer or anything like that. I know that would be a more complex change to the superannuation law than what's before us today. That would take some time to work out. I believe we have accounts in the accumulation phase; I think there might be something in the draw-down phase. So yes, we're doing more work on that. But, again, anything we can do to unite Australian families, to unite wives and husbands, is a good thing, because we should be encouraging families to stick together through good times and bad.

This bill raises the broader question here about how our tax law and family law treat families. We have a strange situation now that I've always found quite bizarre. When you go to calculate your family benefits after you have children—you calculate whether you get FTBA or FTBB or some other different benefits—you have to put forward your joint income. You are assessed on your joint income. There's no problem with that. I don't have a problem with that; that's how it works. But when you go and put your tax form in every year, you have to file individually. Your tax status is not assessed on a joint basis. This leads to quite perverse outcomes in our tax system right now.

I use the opportunity to put on the record again how inequitable our tax system is in treating families with the same household income extremely differently. Take an example of two families, both with a total household income of $150,000 a year, and both with two kids. They're in the same financial situation and same family situation, but in one of those families, let's call it Family A, just one spouse is in full-time work and earns $150,000, and in Family B they both work; one spouse earns $100,000 and the other earns $50,000 in a part-time job. The families still have the same total income, but let's compare the tax outcomes of those two families. In the case of Family A, the single-income family, the tax bill comes in—I'm using round numbers—at roughly $40,000 a year. In the case of Family B, they split their income and file individually, and because of how that interacts with our progressive tax system they pay just $30,000 a year in tax. So you've got two families earning the same amount, with the same number of kids, and there is a $10,000-a-year difference in tax. It's not a small amount; $10,000 is a good family holiday every year. It's almost half of a reasonably priced car. That should be smacking us in the face—this inequality that should be fixed. On top of that, the Family B case is probably also accessing the childcare system when the spouse in part-time work is at work, and there are extra subsidies there as well. They can sometimes be $7,000 or $8,000 a year on top of the $10,000-a-year tax difference.

From my first day in this place, I've remarked on how strange that seems to be. There have been some fledgling attempts to fix this. I do think this bill, as I say, helps push the case to treat families equally, but we should look at fixing other inequalities in the system as well. At a time when our childcare system is already under enormous strain, we are effectively encouraging—forcing, in some senses, with the way our housing system works right now—families to both work and use an institutional childcare system, that's clearly putting enormous strain on that system, and it has led to some horrific examples of abuse of our youngest, most vulnerable Australians. It seems to me that it would make more sense here to recognise and encourage the work of what people refer to as stay-at-home mums. It would be better to reflect their value to our society in our tax system, and to courage them to keep doing the great work they do and take the pressure off our institutional childcare system so we can maintain higher standards than we have today.

People call them stay-at-home mums, but I hate that term. Whenever I have had to stay at home and look after my children, I invariably end the week thinking, 'Jeez, I can't wait to get back to work; it's a lot easier.' So I like to call my wife a work-at-home mum because she has been working at home since before it was cool. It's very, very hard. It's the most important work of any person. I am very proud to be a senator for Queensland and represent my country, but it is nothing in comparison to the value and worth of my wife and her role as a mother or my role as a father. Those professions are so much more important.

Indeed, as CS Lewis said, the homemaker is the ultimate profession because every other job in our society is in the service of them. Everything we do is to support our homes. Everything we do is to support the people who ultimately make our homes a beautiful place, who raise our children and who make our society the great place it is. Everything we are doing here is ultimately aimed at protecting those homes and providing health services and education services to those people in those homes, helping them have a job and provide for themselves. As much as our defence forces do great work and make sacrifices, ultimately what are they there for? They're there to defend our homes. Their job is to defend the homes of Australians. So they are in service of our homemakers, too.

I would just love to see us more regularly recognise the great value of those people who work so hard at home doing what is sometimes denigrated: 'If you just stay at home, you're not really contributing and not really working.' But it's the most important work. Reading a story to your children at night is the most important thing you'll do in any day. Sometimes getting angry at them because they've done the wrong thing, lashing out and maybe disciplining them is still really important because you need to teach them that there are certain ways of acting and certain ways of doing things.

Providing love to our children is the most important thing any of us can do during any day. I strongly support this bill because it makes a small step in recognising the great value and service of those people who make our homes.

I rise to speak on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) Bill 2025, a bill that is seeking to ensure we secure the retirement of vulnerable women across Australia. This is a critical issue, particularly in my home state of Tasmania.

In Hobart, this winter Richard and Jan Gould bought a former student boarding house with their own savings. They didn't buy it for profit. They bought it to give older women, many with modest super and nowhere to go, a safe home. But to these women it was a small place of their own—10 rooms of dignity, provided out of compassion. That is Tasmania at its best, and it is also Tasmania sounding an alarm about the gender superannuation gap and the risk of homelessness among older women. Older Tasmanian women are the fastest-growing group at risk of homelessness, and the Gould's project is a local, urgent answer to a national structural problem in super balances.

Across the state you'll meet women who did what families needed. They worked part time, cared for parents and stepped back when children arrived, and their partner's super kept growing while theirs stalled. By their 50s, the gap isn't an abstraction. Nationally, women retire with about a quarter less super than men do. On average, Tasmanian women have $30,000 less in their superannuation account compared to men. That shortfall is a rent payment not made, a power bill deferred, a dream downsized. And it is the reason that the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) Bill 2025 is so important.

The bill that has been introduced by my colleague Senator Hume looks to solve the problem in an ingenious way. It doesn't raise taxes, it doesn't spend public money and it doesn't make the system unfair. It simply allows people to use the money in the system and get it to where it needs to go, closing the gender gap in superannuation. The bill does something simple and powerful. It allows spouses to even up their super balances by rolling over an amount from the higher-balance partner to the lower-balance partner during the relationship, deliberately and with clear guardrails. It recognises that families make shared choices and should be able to share retirement security. It creates a voluntary once-per-year opportunity for a spouse to transfer part of their accumulated super to their partner's fund, up to a limit that equalises balances but never breaches the transfer balance cap.

The rollover keeps its concessional and non-concessional proportions. It's treated as a rollover, rather than as a new contribution, for tax purposes, and it's not available to defined benefit schemes or to accounts already in the retirement phase. It is a structural fix to a structural inequity, and it mirrors what already happens at the end of many relationships, when super is routinely split, letting couples do fairness at the start and middle, not just the end. The mechanism uses existing super law architecture, adds integrity measures and gives families a tool they can actually find and use.

While the gender pay gap in Tasmania has narrowed in recent years under the Liberal government, there is more work to be done. The Tasmania government's 2024-25 Gender Budget Statement reported a five per cent gap in May 2024, down from 8.3 per cent in May 2021. That is a testament to Tasmanian employers and workers, but a narrower pay gap does not erase the super gap that accumulates over decades of part-time work and career pauses. In Tasmania, the data has long pointed to the compounding issues such as women having a greater share of part-time work and caring roles. These are choices that are sometimes made out of necessity, but that necessity should not dictate the financial security of these women. Instead, we should welcome solutions that are simple, voluntary, and targeted at the actual mechanics of the gap. That is exactly what this bill does.

Debate interrupted.

by leave—I move:

That today—

(a) the questions on the Australian Centre for Disease Control Bill 2025 and a related bill be put as follows:

(i) second reading, immediately, and

(ii) all remaining stages, at 11.45 am;

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

(c) divisions may take place between 12.15 pm and 2 pm until consideration of the bills has concluded.

The question is the motion as moved by Minister Chisholm be agreed to.

Pursuant to the order just agreed, the time allotted for the second reading of the bills has expired. I will deal with the second reading amendment previously moved by the Australian Greens. The question is that the Australian Greens amendment on sheet 3475 be agreed to.

Australian Greens' circulated amendment—

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

(a) notes that:

(i) non-communicable and chronic disease is among Australia's biggest public health challenges, contributing to nine in ten deaths and 6.4 million hospitalisations each year, and

(ii) public health experts have repeatedly called for the inclusion of non-communicable and chronic disease within the scope of the Australian Centre for Disease Control; and

(b) affirms that expanding the Australian Centre for Disease Control's remit to include non-communicable and chronic disease will improve national action on disease prevention and management; and

(c) calls on the Government to include non-communicable and chronic disease within the scope of the Australian Centre for Disease Control as soon as practicable".

The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

The question now is that these bills be now read a second time.

Senator Steele-John?

I'm seeking the call to move a couple of amendments

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Let me just check precisely what stage we're at, senators.

I seek leave to move amendments on sheet—

Hang on! Senator Steele-John was seeking the call. The temporary chair then said he was seeking advice as to where we were up to. Sorry—

I just sought the call.

Jordon was seeking the call.

Jordon doesn't need advice. I'm—

Jordon sought the call to move the Greens amendments. That is what Jordan was doing before you jumped to move yours.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Hold on, let's do this through the chair.

Through you, Temporary Chair—Senator Hanson-Young, my understanding was that we were going through the procedural activities that the chair was going through before we moved to the moving of amendments. I thought Senator Steele-John was actually—the temporary chair asked Senator Steele-John whether that was what he was doing. He said he was seeking to move amendments. I was obviously waiting for the place in the program where amendments were to be moved. I'm more than happy, as I always am, to make sure everybody in the chamber gets the opportunity to ask their questions. But I was intending to stand as the first person to stand, because I was waiting for the time in the program that it was appropriate to do that.

Well, I'm sorry. That was a term—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Ruston, one moment. Let me manage this situation.

Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—

That was offensive!

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Let's bring the temperature down, senators. At this point, I did recognise Senator Steele-John first. I appreciate the point you're making, Senator Ruston. I appreciate this may not be ideal, but I am going to give the call to Senator Steele-John first on this occasion, and then I will come to you.

by leave—I move:

SHEET 3439

(1) Clause 11, page 17 (after line 3), after paragraph 11(j), insert:

(ja) promoting research in relation to public health matters, including by:

(i) developing and maintaining close relationships with key public health research entities; and

(ii) providing advice to research funding entities on research priorities for public health matters;

(jb) promoting public health workforce expertise;

(2) Clause 12, page 17 (line 13), omit "to (j)", substitute "to (jb)".

_____

SHEET 3440

(1) Page 63 (after line 21), after clause 77, insert:

77A Annual pandemic preparedness and climate reporting

The annual report prepared by the Director-General and given to the Minister under section 46 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 for a period must include an assessment of the following in relation to the period (including as compared to any previous such periods):

(a) Australia's pandemic preparedness;

(b) the impacts of climate change on health for Australians.

_____

SHEET 3441

(1) Clause 5, page 5 (after line 8), after the definition of Director-General, insert:

disability has the same meaning as in the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

(2) Clause 30, page 28 (after line 24), after subclause (3), insert:

(3A) The Minister must ensure that at least one appointed member is a person with a disability who has expertise, qualifications or experience in the health needs of people with disability.

_____

SHEET 3443

(1) Clause 11, page 16 (after line 23), after subparagraph (11)(h)(vii), insert:

(viia) bodies whose objects include the prevention and management of occupational exposures and injuries;

(viib) bodies whose objects include the prevention and control of infection;

(viic) bodies representing people with disability;

(viid) bodies whose objects include research into, and the management of, the health needs of people with disability;

These amendments, when taken together, substantially strengthen the Centre for Disease Control. They will ensure that climate change is mentioned specifically in the annual report as it relates to public health. They will ensure that there is consultation with community organisations in relation to policy setting. They will ensure that the centre has a clear direction in relation to the promotion of the health workforce and health research.

Critically, they will ensure that there is, now and forever, a permanent disabled representative on the advisory council—someone who is a disabled person and who has specific disability-health based knowledge. I think this will go a long way to demonstrating to the Australian disability community that we here in the Senate understand that the disability community bore the brunt of the pandemic. So many of us lost loved ones. So many of us were confined to our homes. So many of us still must isolate in order to safeguard our health.

I will share with the Senate, on a personal note, the fear that swept through our community in those early days and weeks of the pandemic. We would reach out to government and ask what the disability-specific response plan was for disabled people, and we were often met with silence or a 'we're working on that' or a 'we are bringing some people together to have a bit of a conversation', all the while people were beginning to become sick or were dying or being incubated. If we can learn one thing from this event it is that government must plan for these situations in a way which ensures there are urgent responses that reflect the diverse needs of the Australian community, because time is the precious substance in these situations. We should spend that time getting health care to people, not pulling together emergency working groups that we didn't know we needed because there was nobody in the room sharing a disabled perspective in relation to the plan as it was actually being made. With that said, as I said, I commend these amendments to the chamber, and I'm proud to do so this morning.

Just for the clarity of the chamber, I understand that the Senate has just given leave for the amendments on sheets 3443, 3441, 3440 and 3439 to be moved together. I simply wish to confirm that, because they're not listed in consecutive order on the grey, and I wanted to make sure we were all clear about where we were headed.

I will make a very brief remark about the bill overall, which is just to thank those members and senators who have engaged here and in the other place on the debate about the establishment of the Australian Centre for Disease Control. I think there has been genuine interest and genuine engagement in relation to the bill. There has been very constructive feedback and dialogue with the government, and I know that Minister Butler has appreciated the willingness of many members in this place and senators in this chamber to engage.

It is a very significant bill. It delivers on a promise that Labor made some time ago, and it will establish a new statutory agency to commence on 1 January 2026. The point here, as Senator Steele-John indicated in moving his amendments, is to strengthen our public health capability, improve pandemic preparedness and safeguard the health and wellbeing of all Australians, not just in times of crisis but every day.

The independent COVID-19 response inquiry found that we went into the pandemic with no playbook for the pandemic, we had limited readiness in the national medical stockpile, and we had badly stretched aged-care and healthcare systems. These were all structural challenges which made it difficult for Australia to respond, and that inquiry identified serious gaps in our national response, and the absence of a central authority to provide consistent advice, fragmented data systems and outdated emergency fund were amongst those. The message was very clear from that inquiry—we can't allow our public health systems to fall into neglect or short-term thinking.

The inquiry talked about the need to rebuild and maintain public trust in health advice—trust in the health advice that informs government when making decisions that can have a very significant impact on peoples' lives. The Australian CDC responds directly to this request. It will bring independence and transparency—the independence and transparency that the public expects—and it will make its advice to government and the reasons behind that advice available to the public. Establishing a permanent Australian CDC through this bill will deliver on our commitment to create an independent agency that can help protect Australia from diseases and public health threats.

The initial priorities for the CDC will focus on communicable diseases, pandemic preparedness and capabilities in environmental health and occupational respiratory diseases, with progressive expansion into areas such as chronic conditions considered following an independent review of the CDC's funding and operations in 2028. That review will assess the Australian CDC's effectiveness in delivering on its initial priorities and help inform a staged widening of its remit over time.

Our expectation is that the CDC will consult widely with public health experts, with clinicians, with academics and, importantly, noting the contributions from Senator Steele-John, with communities. It should engage closely with those with lived experience of health threats and response measures to inform its advice, and this inclusive approach should ensure that the CDC's advice is grounded in real-world impacts and is sensitive to social, cultural and economic factors that shape health outcomes in nuanced ways across our diverse society. No Australian should be left behind.

It will complement and not duplicate the work of existing government agencies, and it will enhance our capacity by providing high-quality, independent advice and improving access to timely, reliable data. It will support the Commonwealth and state and territory governments in planning for and responding to health emergencies. We expect the Australian CDC to work closely with states and territories and to tailor its engagement to meet the unique needs of each jurisdiction, ensuring that national coordination does not come at the expense of local relevance. It will be led by a director-general, directly accountable to the minister for health and accountable also—importantly for this chamber—to parliament. Supporting that director-general will be an advisory council made up of members with deep expertise in relevant fields, including public health, clinical practice, economics, health, human rights, data, emergency management and communications. At least one member must be an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person and must have expertise in the health needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, supporting our commitment to closing the gap.

Transparency is a cornerstone of the reform. One of the most powerful lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic is that Australians expect clarity in public health decision-making, and the CDC will be required to publish the advice it provides to governments. This will help rebuild public trust, counter misinformation and ensure that communities and businesses have the information that they need to act effectively during future crises. Data will be at the heart of the CDC's work. The COVID-19 inquiry highlighted a critical weakness in our pandemic response. Decisions were often made without sufficient evidence due to fragmented and inaccessible data, and this bill addresses that gap.

The CDC will lead the development of a modern approach to national public health data that enables faster detection of risks, more consistent responses across jurisdictions and stronger foundations for planning. It will use advanced data analytics to detect emerging threats and provide timely, independent advice. It will also streamline data sharing across the Commonwealth and with states and territories, supported by strong privacy safeguards. These data functions have been developed using a privacy-by-design approach, ensuring that transparency and individual rights are protected at every stage.

The bill is the result of more than three years of policy development and public consultation. It closes the governance and data gaps that undermined our pandemic response. It reflects the input of key stakeholders, and it establishes a CDC that is built to deliver real and lasting impact. To ensure that it remains effective and fit for purpose, the government will conduct a legislative review every five years. This will allow us to monitor its performance, adapt to new challenges and ensure that the legislation continues to support the CDC's mission, particularly in improving the availability and use of public health data. This bill establishes a permanent, evidence based institution, and it should ensure that we are better prepared, more united and more accountable in the face of future public health threats.

I want to turn briefly to the amendments proposed by Senator Steele-John that are before us. As Senator Steele-John indicated, a number of these go to ensuring that the particular challenges faced by the disability community will be observed and acknowledged in the work of the CDC. I thank the senator for his constructive engagement with the government. The government appreciates the way that you approached this debate. It is the case that we will now ensure that at least one member of the advisory council, should this amendment pass, be a person with disability who has expertise, qualifications or experience in the health needs of people with disability, amongst the other effects of this amendment. I thank you particularly, Senator, for this contribution.

The final thing I would say in the remaining time is that this is a long overdue reform. We hope that it honours the hard lessons of the past and builds a stronger, healthier future for all Australians.

Can you confirm that the requirements of the CDC to publish information only applies to documents that explicitly do not make a recommendation on a course of action?

The advice I have is that the CDC will provide advice to government with a recommendation, either for action or for no action, and that advice will be published.

Would the CDC be required to release information that provides analysis or advice on an action already taken by government or governments?

If the CDC provides advice to government that includes analysis that would support an action that has already been taken, it would be required to publish that advice.

I'm interested to understand what the need or rationale is to include amendments to the FOI Act that apply specifically only to the CDC. Why is the FOI Act, in its current form, insufficient to be able to cover any necessary provisions in relation to FOI? In relation to material causing social stigma and vilification to a group, is the term 'group' explicitly defined in the legislation? To that end, could a state or territory government—or other government entities or bodies—be considered a group for the purposes of this provision? If so, could this result in critical information being withheld from the public domain simply due to the objections from entities such as a state government?

In relation to your first question, the advice I have is that the CDC will hold, at times, sensitive information. That information is defined in the act. It's necessary to ensure that the FOI arrangements are responsive to the sensitivity of that information. It's described in the provisions of the bill. In relation to your question about states and territories, I will seek further advice to understand the effect of it.

Yet again, a guillotine stops debate immediately before I was scheduled to speak against this bill, and after pushing all three One Nation senators, who were going to speak, to the bottom of the list. One Nation opposed the guillotine. We want to know why the coalition and the Greens join with Labor in supporting big pharma.

Except Senator Canavan. Thank you, Senator Canavan. This is significant legislation, and I'll go so far as to say that it's the worst legislation I've seen in nine years in the Senate. It's dangerous. There are many, many amendments that need answers, and there are many speakers that missed out. There are many questions.

The first question I have for you is: why are you avoiding scrutiny? This is half a bill! The bill establishes what the CDC director can do. It does not, though, establish what the director cannot do. There's nothing in this legislation to establish rules around the following, so can you please clarify. What is the process for determining where the CDC will be located and what the site features should be—what protections for the community? What research will be conducted at the CDC, if any? Will that research include gain-of-function research, which was the cause of the COVID outbreak in 2019, which killed millions of people? Who will own the taxpayer funded CDC research? There are no answers to these questions. These are fundamental. What research will be conducted in cooperation with research facilities overseas, and what countries should be excluded on national security grounds? Start with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and exclude Anthony Fauci's haunts, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and America's National Institutes of Health, and Fauci's colleagues including Ralph Baric and Peter Daszak.

Will live animal testing be conducted, and, if so, on what animals and how? Will research be conducted on behalf of commercial corporations, and, if so, who owns the taxpayer funded research. What annual reporting will be produced to alert the parliament and the Australian people about the risks to which they're being exposed? If the CDC facility handles sensitive material, what level of containment will be used, and what will be the process for investigating and rectifying breaches? And what is the purpose of and limit to research? Is it just ego—'Look at what we can do!'—or is there a genuine medical outcome they're working towards?

We know the CSIRO at its Geelong facility is already conducting risky experiments on deadly viruses such as Ebola, and they're experimenting on animals. Those are my questions. Additionally, what's happening with taxpayer funds? We know the CSIRO monetises its research, or used to, and we know lately the CSIRO has been publishing the results of their research allowing corporations to piggyback off that research free of charge, saving them years in developing new drugs from which the Australian taxpayers will have no commercial benefit. The taxpayers pay and get no benefit. This is the state of medical research in Australia. What impact will the CDC have on the CSIRO? We don't know. The bill doesn't set out these matters. It's a glaring omission.

The minister says the Australian CDC will undertake technical and advisory functions based on its public health expertise and knowledge and access to relevant information. What expertise? It hasn't started yet. You're assuming bureaucrats and health officials actually have the expertise and knowledge to perform these studies, yet there's nothing in this bill to say they must have that knowledge—nothing. This is a pretence to give 'thank you' jobs to COVID era health officials who have a track record of very dangerous, dishonest and inhuman decisions. These bureaucrats will be given powers. The Chief Medical Officer, for example, must be a doctor, but the director of the CDC does not. What could possibly go wrong?

Continuing cover ups from the government and freedom of information—an issue which One Nation senator for Western Australia Senator Whitten has raised is the changes the bill makes to the Freedom of Information Act. The bill amends the Freedom of Information Act 1982 to exempt the CDC from freedom of information applications to which the same documents are currently open. I wonder if this is to cover up information from the COVID years or just to get ahead of the next lab leak.

Finally, I've already discussed sensitive biological agents with regard to Ebola. The CDC bill transfers responsibility for the Security Sensitive Biological Agents Regulatory Scheme from the department to the Australian CDC. This scheme regulates certain biological agents that are considered dangerous. Now, let's take a closer look at this one. Who would decide if a biological agent is sensitive and subject to extra checks? The CDC. Who would be most likely to be importing sensitive biological agents like Ebola and heaven knows what else? The CDC. Who would now be their own regulator? You guessed it, the CDC. This is a recipe for no accountability, a recipe for disaster, a recipe for rampant, unbridled control over the people.

Officially, this bill simply brings together powers spread across several departments into one place. If that's really the case, why does the bill have a price tag of $250 million for the first three years and $73 million per year after that? Shouldn't the cost of the CDC be offset through savings in other departments? If that's all they intend, then that would be true. Clearly the Australian CDC will be doing much, much more. You're given them the money to do it, and they'll be doing it away from prying eyes and protected with freedom-of-information blocks and negligible reporting criteria, regulating itself and sending the bill to the taxpayers. In nine years in the Senate, this is one of the worst bills I've dealt with. Minister, I've given you many questions. I'd like some answers.

I'll come back to the question asked by Senator Ruston in relation to the FOI arrangements and whether the exemptions proposed in the definitions in section 5 would extend to states and territories. The advice that I have is no. The exemptions simply indicate that, under the act, it would be an exempt document if there is a risk that publishing the document or material could cause physical harm or threats of harm, social stigma, bullying, vilification or other harm, other than commercial or economic harm, to an individual or group. A state or territory would not be considered an individual or group under that definition.

I've listened to the contribution made by Senator Roberts, which I think proceeds from a fundamental misunderstanding about the purpose of the Australian Centre for Disease Control. In particular, Senator, you seem to assume that medical or scientific research would be conducted by the centre and would be amongst the responsibilities of the director-general. Perhaps to reassure you, you may wish to turn to page 15 of the legislation, which sets out the functions of the director-general. I won't read out all of it because that would take too long, but I would indicate that, if you scan it, you will see that the function is to provide advice on public health matters to the minister at the request of the minister, provide advice to or consult with Commonwealth entities on public health matters, provide advice to or consult with state or territory governments on health matters, provide advice to or consult with international organisations, gather and analyse information relating to public health matters, provide advice or consult with a long list of bodies on public health matters, and develop, publish or promote standards or communications. That's the short version of the material that's set out in the published bill from page 15 onwards.

I think it is important when we have debates of this kind that we conduct them in an honest way. I spoke in my earlier contribution about the challenges of misinformation. All senators have a role to provide accurate information about the bills that are before this chamber. I don't think coming here and characterising this bill as a bill that relates to the conduct of scientific research by a new body is accurate, and I'd invite you to reflect on the bill that has actually been circulated and perhaps confine your remarks to the particular policy proposals that the government is bringing forward.

Minister, I'd like to talk about racism and the impacts on health. Racism is not just another social determinant of health; it is part of a system of power and oppression that inflicts real harm and takes lives. The Lancet journal declared racism a global public health emergency. It shapes who gets sick, who gets care and who survives. It is a toxin that creates disease and distress in the body, and it is a root cause of inequity that shortens lives, worsens disease and drives mental distress globally.

Research from the Mayi Kuwayu study led by Indigenous scholars was one of the first of its kind to quantify how racism harms the health of First Peoples. The study found that almost half of First Nations adults experience high psychological distress linked to everyday racism and that racism alone accounts for nearly half the mental health gap between First Peoples and non-Indigenous peoples. The Lancet commentary Rights-seeking, racism, and retribution shows that when First Peoples assert our rights, racism intensifies. We saw that during the Voice. We are seeing the same with treaty in Victoria, with the 13YARN crisis support line being swarmed due to increases in racism.

You have a number of Aboriginal members of your government, yet racism is not part of this bill. I know you've done a deal with the Greens already, but you've excluded racism, Minister. My people, and I am sure the Aboriginal members of your government's people want to know why racism has been excluded.

Senator Thorpe, thank you for bringing questions around race and the impacts of racism on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people into this debate. It is an issue I would acknowledge, and I know that my colleague Senator McCarthy would also acknowledge these concerns. I well recall the important role that Aboriginal controlled community health organisations and land councils played during the pandemic in describing the particular risks that presented for their communities and in supporting senators in this place to understand those and to help shape the way that we were thinking about what an appropriate pandemic response would look like.

The bill does provide many references to the responsibilities of the director-general to consider the public-health impacts that might arise for particular populations. In particular, as a legislated objective, the director-general must have regard to the impacts of risks to public health and the impacts of responses to risks to public health on particular communities and population groups. This objective will ensure that consideration is given to the impacts of public-health risks, the advice and approaches to combat the impacts on specific population groups and the health inequities that they face across all functions—

Why can't we name racism?

Order, Senator Thorpe.

Why can't we name racism?

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Order! Senator Thorpe, you do not have the call. The minister is on her feet, responding to your question. If you want to hear the answer, please remain silent. It is disorderly to be shouting out from the other end of the chamber to the minister while she is on her feet, and also disrespectful to me.

Why aren't you speaking up for it? Because you jumped ship. You're a joke.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Thorpe, come to order.

Senator, I'll just conclude by saying that the objective I read to you just now is intended to ensure that the CDC does consider—

You sound like a copper.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Thorpe!

issues relevant to specific—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Thorpe, if you keep interjecting, we cannot continue for the minister to give her answer. Please be respectful, as others have shown respect, so that they are able to answer the question that you have posed to the minister. If you keep interjecting, she's not going to be able to give her answer.

Senator, I simply wish to indicate that this objective is intended to ensure issues relevant to specific population groups, including issues such as racial discrimination, are considered.

I think it's concerning that we have limited debate like this on a bill that creates a new institution—an institution that I think is overdue, and I welcome the government bringing forward this legislation. But I simply do not see the need to constrain debate like this, to the point where the minister has to get up and give her second reading speech in Committee of the Whole, where we have 40 minutes, and chews up 10 minutes giving a speech which could have been done, had senators been allowed to speak on this. Regardless of what you may think—and I strongly disagree with many of the objections to this bill—people should be able to have their say and actually scrutinise things in Committee of the Whole. But here we are, coming up to time, and a whole bunch of senators haven't even been able to say what they think about this bill. The creation of a new institution does require scrutiny. We need to get this right and set it up for success. To guillotine this with almost no notice, with a bunch of people still on the second reading speakers list, I think, is very regrettable.

But I say just briefly, as a senator for the ACT, that it was great to see a commitment from the government to have the ACDC based in Canberra. This is something that I have been pushing for, since the government announced it in the last election campaign, because it makes good, practical sense. When thinking about the ACDC in Canberra, my team actually came up with a bit of a logo, which I'm happy to table if the government would like to use it. I think it's a pretty good start. It would probably save a thousand bucks maybe.

Senator Pocock, you need to seek leave.

I seek leave to table it.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Is leave granted? Leave is not granted.

I'm happy to email it through if that's of interest. It makes good practical sense because Canberra is where our Public Service is headquartered. In the event of an emergency, we want and need the ACDC to be positioned close to parliament, close to government, close to the Department of Health and close to our national security agencies. We saw just how critical coordination is through the pandemic. I really thank and welcome the government's commitment to Canberra.

The ACDC could also help Canberra recruit more desperately needed clinicians. Part of what makes Canberra an attractive destination for clinicians is that we can often offer those clinicians some diversity in their work. In Canberra we have clinicians working in our hospitals, in our general practice and in our pharmacies while they're also working in the Department of Health or the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Canberra offers opportunities for clinicians to practice in public health and in public policy whilst also seeing patients on the front line of our public services. For a jurisdiction with a very low proportion of GPs, as we have canvassed in this chamber, and a jurisdiction that lacks a number of specialties, the ACDC offers us an opportunity to draw a few more doctors, nurses and pharmacists to our growing city. That's why I fought as hard as I could to make sure that it was based in Canberra, here in the ACT.

I want to thank the AMA ACT, the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation ACT branch and the Pharmacy Guild ACT branch for backing that call and for recognising the difference a new public health agency could make to our local workforce. What we've heard around the traps is that it wasn't a sure thing. Melbourne put up some stiff competition for the ACDC, but, on this occasion, I think Canberra made a better case and the reasons were very clear for that decision. I again commend the government for bringing forward this legislation.

I think the COVID pandemic was clearly a wake-up call for the nation and reminded us that we aren't immune to pandemics. It is likely that we will have to confront more of these situations going forward, with scientists warning that climate change is expected to accelerate the emergence and reemergence of infectious diseases. The government's own national climate risk assessment shows that climate change will increase risks to our health more broadly, including by exacerbating noncommunicable diseases. In fact, we are already seeing that. During the Black Summer bushfires, we saw 445 excess deaths attributable to smoke exposure. Currently, 3,200 Australians die each year from respiratory disease related to air pollution. That is more people than die on our roads each year. Even more frightening, we know now that hotter days are linked with more suicides, higher rates of family and domestic violence and more mental health emergencies. According to child and adolescent psychiatrist Dr Cybele Dey, even mild heat has been shown to increase suicidal distress amongst young people. We've already locked in warming, and now we are going to need the dedicated expertise from the ACDC to provide advice on how to manage this from a public health perspective. So I'm very pleased to see that the ACDC will take a role in advising governments on the public health risk of climate change. This is essential work. This is critical work, and we need to ensure that they are well resourced to do this.

Like some of my colleagues here in the chamber, I also believe that the ACDC should consider all preventable health conditions. The greatest burden of disease in Australia is not from communicable diseases; it's in non-communicable diseases. If we hope for a healthier future, we want and we need the ACDC to be providing advice on how we can manage all types of disease from a public health perspective, because we know that, as a country, we're not doing enough when it comes to prevention. We have a ballooning health budget and all sorts of issues. We're very good at treating, but we need to be far better at prevention and actually setting Australians up to live a healthy, longer life—a real focus on health span.

One of the other things that I wanted to touch on quickly—I understand others are wanting to speak—is that we should include gambling. We have seen it reported in the news this week there has been a steady increase in problem gambling over the past year, which has coincided with the increase—

It now being 11.45, pursuant to the order agreed to this morning, the time allotted for the consideration of these bills has now expired.

I move:

That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent further consideration of all stages of the bill without limitation of time or for a specified period.

Senator Pocock, can I clarify whether it is without an allocated time allotted or for a specific amount of time?

Without limitation of time. I understand there are a few others who want to give short, five-minute statements.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you for providing that clarity that the motion is without time limitation. Do you wish to speak to the motion?

Yes, please. There are now 622,000 problem gamblers in Australia, and that's up 22 per cent from just 12 months ago. In just 12 months we've gone up 22 per cent. This is a huge issue in Australia. As the late Peta Murphy said in her inquiry, this needs to be treated as a public health issue because it is a public health issue.

One amendment I am seeking to move goes to what we were speaking about this morning, and that is jobs for mates. I note I have moved this to a number of new bodies and institutions the government has set up over the last four years, from the High Speed Rail Authority to others. That is to actually ensure that there is a merits based appointment process and that we don't see a minister able to put someone political in there. This amendment was moved in the House by Dr Sophie Scamps, building on her long work advocating for change here. I really want to thank the member for Mackellar, Dr Sophie Scamps, for her work on this, really highlighting this and bringing us to the point where we have seen action from the Senate on the Briggs review.

In the absence of whole-of-government response, which has very sadly dragged on for two years now, we should be taking these sorts of actions and embedding in legislation clear appointment processes. I hope the chamber will agree with that.

Our prisons are sites of public health crisis. People in prisons face higher rates of blood-borne viruses, mental illnesses, disability and chronic disease. In fact, many of our people with disabilities and complex needs, especially our children, are being locked up because they are being criminalised rather than receiving proper support. These harms extend beyond prison walls. Families, communities and health systems all bear the cost. That's why I've introduced an amendment to list health care in custodial settings as a public health matter, which would also require the CDC to consult with bodies providing health care to people in custody.

One preventable death in custody is one too many, yet the last two years have seen some of the highest numbers of deaths in custody, and many of these were entirely preventable. Thirty-three years on from the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, it is about time we had national leadership on health care for people in custody. If public health means protecting people from disease and harm, then it must include those that states lock away.

Finally, my amendment introduces Indigenous data sovereignty principles. For generations our data has been collected, stored and used without our consent. We have been studied, measured and defined by others, particularly the colonisers. Data has been used to control us, rather than empower us. The CDC will hold vast amounts of health information. First Nations health data must be governed in partnership with First Nations people. My amendment requires the director-general to establish a framework that ensures the CDC's data governance aligns with Indigenous data sovereignty principles to protect Indigenous ownership, control and access to our own health data.

Senator Thorpe, can I bring you back to the suspension notice moved by Senator David Pocock. It was specifically about the suspension of standing orders, so, if you are speaking to the suspension motion, it must be about the urgency of suspending standing orders, not about the bill. It is about the suspension of the standing orders; that is the motion.

Can I continue?

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: If it is about the suspension of the standing orders—

It's about our people dying in this country. We're talking about a bill that can avoid preventable deaths, which I believe is an important part of the suspension motion.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: That's fine. You can continue.

The CDC bill is an important step, but it cannot be complete without justice. A CDC that risks ignoring the root causes of poor health, racism, incarceration, dispossession and colonialism will not address First Nations health equity; it will only document it. We have the evidence. The Lancet shows that dismantling racism and restoring justice benefits not only First Peoples but everyone. The Lancet said that racism 'inflicts a collective trauma on us all' in this country and that 'lessening inequities' brings 'healing to society as a whole'.

The health of this nation will never be strong while its First Peoples are sick, silenced and still fighting to be heard. Taking a health justice approach and respecting our sovereignty will protect health by protecting rights, upholding truth and giving power back to the people who have been silenced for too long.

I move:

That the question be now put.

The question is that the question be put.

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

The question is that the amendments moved by the Australian Greens on sheets 3439, 3441, 3440 and 3443 be agreed to.

by leave— Under the standing orders I ask that Senator Lambie's name be recorded as being in support of the Australian Greens amendments to the Australian Centre for Disease Control Bill 2025 on sheet 3441 and abstaining on all others in that group.

I will now deal with the remaining amendments relating to the Australian Centre for Disease Control Bill 2025, starting with the amendments on sheets 3447, 3448 and 3449, circulated by the opposition.

Opposition's circulated amendments to the Australian Centre for Disease Control Bill 2025—

SHEET 3447

(1) Clause 5, page 5 (line 17), omit "other".

(2) Clause 28, page 28 (line 7), omit "appointed", substitute "other".

(3) Clause 29, page 28 (lines 11 and 12), omit the clause, substitute:

29 Director-General not Advisory Council member but may attend meetings

(1) The Director-General is not a member of the Advisory Council and must not be appointed under subsection 30(1) as such.

(2) However, the Chair of the Advisory Council may invite the Director-General to attend a meeting of the Advisory Council:

(a) to observe the meeting; or

(b) for the purpose of advising or informing the Advisory Council on any matter; or

(c) for any other reason.

(4) Clause 30, page 28 (lines 14 and 15), omit "the Director-General and".

(5) Clause 34, page 30 (lines 18 and 19), omit "(other than the Director-General)".

_____

SHEET 3448

(1) Clause 5, page 5 (line 31) to page 6 (line 32), omit the definition of exempt material, substitute:

exempt material: a document or other material is exempt material if the document or material is an exempt document under any of the following provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (or would be such an exempt document if it were a document that was proposed to be released under that Act):

(a) section 33 (documents affecting national security, defence or international relations);

(b) section 34 (Cabinet documents);

(c) section 37 (documents affecting enforcement of law and protection of public safety);

(d) section 38 (documents to which secrecy provisions of enactments apply), disregarding subsections (1A) to (3A) of that section;

(e) section 42 (documents subject to legal professional privilege);

(f) section 45 (documents containing material obtained in confidence), disregarding subsection (2) of that section;

(g) section 46 (documents disclosure of which would be contempt of Parliament or contempt of court);

(h) section 47 (documents disclosing trade secrets or commercially valuable information), disregarding subsections (2) and (3) of that section.

_____

SHEET 3449

(1) Clause 5, page 4 (after line 21), after the definition of designated data service provider, insert:

designated enforcement entity: see section 69A.

(2) Clause 67, page 52 (after line 15), after subclause (5), insert:

Australian Information Commissioner agreement required

(5A) The Director-General must not make a data sharing declaration unless the Australian Information Commissioner has agreed, in writing, to the making of the declaration.

(3) Clause 69, page 53 (line 2), before "At any time", insert "(1)".

(4) Clause 69, page 53 (line 3), after "may", insert "(subject to subsections (2) and (3))".

(5) Clause 69, page 53 (after line 20), at the end of the clause, add:

(2) A designated enforcement entity must not collect or use information in accordance with subsection (1) unless the collection or use is authorised by an order under section 69A.

(3) An entity must not disclose information to a designated enforcement entity in accordance with subsection (1) unless the disclosure is authorised by an order under section 69A.

(6) Page 53 (after line 20), after clause 69, insert:

69A Data sharing declarations — court orders required for collection, use and disclosures in certain circumstances

Designated enforcement entities

(1) An entity is a designated enforcement entity if:

(a) the entity is an agency, or a State or Territory authority, within the meaning of the Privacy Act 1988; and

(b) the entity is not a court, tribunal or coroner; and

(c) either or both of the following apply:

(i) the entity has power under a law of the Commonwealth or a State or Territory to require persons to give information to the entity;

(ii) officers of the entity are, in the ordinary course of their duties, authorised to execute warrants to enter premises and seize things found, including documents.

Application for and making of order

(2) An entity may apply for an order under this section authorising the entity to:

(a) if the entity is a designated enforcement entity—collect and use information in accordance with a data sharing declaration; and

(b) in any case—disclose information to a designated enforcement entity in accordance with a data sharing declaration.

(3) The application for an order under this section must be made to:

(a) a magistrate of a State or Territory; or

(b) a judge who is eligible under subsection 69B(2).

(4) The judicial officer may make the order if the judicial officer is satisfied that:

(a) there are no effective means, other than by way of an order under this section, for the applicant to:

(i) collect or use the information; or

(ii) disclose the information to a designated enforcement entity; and

(b) the order is necessary to respond to the threat to public health in relation to which the data sharing declaration was made; and

(c) the order would not, on balance, result in an unreasonable interference with the privacy of an individual.

(5) The judicial officer must not make the order unless the applicant or some other entity has given the judicial officer, either orally or by affidavit, such further information (if any) as the judicial officer requires concerning the grounds on which the order is being sought.

(6) The order must specify:

(a) the data sharing declaration covered by the order; and

(b) the entity for which the collection, use or disclosure of information is authorised by the order; and

(c) the designated enforcement entity to which the disclosure of information is authorised by the order; and

(d) the day on which the order ceases to have effect; and

(e) the purpose for which the order is made.

69B Judicial officers for orders under section 69A

Eligible judge of a court created by the Parliament

(1) A judge of a court created by the Parliament may, by writing, consent to be nominated by the Attorney-General under subsection (2).

(2) The Attorney-General may, by writing, nominate a judge of a court created by the Parliament in relation to whom a consent is in force under subsection (1) to be eligible for the purposes of paragraph 69A(3)(b).

(3) A nomination under subsection (2) is not a legislative instrument.

Magistrates

(4) A magistrate need not accept the functions conferred by section 69A.

(5) The Governor-General may:

(a) arrange with the Governor of a State for the performance, by all or any of the persons who from time to time hold office as magistrates of that State, of the functions of a magistrate conferred by section 69A; or

(b) arrange with the Chief Minister of the Australian Capital Territory for the performance, by all or any of the persons who from time to time hold office as magistrates of the Australian Capital Territory, of the functions of a magistrate conferred by section 69A; or

(c) arrange with the Administrator of the Northern Territory for the performance, by all or any of the persons who from time to time hold office as Judges of the Local Court of the Northern Territory, of the functions of a magistrate conferred by section 69A.

Judicial officers exercising powers in personal capacity

(6) The functions conferred on a judicial officer by section 69A are conferred on the judicial officer:

(a) in a personal capacity; and

(b) not as a court or a member of a court.

(7) A judicial officer performing a function conferred by section 69A has the same protection and immunity as if the judicial officer were performing the function:

(a) as the court of which the judicial officer is a member; or

(b) as a member of the court of which the judicial officer is a member.

I ask that the question on sheet 3447 be put separately.

The question is that the opposition amendments on sheet 3447 to the Australian Centre for Disease Control Bill 2025 be agreed to.

by leave—I note Senator Lambie's support for that sheet.

The question is that opposition amendments on sheets 3448 and 3449 be agreed to.

by leave—Senator Lambie wishes to be noted as supporting the amendments on sheets 3448 and 3449.

I will now deal with amendments circulated by Senator Thorpe. The question is that Senator Thorpe's amendments on sheets 3478 revised, 3484 and 3485 be agreed to.

Senator Thorpe's amendments to the Australian Centre for Disease Control Bill 2025—

SHEET 3478 REVISED

(1) Clause 5, page 3 (before line 25), before the definition of Aboriginal person, insert:

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee means the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee of the Australian Centre for Disease Control established by section 38B.

(2) Clause 5, page 7 (after line 5), after the definition of foreign government body, insert:

Indigenous Data Sovereignty Principles: see section 70AA.

(3) Clause 5, page 8 (after line 19), after paragraph (e) of the definition of public health matters, insert:

(ea) the health of Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders;

(eb) social, systemic and structural determinants of health;

(4) Clause 11, page 16 (after line 35), after paragraph 11(i), insert:

(ia) conducting, promoting and supporting initiatives directed at achieving health equity for Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders, including initiatives directed at addressing social, systemic and structural factors that contribute to health inequities for Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders, in collaboration with:

(i) bodies representing Aboriginal persons or Torres Strait Islanders (or both); and

(ii) bodies known as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander Community-Controlled Organisations; and

(iii) State or Territory government entities;

(5) Clause 30, page 28 (lines 21 to 24), omit subclause (3), substitute:

(3) The Minister must ensure that at least two appointed members are Aboriginal persons or Torres Strait Islanders (or both) who have expertise, qualifications or experience in the health needs of Aboriginal persons or Torres Strait Islanders (or both).

(6) Clause 30, page 29 (after line 9), after paragraph (4)(g), insert:

(ga) the health needs of Aboriginal persons or Torres Strait Islanders (or both);

(7) Page 34 (after line 3), after Part 3, insert:

Part 3A — The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee of the Australian Centre for Disease Control

Division 1 — Introduction

38A Simplified outline of this Part

This Part establishes the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee of the Australian Centre for Disease Control. The Committee's function is to provide advice to the Minister and Director-General.

Division 2 — The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee

38B Establishment

(1) The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee of the Australian Centre for Disease Control is established by this section.

(2) The Minister is to determine, in writing, the composition of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee, including the expertise, qualifications and experience of its members.

(3) The Minister is to appoint the members of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee on a part-time basis, and must appoint one of the members to chair the Committee.

38C Function

(1) The function of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee is to provide advice to the Minister and the Director-General on:

(a) the operation and effectiveness of this Act, particularly in relation to the health needs of Aboriginal persons or Torres Strait Islanders (or both); and

(b) any other matter on which the Minister or the Director-General requests, in writing, the Committee to provide advice.

(2) The Minister may give the Committee written guidelines about its function.

(3) Neither requests under paragraph (1)(b), nor guidelines under subsection (2), are legislative instruments.

(8) Page 53 (after line 20), after clause 69, insert:

70AA Indigenous Data Sovereignty Principles

Director-General to determine Indigenous Data Sovereignty Principles

(1) The Director-General must, by legislative instrument, determine principles to be followed in the collection, use and disclosure under this Act of information that relates to, or affects, Aboriginal persons or Torres Strait Islanders.

(2) The principles determined under subsection (1) are to be known as Indigenous Data Sovereignty Principles.

When Indigenous Data Sovereignty Principles must first come into force

(3) The Director-General must ensure there are Indigenous Data Sovereignty Principles in force at all times after the end of the period of 6 months beginning at the commencement of this section.

Consultation

(4) Before determining Indigenous Data Sovereignty Principles, the Director-General must:

(a) publish on the Centre's website:

(i) a draft of the Indigenous Data Sovereignty Principles; and

(ii) a notice inviting submissions on the draft on or before a day specified in the notice; and

(b) consider any submissions received on or before the day specified in the notice.

(5) The day specified under subparagraph (4)(a)(ii) must be at least 30 days after the day on which the notice is published.

(6) Subsection (4) does not limit section 17 of the Legislation Act 2003.

Effect of Indigenous Data Sovereignty Principles

(7) A provision of this Division that authorises the collection, use or disclosure of information that relates to, or affects, Aboriginal persons or Torres Strait Islanders has effect only to the extent that the Indigenous Data Sovereignty Principles are followed in the collection, use or disclosure that information.

(9) Page 63 (after line 21), after clause 77, insert:

77A Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health reports

(1) The Director-General must, as soon as practicable after the end of each calendar year, prepare a report on the state of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health in Australia during that year.

(2) The report must contain (without limitation) information about progress towards health equity for Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders, including progress towards addressing social, systemic and structural factors that contribute to health inequities for Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders.

(3) The Director-General must publish a copy of the report on the Centre's website.

(4) The Director-General may, in preparing the report, seek assistance, input or information from such persons as the Director-General determines.

_____

SHEET 3484

(1) Clause 5, page 8 (after line 20), after paragraph (f) of the definition of public health matters, insert:

(fa) the health effects of racial discrimination;

_____

SHEET 3485

(1) Clause 5, page 8 (after line 21), after paragraph (g) of the definition of public health matters, insert:

(ga) the health of prisoners and persons detained in custodial settings;

(2) Clause 11, page 16 (after line 25), after subparagraph (11)(h)(viii), insert:

(viiia) bodies providing health services to prisoners and persons detained in custodial settings;

by leave—I ask that Senator Lambie's voting preferences be recorded: sheet 3478, abstain; sheet 3484, oppose; and sheet 3485, support.

I'll now deal with an amendment circulated by Pauline Hanson's One Nation. The question is that subdivision B of division 2 on part 4 stand as printed.

Pauline Hanson's One Nation's circulated amendment to the Australian Centre for Disease Control Bill 2025

(7) Subdivision B, clauses 45 to 49, page 39 (line 20) to page 42 (line 11), to be opposed.

The question now is that the remaining Pauline Hanson's One Nation amendments on sheet 3482 and the amendments on sheet 3488 agreed to.

Pauline Hanson's One Nation 's circulated amendments to the Australian Centre for Disease Control Bill 2025

SHEET 3482

(1) Clause 5, page 10 (line 31), omit ", or a direction under subsection 45(1)".

(2) Clause 21, page 23 (line 5), omit subclause (5), substitute:

(5) The period may only be extended:

(a) once; and

(b) by no more than 28 days.

(3) Clause 39, page 35 (line 6), omit the paragraph beginning "Division 2 contains", substitute:

Division 2 contains information-gathering powers. The Director-General may request information from other entities, and enter into agreements for other entities to give information. Compliance with a request or agreement is voluntary. An entity may comply with a request or agreement despite any other law, other than designated secrecy laws.

(4) Clause 39, page 35 (lines 7 to 11), omit the paragraph beginning "First, the Director-General".

(5) Clause 39, page 35 (lines 12 to 18), omit the paragraph beginning "Second, the Director-General".

(6) Heading to Subdivision A, page 38 (line 2), omit the heading.

(8) Clause 54, page 47 (lines 5 and 6), omit "or a direction under subsection 45(1)".

(9) Clause 71, page 55 (lines 14 and 15), omit "or a direction under subsection 45(1)".

(10) Clause 76, page 62 (lines 14 to 18), omit subclause (2), substitute:

Exception

(2) However, the Director-Generalmust not delegate the Director-General's functions, duties or powers under section 67 (data sharing declarations).

_____

SHEET 3488

(1) Clause 5, page 8 (line 21), omit "health;", substitute "health.".

(2) Clause 5, page 8 (line 22), omit paragraph (h) of the definition of public health matters.

I ask that 3482 and 3488 be put separately.

The question is that the remaining Pauline Hanson's One Nation amendments on sheet 3482 be agreed to.

Pauline Hanson's One Nation's circulated amendment to the Australian Centre for Disease Control Bill 2025—

(1) Clause 5, page 10 (line 31), omit ", or a direction under subsection 45(1)".

(2) Clause 21, page 23 (line 5), omit subclause (5), substitute:

(5) The period may only be extended:

(a) once; and

(b) by no more than 28 days.

(3) Clause 39, page 35 (line 6), omit the paragraph beginning "Division 2 contains", substitute:

Division 2 contains information-gathering powers. The Director-General may request information from other entities, and enter into agreements for other entities to give information. Compliance with a request or agreement is voluntary. An entity may comply with a request or agreement despite any other law, other than designated secrecy laws.

(4) Clause 39, page 35 (lines 7 to 11), omit the paragraph beginning "First, the Director-General".

(5) Clause 39, page 35 (lines 12 to 18), omit the paragraph beginning "Second, the Director-General".

(6) Heading to Subdivision A, page 38 (line 2), omit the heading.

(8) Clause 54, page 47 (lines 5 and 6), omit "or a direction under subsection 45(1)".

(9) Clause 71, page 55 (lines 14 and 15), omit "or a direction under subsection 45(1)".

(10) Clause 76, page 62 (lines 14 to 18), omit subclause (2), substitute:

Exception

(2) However, the Director-Generalmust not delegate the Director-General's functions, duties or powers under section 67 (data sharing declarations).

by leave—I wish to record Senator Lambie's voting positions. On sheet 3488, she opposed, and, on sheet 3482, she opposed.

I will now deal with the amendments circulated by Senator David Pocock. I have had a request that these be voted on separately, so I will put them separately. The question is that theamendment on sheet 3492 be agreed to.

Senator David Pocock's circulated amendment to the Australian Centre for Disease Control Bill 2025

(1) Clause 78, page 63 (line 22) to page 64 (line 12), omit the clause, substitute:

78 Review of operation of Act

(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be undertaken of:

(a) the operation of this Act during the 5 year period beginning at the commencement of the Act; and

(b) the operation of this Act during each subsequent 5 year period.

(2) The review must be conducted by an expert panel comprised of 3 members appointed by the Minister.

(3) Each member of the expert panel must have experience in at least one of the following:

(a) public health;

(b) clinical practice;

(c) economics;

(d) human rights;

(e) health data and statistics;

(f) emergency management;

(g) communications.

(4) A member of the expert panel must not be any of the following:

(a) a current member of the Advisory Council;

(b) a current or former member of the Commonwealth Parliament;

(c) a current or former employee or executive of a registered political party.

Timing of review and Minister to be given report

(5) The expert panel must be appointed by the Minister within 6 months after the end of the 5 year period to which the report relates.

(6) The review must be completed and the report submitted to the Minister by the expert panel within 12 months of the panel's appointment.

Minister to table copy of report of review and response to review

(7) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.

(8) The Minister must cause the government's response to the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within three months of the report being tabled.

I will now put the question on Senator David Pocock's amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3493. The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

Senator David Pocock's circulated amendment s

(1) Clause 10, page 15 (lines 9 to 11), omit subclause (3), substitute:

(3) The Minister must not appoint a person as the Director-General unless:

(a) the Minister first appoints an independent selection panel consisting of at least 3 persons for the purposes of assessing whether a candidate is suitable for appointment; and

(b) the independent selection panel has advertised the appointment, conducted interviews and shortlisted at least 3 candidates for appointment on the basis of the following criteria:

(i) appropriate expertise;

(ii) qualifications or experience in public health matters;

(iii) integrity;

(iv) opportunities for promoting diversity in the public sector; and

(c) the independent selection panel has provided to the Minister a comparative assessment of the 3 shortlisted candidates against the criteria in paragraph (b), and a certification statement indicating that they are eligible for appointment; and

(d) that person has been shortlisted for the appointment by the independent selection panel in accordance with paragraph (b).

(2) Clause 30, page 28 (line 25) to page 29 (line 10), omit subclause (4), substitute:

Process for appointment

(4) The Minister must not appoint a person as a member to the Advisory Council unless:

(a) the Minister first appoints an independent selection panel consisting of at least 3 persons for the purposes of assessing whether a candidate is suitable for appointment; and

(b) the independent selection panel has advertised the appointment, conducted interviews and shortlisted at least 3 candidates for appointment on the basis of the following criteria:

(i) appropriate expertise, qualifications or experience in at least one of the following:

(A) public health matters;

(B) clinical practice;

(C) economics;

(D) human rights;

(E) data and statistics relating to public health matters;

(F) emergency management;

(G) communications;

(H) any other field that the Minister considers appropriate;

(ii) integrity;

(iii) opportunities for promoting diversity in the public sector; and

(c) the independent selection panel has provided to the Minister a comparative assessment of the 3 shortlisted candidates against the criteria in paragraph (b), and a certification statement indicating that they are eligible for appointment; and

(d) that person has been shortlisted for the appointment by the independent selection panel in accordance with paragraph (b).

Question negatived.

by leave—Could I please record Senator Lambie's voting preferences as support for amendments on sheets 3493 and 3492.

I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments to the Australian Centre for Disease Control (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025, as circulated by the opposition on sheets 3450 and 3451. The question is that the following items stand as printed: schedule 1, items 2 to 4,7 and8, and 11 to 13 and part 4; and schedule 2, items 6 to 9.

Opposition's circulated amendments to the Australian Centre for Disease Control (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025—

SHEET 3450

(1) Schedule 1, items 2 to 4, page 3 (lines 12 to 22), to be opposed.

(3) Schedule 1, items 7 and 8, page 4 (lines 1 to 6), to be opposed.

(4) Schedule 1, items 11 to 13, page 5 (lines 15 to 20), to be opposed.

(6) Schedule 2, items 6 to 9, page 32 (line 3) to page 33 (line 28), to be opposed.

_____

SHEET 3451

(1) Schedule 1, Part 4, page 25 (lines 1 to 6), to be opposed.

The question is that opposition amendments (2) and (5) on sheet 3450 be agreed to.

Opposition's circulated amendments—

(2) Schedule 1, item 5, page 3 (line 25), omit "Director of Human Biosecurity", substitute "Director-General of the CDC".

(5) Schedule 2, item 2, page 28 (line 11), omit subparagraph (1)(a)(ii).

by leave—I record Senator Lambie's voting intentions: sheet 3451, support; and sheet 3450, support.

I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum relating to the Australian Centre for Disease Control Bill 2025. The addendum responds to matters raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights.

Bills, as amended, agreed to.

Bills reported with amendments; report adopted.

The question is that the bills be now passed.

I rise to make some remarks about the use of orders for the production of documents. It's a longstanding power of the Senate and was, until recently, used sparingly for many decades, presumably to preserve its impact. Odgers says:

Orders for production of documents are among the most significant procedures available to the Senate to deal with matters of public interest …

The government respects the powers of parliament to call for documents, but this is a power that needs to be used responsibly and in good faith. Without both of those things—respect for the power and proper use of the power—how the Senate operates will be compromised.

When you look back historically at the Senate and its practice, the use of OPDs in the first decade averaged around 14 times per year. For the next four decades or so, up until the late 1960s, the practice virtually ceased, as questions on notice and regular tabling of documents meant the ordering of documents was no longer required. During the 1970s and 1980s, the use of the power remained rare, with about 10 orders agreed to by the Senate throughout a 20-year period. The use of OPDs did increase during the nineties and early 2000s but remained low compared with how OPDs are being used in the Senate today. For example, across the Keating government, 53 orders were agreed to. In the first Howard government, 48 were agreed to. In 2006, one order was agreed to throughout the year, and none were agreed to in 2007.

It wasn't until the reform of formal motions in 2020 that the use of the order for the production of documents accelerated to levels never seen throughout the Senate's 125-year history. This power is now being used very differently to the historical practice of the Senate, particularly over the past three parliaments. In the last parliamentary term, the 47th Parliament, over the 155 sitting days that that parliament ran, the Senate proposed 435 OPDs of which 336 were agreed to. In just one term, more OPDs were agreed to than in the Rudd, Gillard and Abbott governments combined.

In this term, the number is even higher, with 130 OPDs moved and 109 agreed to by the Senate in just the first 21 sitting days of the 48th Parliament. In fact, more orders have been agreed to in just 21 sitting days—since July—than in the parliaments of the Fisher, Hughes, Bruce, Scullin, Lyons, Page, first Menzies, Fadden, Curtin, Forde, Chifley, second Menzies, Holt, McEwen, Gorton, McMahon, Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke and Keating governments combined. In fact, more OPDs have been agreed to this week than were agreed to in the 53 years between 1928 and 1981. On just one day in this parliament, the number of OPDs lodged by one senator—and I'm looking straight at him—was the same as the number of OPDs agreed to by all parliaments from the onset of the Great Depression in 1929—

Senator Bragg?

On a point of order, the minister should know that the standing orders require that she not reflect on another member of this place in a negative fashion.

Senator Bragg, I do not consider Senator Gallagher to have reflected negatively. Senator Gallagher, you have the call.

I wasn't reflecting negatively on you, Senator Bragg. In one sitting day, the number of OPDs lodged was the same as the number agreed to by all Australian parliaments from the onset of the Great Depression in 1929 to the disappearance of former prime minister Harold Holt in 1967 combined. While there is no doubt that the volume of OPDs has dramatically increased over the past three years, this is not the only issue. There are other serious problems with the way the power is currently being exercised by the Senate.

Historically, the scope of OPDs has insisted on specificity or the seeking of a particular document. The Senate is agreeing to OPDs as the first form of research, rather than as a last resort. OPDs are being used as a fishing expedition, with common use of the phrases 'all submissions', 'briefing notes', 'correspondence' et cetera in relation to a bill or an event, regardless of relevance or feasibility. At least 90 OPDs—almost one-third of all those agreed to in the 47th Parliament—contained this form of language. When former senator Davey sought documents relating to the Murray-Darling Basin water buybacks, it was estimated that there would have been one million documents in the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and 850,000 in the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. Based on the standard FOI assumptions of it taking one person one minute to review each document, it would have taken 8½ years to review all of the documents in the scope of the order agreed to by the Senate. I think they were given eight days.

In terms of timeliness, along the volume and broad scope of OPDs agreed to, the time to comply with the order is often unreasonable and almost impossible. If I refer back to the 1.85 million documents in the Senators Hughes and Davey OPD above, it provided a mere eight days to respond to the order. Whereas FOI and questions on notice have a set time of 30 days to reply, for OPDs the Senate, on average, does not give the government reasonable time to return for compliance with the order.

Again using examples from the 47th Parliament, order No. 83 sought essentially every document created on the TLA (Measures for Consultation) Bill 2022, with three days to return. Order No. 52 required the Assistant Treasurer to return all correspondence on superannuation industry reform within two days. Order No. 479 gave the Minister for Government Services one day—one day—to produce Services Australia data that the senator moving the OPD, by their own admission, acknowledged did not exist. Order No. 251 gave the minister and the department three days to produce every document, including all briefing material, in relation to estimates hearings.

Finally, if the evidence about volume, scope and time isn't enough to convince the Senate that the current approach to OPDs is absurd and bordering on the ridiculous, surely the next example will. In the last parliament, orders Nos 32, 45, 54, 106, 137, 431, 601, 619, 620, 645 and 680 were all orders where the Senate agreed to the production of documents where links were provided to the information already available online either in part or in full. This practice is continuing in the 48th Parliament, with order Nos 7, 11, 13, 47, 48, 110 and 124 all ordered to be produced where, similarly, links were provided to information already available online either in part or in full. Around five per cent of the OPDs agreed to in this parliamentary term fall into this category.

The 47th Parliament saw the largest number of OPDs ever complied with in any three-year period of any government since Federation. Across the 47th and 48th parliaments, the Albanese government has complied fully or substantially with 120 orders, and any honest assessment of compliance should be assessed against the volume, scope and timeframes that I have outlined above, including those who write reports on it.

The government will continue to work with the Senate constructively to comply with OPDs where we are able to and where it's appropriate to do so, but there has to be some acknowledgement that some documents cannot be produced to the parliament in some circumstances. Odgers' sets out the grounds—that the Senate has at times accepted—when it is not in the public interest to release certain documents. These include documents which would prejudice legal proceedings, law enforcement investigations, national security, international relations or relations between the Commonwealth and the states. It has also been generally accepted by the Senate that the deliberations of the executive council and of the cabinet should be conducted in secrecy to preserve the freedom of those deliberations.

There are also so many additional avenues available to senators to seek access to documents and scrutinise the government aside from the use of OPDs. These include requesting the information from a minister, requesting a briefing, both parliamentary and Senate estimates questions on notice, and, indeed, questions without notice every sitting day.

Parliament, its processes and its role in our democracy are respected and valued by this government, but it is just as important to place on the record the facts about how this power is being used and abused. I know the procedure committee is looking at this, and we are open to working constructively to agree on changes that might ensure OPDs are used appropriately and in good faith.

The government understands how the numbers operate in this Senate. But I do think it's important to place this on the record, on the permanent record of this chamber, so that in the long history of this great institution—where one day, hopefully, the use of the power returns to more normal arrangements—it will be known that there were some in this place that sought to protect one of the Senate's most significant powers from abuse.

As a senator for Victoria, it's my job to represent the views and interests of those that are in my state, and that's exactly what I'm going to do today. Recently I surveyed some constituents in my patron or duty seats the electorates of Chisholm and Isaacs about issues that matter most to them—the things that most deeply impact their lives and the priorities they want their government to act upon. I'd like to thank everybody who took part in that survey—it only took a few minutes to fill it out—to tell me the things that mattered to them so that I can stand here today and share those messages with the parliament and particularly with those in the government who make the decisions that affect their lives.

The message has been resoundingly clear. From the surge in crime and the surge in the cost of living, to access to healthcare and unaffordable energy prices, Australians are struggling, and they are asking their federal Labor government and state Labor government in Victoria to do so much better. Residents in the electorates of Chisholm and Isaacs are worried about their safety, their bills and their future. They want a government that listens and, more importantly, a government that acts. I say this to those constituents in Chisholm and Isaacs: if you do not feel that you are being heard, then I can be your voice. This is exactly what I am here to do—to speak to those who are not listening to you today. I hope that those opposite are listening, finally. I hope that they listen and pick up the phone to their mates that are in the Victorian Labor government, and that they respond and get on with action on these issues.

Previously when I've done these surveys, and I have done many of them, the cost of living was absolutely the No. 1 issue. It was the No. 1 issue that came up with residents, and there's no denying that it is still a massive issue for Australians who have lived through three years of Labor's cost-of-living crisis. But there is a new No. 1 issue in my home state of Victoria, and that is crime. Over the past year in particular, we've seen an enormous, alarming rise in not just youth crime but violent crime right across Victoria. One resident from Mount Waverley shared with me some extraordinary footage of an attempted home invasion that occurred while her family was inside. It's not an isolated event, either. There are so many people that responded who said they'd either had home invasions or knew someone who had experienced a home invasion. In fact, there was one local from Glen Iris who even wrote that their friends and neighbours can no longer sleep properly at night because of the rising crime in their suburbs. These are basic, middle-class, average Australian suburbs. We should expect more than that.

I promise you this is not something that's being catastrophised. It's happening right here in our neighbourhoods, in our backyards, and people have had enough. They've had enough. One resident from Isaacs shared a shocking story of her niece's partner, who was the victim of an unprovoked king hit in the middle of Melbourne's CBD in broad daylight, in the middle of the afternoon, while he was working. Three months on, that case, which you would think would be unequivocal, remains unresolved. Being king hit in the middle of the day while you are working in the middle of the city.

This is happening on almost a daily basis. We've seen reports of violent crimes happening right around Victoria. But what has the Victorian Labor Allan government done about it? What has their response been? I'll tell you. They sat on their hands. They've cut $50 million from the police budget, and they spent an astonishing $13 million on 40 bins in which people can actively and voluntarily surrender their machetes, because you know that so many violent criminals love to voluntarily surrender their weapons.

This is the most confronting story that I have received so far. It's from a local constituent in Isaacs who said:

I never thought I'd have to call a family meeting to plan how we are going to protect ourselves during a home invasion. But that is exactly what we have done.

Wow. No Australian family should ever have to live like that. No parent should have to sit down with their children and explain, 'Now, kids, this is what we're going to do, and this is what our escape plan looks like when the criminals arrive.' Isn't that extraordinary!

The other issue dominating conversations in Chisholm and Isaacs is the rising cost of living. It's the single biggest concern for families, retirees and small businesses. In Chisholm the frustration was particularly clear. One retiree told me that, after working for 47 years, he feels completely disillusioned by the current political discourse. He said:

I watch my hard earned savings being eaten up by government policies.

He went on to explain that, despite the rhetoric about helping ordinary Australians, the reality is the opposite, and he is not wrong.

Labor's economic agenda is making Australians poorer by the day. Their living standards have gone backwards. The government's spending is at the highest level outside of a recession in nearly 40 years. Isn't that extraordinary? The reckless spending, as we know, is keeping inflation higher for longer. We know the Treasurer claimed 'mission accomplished' on inflation, but it's popped back up, and Australians are paying the price. Australians are paying $50,000 every single minute in interest on Labor's trillion-dollar debt. How much did you guys pay just sitting up here listening to me? Extraordinary.

One constituent said:

The cost-of-living crisis needs to be resolved responsibly for our current and future generations.

I couldn't agree more. He continued:

Living standards are decreasing for many Australians, despite hard and honest work. Our country is better than this.

Another wrote:

The current price of living, gas, electricity, feeding ourselves, everything. We were promised cheaper and better, but it's only gotten more expensive.

These aren't just complaints; they're words of frustration. They are the lived, everyday experiences of Australians who work hard, have saved carefully and still can't seem to get ahead.

Just recently, the Prime Minister said, in relation to the 2022 election:

My government's been very disciplined about fulfilling the commitments that we made prior to the election.

Well, Prime Minister, you promised that life would be cheaper under you and that Australians would be better off under Labor. But, since Labor were elected, households are paying nearly 15 per cent more for their food. They're paying 15 per cent more for their health care. They're paying 19 per cent more for their housing and nearly 40 per cent more for electricity.

The Prime Minister also promised, with his cheaper health care—holding up the Medicare card—that they would be able to see a GP without a gap. Unfortunately, the average Australian is still paying $50 out of pocket to go and see a GP. Australians are struggling with access to adequate health care, particularly aged care. We know that bulk-billing and the affordability of essential medicines is also a problem. In Isaacs and Chisholm and Victoria right now—but this right across Australia—that is the third top issue: cost of access to health care. Labor has been quite vocal in speaking about how much they have done to make medicines cheaper, but the real feedback we are receiving tells an entirely different story. Particularly I got some feedback on concerns from people about the cost of difficulties finding aged-care places and accessing home-care packages.

Another constituent expressed dismay at the Prime Minister's unfulfilled promises on Medicare. He described the growing gap between what the Prime Minister says and what people are living through. I'm quoting here, so forgive the informalities. He said:

The lies Albo has told about the Medicare card are terrible. My husband's heart medication we're paying out of pocket, even though we've reached our limits. He hasn't opened any more bulk billing clinics. We're pensioners, and the cost of food and everything else is killing us. We've been waiting 12 months for our aged care package.

This is not an unusual response. Almost every week, those opposite stand up to joyfully express how much they are doing for Australians. I know you guys speak to each other all the time, but that's an echo chamber. The real issue is this: have you actually spoken to Australians? Because the feedback tells a completely different story to the one that you tell us in here. The government seems to have fallen out of touch with the reality, the lived experience of ordinary Australians.

The final issue raised across both electorates, Chisholm and Isaacs, which again tells us how out of touch this government is, is the rising cost of energy. Energy bills continue to be a major cause of financial stress across households and small businesses across this country, particularly in my home state of Victoria. You know that the Prime Minister promised you cheaper bills—he promised $275 off your electricity bills—but Australians are paying up to $1,300 more on their energy bills than Labor promised. Another resident said:

We need transparency around the Government's energy transition costs.

I could not agree more.

I am going to keep doing these surveys because it's important to know what the people of Victoria think and what messages they want us to be sending to the government in this parliament. On behalf of the coalition, my message to Victorians is this: we have a strong record of being able to clean up Labor's mess; we have done it before and will be able to do it again.

Today in the Senate we are joined by two incredibly brave Queensland women: Kath Madgwick and Jennifer Miller. They are two mums who've made yet another difficult journey to be here—a journey made out of love for their sons, Jarrad Madgwick and Rhys Cauzzo, who took their own lives after being targeted by the robodebt scheme. Jenny and Kath, I am certain that you would rather be anywhere else than here today—rather than still fighting for justice for your boys after so many years. You should not have had to fight this hard for this long, but I am so glad to have you here with us today.

It has been more than eight years since the first robodebt notices were issued and more than two years since the royal commission finished, yet nobody has been held to account. Later today, I will be tabling a petition organised by Kath and Jenny, signed by over 15,000 Australians, calling for accountability and action on robodebt. Over four years, robodebt issued hundreds of thousands of false debt notices to people like Jarrad and Rhys, spreading panic and despair through communities across the country.

Let's be clear. Robodebt was no accident; it was a mass deception. The government of the day knew that its method was unlawful, but it took a cruel bet that most people on income support, already struggling, would give up—that they'd pay debts they didn't owe, rather than fight a system designed to wear them down. People were made to feel like criminals for simply being poor. Robodebt was extortion. It was illegal, and it cost people their lives. So why are we still here? Why has nobody been held to account?

When Labor came to government, Australians were promised a national anticorruption commission to clean up politics. The victims of robodebt put their faith in it. Instead, the NACC we got has been toothless and secretive, refusing to investigate all six referrals from the royal commission and conducting its work entirely behind closed doors. In New South Wales, ICAC hearings are held in public, but, federally, the NACC has not held a single public hearing. Australians deserve a corruption watchdog that exposes wrongdoing, not one that hides it. If this NACC can't deliver justice, the government must fix it because Australians will not accept another system that protects the powerful while the vulnerable pay the price.

While the victims of robodebt wait for justice, this government continues to punish people on income support through a broken welfare system. Key royal commission recommendations remain untouched, including reinstating the six-year limit on debt recovery and ensuring no-one in hardship receives a compliance notice that sends them into panic. We've learned that the government still holds billions in decades-old welfare debts, some dating back to the 1970s. It is even trying to retroactively legalise 30 years of unlawful income apportionment instead of taking responsibility. Under the Targeted Compliance Framework, more than 300,000 people had their payments wrongfully terminated or suspended. Enough is enough. This government must stop the systemic cruelty, stop breaking its own laws and start treating people on income support with dignity.

Jenny has beautifully said in her petition:

I am not just seeking justice for my loss only, but Rhys and every other victim did not deserve the cruel and evil treatment that was bestowed upon them by deception and callous indifference, by a greedy, self-absorbed, power hungry cohort. This is a fight against a system that lacks transparency and accountability. It is a fight for the common Australian whose humble voice has been suppressed by a faulty policy.

We cannot bring back the lives lost or undo the pain endured. But, we can prevent more names on that list. We can create a change that will redefine the tomorrow of the countless Australians negatively affected by Robodebt.

On behalf of the Greens, I commend Jenny and Kath's petition to the Senate, and I call on this government to finally deliver justice, accountability and dignity to every Australian failed by this cruel system.

I'll fill up the minute left, and I'll have to deliver this in my adjournment speech tonight. I want to alert the chamber that there has been a major scientific discovery in South Australia in relation to the algal bloom. It suggested, subject to peer review, that there is another species of the algae which is producing brevetoxins, which, therefore, supports many of the health concerns being experienced by South Australians. Honourable senators should be mindful that my state is doing it tough in a form of natural disaster which hasn't been experienced before. I look forward to speaking more on the topic when we agree the findings in the Senate hearing.

It now being 1.30, we will move to two-minute statements.

We're still on South Australia too. Labor governments across the country are addicted to reckless spending. Do you want certainty? Well, know that, as the taxpaying public, you can be sure that, when Labor runs out of money, they will come after yours. The $275? That's not coming. That's a lie. When you open up your next power bill, know that it is not your energy use that has likely gone up; it's Labor's spending that's driven up your cost. The pressure in homes and businesses and in organisations—Australians rely on them, but they'll be fixed not by subsidies, bailouts or even more red tape but by an energy plan that works. Labor's isn't it.

Without a credible plan underpinned by principles of reliable energy, inflation will rise, as we saw this week when it crashed through the Reserve Bank's target band. With no change in the cash rate, mortgage holders get no relief from repayments. Some are paying $1,800 more. Are you trying to break into the housing market? You can blame Labor for your dream disintegrating. It is Labor's reckless spending that is running at more than four times the rate of the economy, and it's at its highest level outside of recession in nearly 40 years. Australians are paying 15 per cent more for food, 19 per cent more for housing and nearly 40 per cent more for electricity. In South Australia, we pay some of the highest prices in the country and we have the greatest proportion of renewables in a state's energy mix. Add to that the state's $500 million failed investment in the green hydrogen hoax.

What is the key message for Labor? Energy is everything. Reliability and affordability are everything. Energy is not an experiment.

Our precious Great Barrier Reef is not just an incredible environmental accent. It is also an economic powerhouse. A report released last week confirms the reef is worth $95 billion. It contributes $9 billion to our economy every single year and supports 77,000 jobs. The majority of these jobs are in tourism in regional Queensland. I know that's hard for those opposite to hear. It's inconvenient for them to recognise that regional Queenslanders' jobs rely on the Great Barrier Reef. If the reef were a private business, it would be Australia's fifth-largest employer—bigger than any bank, bigger than BHP. And the biggest risk to all of those jobs is, of course, climate change.

This report must have gone unread by those opposite. Those jobs are going ignored. A week later, what are they doing over there on that side of the chamber? They are walking away from net zero. They're walking away from protecting our reef and the tens of thousands of jobs that it supports. They're putting the reef at risk in real terms and reputationally. Those opposite claim that they represent the regions, but Queenslanders know that our regions will be impacted first and worst by climate change.

The LNP are in a shambles: splits, dummy-spits and, of course, leadership spills to come. But the only jobs that the Liberal and National parties are fighting to protect are their own. The only endangered species the LNP have their eyes on is that of the Leader of the Opposition, Sussan Ley. While the LNP are focused on themselves, our government is getting on with the job of delivering the energy transition we need, protecting jobs in regional Queensland and giving businesses the certainty that they need to invest.

The military junta in Myanmar has committed horrific acts, including ethnic cleansing against the Rohingya people since 2017, and indeed that violence continues. Forced from their home, separated from their loved ones, over a million Rohingya refugees have fled to Bangladesh and live in the largest refugee camp in the world, at Cox's Bazar. For nearly a decade, people have been stuck in that camp without full rights and without adequate support. It has been particularly devastating for women and girls.

As a member of the Rohingya community recently told my office, 'Every child born stateless, every woman assaulted on a boat, every family starving in a camp is a test of our collective humanity.' Australia and the world have failed to live up to their moral responsibility, and there must be increased aid funding. We must hold perpetrators of war crimes to account and, importantly, offer more Rohingya a permanent pathway to protection. As one mother said: 'We will return, but not as ghosts. We want to go home as people, with papers, safety and dignity.' Surely that is what all people deserve?

The final votes are being counted, but we know what the result will be. On behalf of the Australian Greens, I would like to congratulate Zohran Mamdani on his election as mayor of New York City. His campaign has been an inspiration to New Yorkers and progressive people around the world. Whether it's free buses, a rent freeze, universal free child care or city owned grocery stores, it is a vision shared by the Australian Greens. It's a blueprint for every city where working families are being priced out of their own communities. When we tax wealth and invest in people, everyone benefits—except the ultra-wealthy. But don't worry, they'll also be fine! It's time we stopped calling these policies 'impossible'; it's time we started calling them 'inevitable'.

Earlier in the week, the Labor government rammed through the Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya's) Bill 2025. The stated purpose of that bill was to ensure that employer funded paid parental leave isn't cancelled because a child is stillborn or dies—I say that again 'or dies'.

I've asked about the status of late-term abortion procedures as they relate to the stillborn baby payment, which is a different issue, during Senate estimates. It's understood that this payment, in some circumstances, is paid in the case of late-term abortions. To clarify that issue as it related to the bill, I moved an amendment that, if passed, would have stopped the payment being made in those circumstances.

Last week, in the Federation Chamber, MPs Andrew Hastie, Barnaby Joyce, Henry Pike and Tony Pasin rightly raised the issue of Priya's bill being used following a late-term abortion. They did so respectfully. They did so offering no judgement. They didn't even seek to amend the bill. This morning on ABC Radio, opposition leader Sussan Ley said:

… any commentary about this bill applying in other contexts is insensitive.

I have to respond to that. How can it be insensitive to raise the issue of a clear loophole in a federally mandated scheme in the parliament, which votes on the scheme. That is their right, that is my right, and, indeed, that is the very purpose of debate in this parliament.

The great north-west of Victoria, including my old stomping ground in the Mallee and Nicholls electorates, is a vast region that is powering the nation and tackling climate change head-on. Spanning more than 96,000 square kilometres, an area larger than Tassie, this region is experiencing hotter summers, longer fire seasons and more erratic rainfall. And its communities are adapting, protecting what matters and keeping the region strong.

People here understand that we must both mitigate and adapt to the challenges faced by climate change, and that mitigation is not a dirty word. It is actually how we safeguard our future. From Ouyen to Mildura, Swan Hill to Shepparton the renewable energy rollout is driving new jobs and investment, with strong support across all levels of government. And the Albanese Labor government has their back. There are no climate change deniers on this side of the chamber. We're backing the transition with investments in grid upgrades, larger-scale solar and affordable home batteries to help regional communities and farms to thrive.

In Mallee and Nicholls more than 800 households have already taken up the Cheaper Home Batteries Program. We're also backing the regions critical minerals sector to create jobs, build skills and drive sustainable mining, because it is these minerals that power the solar panels, wind turbines and batteries that will drive our clean energy future.

As Mildura mayor, Helen Healy, has said:

Mildura is proud to be known as the Solar Capital of Australia, and our community has shown overwhelming support for a clean energy future.

It is time for the Liberals and the Nationals to back the regions by backing a renewable energy future.

One billion dollars—that's how much the Albanese Labor government expects hosting a United Nations climate talk fest in Australia will cost taxpayers. The United Nations' Conference of the Parties involves millionaires, billionaires and politicians bouncing around the world in fuel-guzzling private jets. Now the government wants Australians to pick up the tab for this party. What would all these people be talking about if they came to Australia? At last year's Conference of the Parties, known as COP, the first order of business for attendees was fuel up the gulf stream, with 644 luxurious fuel-guzzling private jets descending on Dubai for last year's Conference of the Parties. For drivers though, COP organisers this year will cut a brand new highway through tens of thousands of acres of untouched Amazon forest in Brazil. The second order of business is to tell everyone else in the world to reduce their carbon footprint.

The next order of business for attendees is to tell Australians to stop eating their abundant supply of organically raised chemical-free meat. Only we lowly peasants would be banned from eating healthy protein and forced to eat bugs or lab grown horrors, of course. The climate activist billionaires will still be able to afford a good steak. The final order of business for the climate lecturers is to tell those Australian freaks who take their four-wheel drives and camping gear out into the bush to appreciate nature that those cars are banned. Australians are being faced with a choice—pay a billion dollars to be lectured by out-of-touch climate billionaire parasites or reject all this nonsense and save trillions of dollars. One Nation stands for Australia with Australians. We believe in cheap power, paddock grown meat on the barbecue and an affordable four-wheel drive in the garage. We believe in putting Australia first. We will continue to put Australia first.

With my colleagues' indulgence, I'd like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to a very special person in my life, my grandmother Kathleen Ward. Sadly, Nanna passed away on Monday morning, and, like so many other Australians who have to travel for work, I was unable to be there. Mercifully, she was surrounded by family who shared some very special moments together in the hours before she peacefully passed away. Kath, or Nanna as we called her, was an amazing woman. She was only 36 when my older brother was born, so we had a very young grandmother growing up. I know my siblings and my parents would all say that she had as much to do with our formation as our parents did. Obviously I wouldn't be here without her—she was my grandmother—but far beyond that she's had a profound impact on who I am and what I've lived for. Nanna was never wealthy and certainly faced a share of challenges, but she never waited for everything to be perfect to find joy. She had this remarkable ability to see beauty and gratitude in even the smallest of moments. This was the fruit of a very real and personal faith as a Christian.

Nanna worked as a carer, a role that, like many who work in that profession, perfectly reflected her caring heart. I've met some of the people that she cared for, and I've never forgotten how fondly they spoke of her. You could tell that they genuinely felt loved and valued under her care. I realise that we don't often speak about personal matters in this place, but I want Hansard to record just how wonderful Kathleen Ward was. She loved her family. She loved her community, and she loved her God. As much as she'd be chuffed to know that her name is now recorded in the Senate for all time, I know that it's recorded in eternity's hansard, the Book of Life, where she was welcomed into the loving arms of her Lord and saviour, Jesus Christ, in the early hours of Monday morning.

If I could leave one thought with colleagues, it's this—never take for granted the quiet, steadfast people who shape our lives, those who love us, guide us or even pray for us when no-one's watching. My Nanna was one of those people, and I'm so grateful that she was mine.

I'm sure the thoughts of the whole chamber are with Senator O'Sullivan and his family. It was a big month for Australia's resources sector. As the Assistant Minister for Resources, I had the privilege of attending and speaking at the International Mining and Resources Conference in Sydney on behalf of the Australian government. Notably this year's conference coincided with the Prime Minister, Minister King and Minister Ayres's successful meeting with President Trump at the White House, ultimately resulting in the landmark signing of the US-Australia critical minerals and rare earths framework. I can inform the Senate that there was enormous interest and enthusiasm around this agreement from attendees at IMARC. International governments, investors and global manufacturers share Australia's aspiration to build more resilient supply chains in critical minerals and rare-earth processing, and Australia is ready to answer that call.

Recently I travelled with you, Acting Deputy President Ghosh, to Kalgoorlie, where I believe the critical minerals opportunity for Australia is clearly illustrated. Kalgoorlie has benefited from its rich goldfields for over 100 years, and they continue to be mined from the Northern Star Super Pit and surrounding mines. However, now Kalgoorlie has become home to Lynas Rare Earths processing facility, which processes rare earths further down the value chain, delivering local jobs and further economic benefit for the region.

Minister King and our government have been working hard to get these policy settings right to attract investment and to build more processing capability here in Australia, and the recent US framework is just another result of steady, patient and consistent work over many years to help the world diversify global supply chains. As a Queenslander, I'm very excited about the opportunities that this brings. Two Queensland companies, GRAPHINEX and RZ Resources, received letters of interest as part of that arrangement. I look forward to seizing the opportunities ahead as part of the Albanese government for us to have a future made in Australia.

October 2025 saw the fastest increase in housing prices in more than two years. Coincidentally, October was also when Labor's five per cent deposit scheme kicked in. The latest global housing affordability index lists four Australian capital cities in its top 15 globally least affordable cities. They are Sydney, Adelaide, Melbourne and Brisbane.

Every weekend, property investors are outbidding hopeful first home owners because they have taxpayer perks helping them to do so; $181 billion in tax perks tips the scales massively in favour of property investors to buy homes and makes it harder for first home buyers to compete. Labor's five per cent home deposit scheme simply adds fuel to the fire by pushing up house prices even more. The proof is in—there's been a 1.1 per cent increase in prices in October alone, and that's after a 6 per cent increase already this year. The banks are loving the five per cent deposit policy though. Increased house prices and bigger debts mean they'll make even more profits off people's pain and their debt. They're already on track to make $30 billion in profits this financial year. Housing is a human right, and it should not be used as a vehicle for obscene wealth creation. The housing crisis is the biggest driver of inequality in this country, along with the climate crisis. Labor continues to tinker around the edges, but each piecemeal intervention only inflates house prices even further, locking even more people out of homeownership.

We need to tackle the root causes: end those $181 billion rorts that are negative gearing and capital gains tax; actually address supply with more public and affordable homes and establish a public property developer to build them; and freeze and cap rents. This is not an accident; this is by design.

It may not be fashionable to say this, but we all know it to be true: Christianity is the foundation of Western civilisation. Our nation was built on two great assumptions—that every human being possesses inherent and equal dignity and that those in authority are accountable to a higher moral law. These principles are the very bedrock of our democracy and they did not appear out of thin air. They were not conceived by bureaucrats in Brussels; they are principles that come directly from the Bible.

Today, the West is slowly discovering what happens when it rejects Christianity—a vacuum is created, and that vacuum will always be filled but not by nothing. It won't be filled by materialism, socialism, environmentalism, capitalism or humanism. Do you know what can fill the void left by the rejection of the Christian faith? Something that's not very good. We can be sure of that. If you remove Christianity from the story of the West, you won't get a tolerant utopia. You'll get confusion in a world that's basically turned upside down with no true north. Even the right to disbelieve is itself a Christian idea. The atheists in my home state of Victoria and Melbourne, sipping a $7 soy latte, might like to pause and thank the Lord—that they don't even believe in—for that very freedom. That freedom is what comes with living in a Christian country. Try not believing in a non-Christian country and see how far you get. Our future depends on returning to our foundations of our Christian heritage, because if the root dies, the tree dies. I'm going to commit myself to calling on all Australians, believers and nonbelievers alike, to honour and respect that faith that gave us our freedom, our prosperity and our hope. That faith, of course, is the Christian faith.

I stand before you with a deep sense of urgency and responsibility. The great state of Tasmania, my home state, is facing a financial crisis of historic proportions. After 11 years under the Tasmanian Liberal government, we are now rapidly approaching a staggering $13 billion in state debt. This level of debt is not simply a number on a balance sheet. It is a burden on every Tasmanian, who will bear this responsibility for generations to come.

The consequences of this mismanagement are clear. The Liberals' approach to our finances has left Tasmania's budget in a dire position, placing our hard-won AA credit rating at serious risk. For more than a decade, Premier Jeremy Rockliff and his government have presided over ever-increasing infrastructure spending. Yet, despite these growing outlays, their track record on delivering actual projects falls far short. The result is more debt, fewer results and a heavier load for every household and every business across the state. Bungled infrastructure projects, like the Spirit of Tasmania fiasco and the earmarked Macquarie Point stadium, are making Tasmania a laughingstock. It is so sad.

Instead of taking responsibility, the state Liberals continue to go cap in hand to our federal Labor government seeking bailouts to prop up their poor decision-making. This is despite the fact that the Commonwealth already provides a massive 70 per cent of Tasmania's budget revenue—70 per cent. They still can't manage it. It's time for an honest leadership and a return to fiscal responsibility, not cooked books and a debt that future generations are going to have to bear. It is unfair, and, as a Labor senator for Tasmania, I demand more accountability from the Tasmanian government.

I rise today to again call on the Albanese Labor government to properly fund the CSIRO, our national science agency and one of the great engines of Australian ingenuity. It's the CSIRO that gave the world wi-fi, polymer bank notes and Aerogard. More than 1,000 Canberrans work at the CSIRO. It's a vital part of our community and a source of national pride.

But this morning I met with CSIRO staff and heard about the deep toll a decade of cuts has taken, and there are more cuts on the way. Their funding goes off a cliff. Despite already losing 1,000 colleagues, there are another 400 set to go. We're talking about 400 researchers. Research capability, once gone, is incredibly hard to rebuild. CSIRO employees are worried not just for their jobs but for the future of Australian science. Our investment in R&D has slipped to just 1.7 per cent of GDP, well below the OECD average of 2.6 per cent. Per capita investment in the CSIRO has fallen by 87.5 per cent since the 1980s.

This is not setting us up for success, if we're not investing in research and development. We've heard much about Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson's book Abundance. This is not an abundance mindset. We need to be investing in the ideas of the future and actually putting money into research, basic and translational, on tackling climate change, medical breakthroughs and the future of AI. They deserve government support, and we need to give them the tools to build the future we need. It's time to fund the CSIRO.

I send my strength and solidarity to my brothers and sisters in West Papua, where 15 civilians were recently massacred by the Indonesian military. Reports from West Papuan advocates detail door-to-door raids, homes destroyed, civilians killed and communities terrorised. Since Indonesia's occupation began in 1962, more than 500,000 West Papuans have been killed in what has been described as a slow motion genocide. This is a devastating continuation of settler colonial dispossession and resource extraction.

West Papuans have been forcibly displaced from their ancestral lands while the military drives the destruction of two million hectares of rainforest for palm oil and the obliteration of a sacred mountain for a foreign-owned gold mine. Indonesia continues to ban journalists, UN fact-finding missions, NGOs and aid agencies in seeking to silence witnesses to its crimes. In the words of West Papuan independence leader Benny Wenda, this is a David versus Goliath battle. West Papuans are defending their ancestral lands with bows and arrows and a few guns taken from raids, while the Indonesian military uses drones, missiles, helicopters, sniper rifles and fighter jets.

The Albanese government again remains silent and complicit, allowing these atrocities to continue with impunity and even providing military equipment to Indonesia. I join with West Papuan advocates in calling for this government to demand that Indonesia permits a UN human rights fact-finding mission, lifts the blackout and facilitates access to journalists.

I was denied the opportunity to speak on the Australian Centre for Disease Control Bill 2025 earlier today, so I thought I'd use this opportunity to make a couple of brief remarks. In that debate earlier today, I heard the minister say that the CDC bill was needed as a response to the lessons of the coronavirus pandemic. That surprised me because we haven't really learnt the lessons from the pandemic because we've never had a royal commission. We've never had a proper inquiry into what happened during COVID despite all of the businesses that were shut and ultimately lost. There were people who lost their jobs and who were traumatised. We never had a proper investigation despite the fact that the Labor Party, when in opposition, chaired an inquiry recommending that we have a royal commission after the end of the pandemic. We still have not had one. So we haven't been able to learn the proper lessons from COVID.

I noted in the bill today that there was not even a mention of the issue of gain-of-function research. We know now—we know for sure now—that the coronavirus pandemic, this tragic event, happened because of a leak from a Wuhan lab where scientists were conducting so-called gain-of-function research. They were intentionally inflating the virality of a disease, and it unfortunately tragically escaped. I think people don't realise that those Wuhan scientists were trained in those techniques by the CSIRO. In this country, we have conducted at least 14 gain-of-function scientific research papers in the last 10 years. Still, to this day, we don't know what they did. The CSIRO and the department of health refuse to provide the details of what research was done. This is incredibly risky research. We know that now for sure. Why aren't we providing proper regulation and oversight of that research if we're serious about avoiding another pandemic.

Acting Deputy President Ghosh, you will understand better than almost anyone in this chamber that Western Australia is the economic powerhouse of our nation, driving growth, innovation and jobs. Under the Albanese Labor government, working hand-in-hand with the Cook Labor government, we are building Western Australia's future. Our government is investing $9.7 billion into transport infrastructure across our great state, investing in the infrastructure that keeps WA moving. This includes widening the Kwinana Freeway, which is very important to many of my neighbours in Perth's southern suburbs. We are improving safety and easing congestion for more than 100,000 vehicles every single day. It's backed by $353 million commitment to get the job done. That is on top of our commitment to support the planning of the Westport project, the anchor of WA's future trade growth, with a new container port in Kwinana setting up our state for the next century.

We're also strengthening WA's role as a gateway to the Indo-Pacific, granting first-port-of-entry status to Wyndham, Ashburton and Dampier. We are opening the north to new trade opportunities. That means goods can land closer to where they are needed, cutting costs, boosting productivity, supporting clean energy and green fuel industries across the Pilbara, the Kimberley and the entire nation. Through METRONET, we've delivered the biggest transformation of public transport in our state's history, connecting our outer suburbs and cutting travel time. We're securing our national defence and creating skilled work at home through our naval ship-building precinct in Henderson, supporting the local ship-building workforce and strengthening—

Thank you, Senator Whiteaker. The time for statements has expired.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Minister, earlier this week, the Prime Minister said:

Go back and have a look at some of the front pages that were run during the 2022 election campaign and see how they measure up …

Well, on 2 May 2022, the Australian Financial Review front page had the headline, 'Labor's pitch: no one left behind'. According to Homelessness Australia, however, there has been a 33 per cent increase in Australians living rough in the past two years. Today, Foodbank has released its hunger report, which found that, in 2025, one in three Australian households have experienced food insecurity in the last 12 months. Minister, will you acknowledge that millions of Australians are being left behind under Labor?

Senator, I'm very pleased that you've gone back and looked at the 2022 election campaign front pages, but I can say to you that this government doesn't need to look at newspapers to know how important it is to continue the work we are engaging in on delivering on the cost of living, on housing, on Medicare, on schools. You will have seen this government, in the last term and in this term, deliver tax cuts which have provided more support to middle- and low-income earners. You would have seen this government invest in Medicare so that more people are able to access bulk-billing services, whether that is at urgent care clinics or with GPs, and you will have seen the largest investment in Medicare since Medicare was built—this term, as we promised.

In relation to housing, I welcome the opposition's interest in housing supply. I welcome it, and—

We're talking about homeless people.

Well, yes. Thank you, Senator. We do actually think the provision of housing might have relevance to the homelessness issue. I know that those opposite, for many years, have failed to understand that. We are dealing with that—the consequence of years of neglect, when it comes to housing and homelessness, by those opposite. We on this side of the chamber are dealing with it. In addition to the Housing Australia Future Fund, you will recall that this government is prioritising and allocating investment in social and affordable housing, because we understand the importance of the provision of affordable housing as part of addressing homelessness and, frankly, people who are doing it tough in this country.

I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the gallery of a parliamentary delegation from the Tuvalu parliament led by the speaker, the Hon. Sir Iakoba Italeli. I also acknowledge the High Commissioner for Tuvalu, His Excellency Mr Samuelu Laloniu. 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

Senator Hume, first supplementary?

The Prime Minister also said:

My government's been very disciplined about fulfilling the commitments that we made prior to the election.

Well, prior to the 2022 election, the Prime Minister said that he would deliver cheaper mortgages for Australians, but, since Labor came to power, mortgage holders have paid around $1,800 more per month. Minister, when will your government fulfil its commitment of cheaper mortgages?

I also acknowledge our Tuvaluan friends. Welcome to our parliament.

If I can just return—now that I have the figures. I'm pleased to advise you, Senator, that this government is investing more into homelessness than any Commonwealth government has in history, including through the $9.3 billion National Agreement on Social Housing and Homelessness that provides $1.8 billion every year to states and territories. On top of that, we're backing national organisations fighting homelessness and housing insecurity across the country.

In relation to food relief, I now recall, with the assistance of Senator Gallagher, the 2024-25 budget, where additional funding was provided to food and emergency relief organisations. So this is a government that is honouring its commitments. We know that more has to be done. We know the work that has to be done.

Senator Hume, I don't know if you want to persist with a point of order or move to your second supplementary.

The point of order is relevance. The supplementary question was all about cheaper mortgages. We didn't get a single mention of mortgages.

Senator Hume, it's not a time for statements. I invite you to put your second supplementary.

The headline on the front page of the Australian on 2 May 2022 said, 'Life will be "cheaper" under me'—says the Prime Minister. But Labor have been elected, and households are paying 15 per cent more for food, 15 per cent more for health, 19 per cent more for housing and nearly 40 per cent more for electricity. Minister, do you think Australians feel that life is cheaper since you came to power?

():  We've always understood that Australians are doing it tough. We've always understood the responsibility of government to contribute to measures which assist with the cost of living, and we have done that. There have been pay rises for more minimum and award wage workers, taking the increase in total to over $9,000. I know that those opposite believe that low wages are a deliberate design feature of the Australian economy. But we don't do that.

We've increased the superannuation guarantee. We have more energy bill relief. As I recall, those opposite voted against energy bill relief. We've seen, as I have said, boosts to Medicare—more choice, lower costs and higher quality care for Australian women. We've delivered pay rises to aged-care nurses and to other sectors, and we're expanding bulk-billing. These are measures that you opposed, but the government is delivering for Australians.

My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. In the face of substantial economic uncertainty, the Australian economy has proven to be remarkably resilient. Since the election of the Albanese Labor government, we've seen real wage rises, low unemployment and lower inflation than what we inherited from those opposite. Combined with significant cost-of-living relief, including energy bill relief—

Opposition senators interjecting—

I thought you might enjoy this question.

Order on my left! I need to be able to hear the question

I don't know whether they heard it or not. There have been real wage rises, low unemployment and lower inflation than we inherited from those opposite—facts. Combine that with giving significant cost-of-living relief, including energy bill relief, and strengthening Medicare, and the government is focused on supporting all Australians.

Opposition senators interjecting—

I have called for order!

Senator McKenzie! How many times do I have to call you personally? And you just kept on interjecting. If you can't listen in silence, leave the chamber. That goes for you as well, Senator Bragg. Senator Dowling, have you finished your question?

No, the clock didn't stop, President. So I'll just wrap up.

Ten seconds.

Minister, how is the Albanese Labor government supporting Australians while also strengthening the economy?

():  Thank you, Senator Dowling, for the question and for battling through—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order across the chamber!

I acknowledge Senator Dowling for battling through all that noise from those opposite. There were as many interjections coming from those opposite as there are feet going upstairs to give interviews against each other in the press gallery each day. You can't get a spot up there these days!

Senator Ruston, a point of order?

It's on relevance. As much fun as the minister might be having, maybe you could draw her attention to the point of the question.

The minister has just started her answer. I will listen carefully and, if necessary, will draw her attention to the question.

Thank you for a question on the economy. Since we've come to government, we've recognised that Australian households are facing cost-of-living pressures and we've been responding to that. At the same time we've been working with the Reserve Bank in order to make sure that inflation comes down and gets back into band. We know that that work is never done. But I think it is right that we, as Australians together, acknowledge the substantial progress that has been made over the last three years. Inflation has now been between two and three per cent for three consecutive quarters. While headline inflation increased last quarter, this was largely as a result of the end of state energy rebates, and it remains much lower than its peak. The Reserve Bank has cut rates three times this year.

We are seeing those cost-of-living pressures remain, and that's why we have focused on measures that help households—measures that those opposite voted against and now refer to as wasteful spending. We're working out how to get wages moving. Lower taxes—this is the government of lower taxes.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Well, we are. We're the only ones who went to the election promising to lower taxes. You promised to raise income taxes for every single working person in this country to pay for a $600 billion nuclear fantasy that some are still trying to revive. The government remain focused on the commitments we took to the election, on delivering on those commitments and on supporting households right across the economy.

Senator Dowling, first supplementary?

We'll see how we go this time. Recent economic indicators, including the reaffirmation of Australia's AAA credit rating—something we should all celebrate—point to confidence in the nation's outlook and capacity for growth. Minister, how do these developments position the Albanese Labor government to pursue future opportunities that will both strengthen productivity and deliver benefits for all Australians?

I acknowledge and thank Senator Dowling for that supplementary question. Pursuing productivity is key to ensuring we can continue to deliver better jobs and wages for all Australians. We on this side of the chamber know that we want Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn. That is a very big distinction between us on this side of the chamber and those on that side of the chamber, who wanted lower wages, higher taxes and a $600 billion nuclear fantasy. That is what they offered the Australian people. We had a different plan.

We're investing through our National Reconstruction Fund. We're investing in skills. We've got our Future Made in Australia agenda. We've got the $900 million National Productivity Fund. We've landed our energy policy, and we're implementing that. Again, it's a bit of a sharp contrast to those opposite. We're making investments in our social infrastructure, in Medicare, in child care and in making sure that we're supporting women across the economy, and we will keep going. (Time expired)

Senator Dowling, second supplementary?

Thank you, Minister, for outlining how focused economic management by the Albanese Labor government has improved economic resilience and improved the budget bottom line compared to what those opposite proposed. How does this turnaround demonstrate the importance of responsible economic leadership in achieving better outcomes for Australians?

I acknowledge the very high quality of your question, Senator Dowling; your experience as an economist; and the skills that you bring to the government and have brought to your contribution today. Since Labor was elected, inflation is down, debt is down, real wages are growing, unemployment is low and interest rates have fallen. We've delivered two surpluses. Remember that? We turned two Liberal deficits into two Labor surpluses. We've found savings. We're repairing the budget. We're making the investments we need right across the economy, in productivity and in our key social infrastructure, like early education and care, education, housing and Medicare. This is what this government is doing. We're pulling every single lever we can to make sure we support households and build the economy that future generations in this country deserve.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. The government continues to cover up secret Treasury modelling that shows how much Labor's expanded home guarantee scheme will push up prices. Why won't the government release these secret documents?

I'm sure that you will continue to press for the release of whatever documents the Treasury is utilising, but I think you have heard the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and perhaps it might have been Senator Ayres, because he was in the Treasury estimates, talking about what advice was provided or the sorts of quanta that their modelling indicates, which is not consistent with the sort of fearmongering that you're engaging in. But while we're on the chamber of secrets, I really give you the opportunity, Senator, to break open your own chamber of secrets and explain to us when the super-for-housing policy that you felt so hard for was actually junked. We were amazing to see, in your transcript, Senator, that this major election policy that you fought for had been junked.

Senator Bragg?

A point of order on relevance. I'm just re-reading. I didn't—

No, Senator Bragg, you are not re-reading—

I'm just checking—

Senator Bragg, resume your seat. When I ask you to resume your seat, that's exactly what you should do. Minister Wong, I am going to direct you to Senator Bragg's question.

Which was about the secrets—

I am talking about the secrets. I'm talking about the secret policy announcement that wasn't an announcement but was an announcement. We are interested in whether or not the super-for-housing policy has actually been permanently junked.

Senator Bragg?

A point of order on relevance—the question was about the secret reports not about the superannuation.

I will direct the minister to your question.

I think you've been advised this on a number of occasions, but I'm happy to do it again—the Treasury advice indicates that the impact of this policy on house pricing will be minor.

You're supposed to release the documents.

Senator, I'm giving you an answer around the advice that I understood had been provided was around half a per cent over six years, and the facts are that other factors have a much greater influence on house prices, including interest rates and supply, which brings me to the point that I think is of relevance. Senator, if you are keen on reducing the growth in housing prices, perhaps, instead of wandering around secretly announcing the junking of your policies, you might actually want to think about what it is you support for housing supply. Housing supply is fundamental to making sure we have more affordable pricing.

Senator Bragg, first supplementary?

The Prime Minister said the Treasury modelling detailed that the home guarantee changes, which you just referred to, would push up prices by 0.5 per cent. In October alone, however, house prices went up 1.1 per cent overall and 1.2 per cent in entry-level houses, so it seems the modelling is already wrong. Is that why we can't see the modelling?

Senator, there's a wilful disregard for the very transparent answers that have been given in the other place and in this chamber. We have told you, now on more than one occasion, what the price impact that the Treasury modelling disclosed is. So we provided that information. I know you don't like it, but we've actually provided the information. He is getting all heated up on getting information that we have actually given him. He just doesn't like the answer. Now, in terms of why house prices have moved in this last quarter, I again refer you to my earlier answer, which is that there is more than one factor in the housing market which is going to affect supply. I know that it is politically convenient for you to look only at one factor.

A point of order on relevance: the question was, 'Why can't we see the modelling?'

Senator Bragg, the minister is being directly relevant to your question. Minister Wong, please continue.

Senator, I will certainly look at what the Treasury's advice is. As Senator Gallagher outlined today about the hundreds of OPDs this government is dealing with, I don't have in my head the precise number that you are talking about. (Time expired)

Senator Bragg, second supplementary?

With or without Labor's secret modelling, house prices are going up, especially for entry-level homes. Does the government think this is a good outcome for first home buyers?

As you would know, what we have said, what Minister O'Neil has been very clear about, is that our priority across this area is to increase the amount of houses coming on supply. We want to increase the supply. We are also investing in homelessness and social affordable housing, and we are also providing first home owners with some assistance. We do all of that because we on this side of the chamber understand it isn't about the scaremongering that you are wishing to engage in; it is about making sure we do the hard work across the federation on delivering more houses over the next decade.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services. Minister, the robodebt royal commission was meant to mark the end of the government's war on people living in in poverty, but, over two years later, the government still hasn't fully implemented the commission's recommendations and continues to oversee a social security system that punishes people for being poor, treats the vulnerable like criminals and routinely breaches the law without consequence. Nothing can truly make up for the harms and the lives lost because of robodebt, but brave advocates, like Jenny Miller and Kath Madgwick, who join us in the gallery today, continue to fight to ensure no more tragedies occur and that our social safety net supports people rather than punishes them. Minister, how much longer will Kath and Jenny have to wait before the government fulfils its promise to stop chasing old welfare debts and reinstates the six-year limitation on debt recovery as the royal commission intended?

I thank Senator Allman-Payne for the question and acknowledge those in the gallery that she referenced in her question. We have since coming to government been doing a lot of work about making sure that our systems are right and that they're backed legislatively—that we have the legal backing for the way we deliver services to the Australian people, who are right to draw attention to robodebt. There has been enormous work done over the last parliament through both a royal commission and the response to the royal commission. I think that has significantly changed the way the Public Service works and the way we deliver services to the Australian people. There are a number of areas where work is underway, across both Minister Plibersek's and my portfolio in government services, to ensure that the policy intent of the way we deliver services is supported by law. There are some areas which I think have been drawn to attention, including by the ombudsman, where there needs to be further law reform, further legislation to deal with those. We will continue to work through those as we can. There is work underway, I can assure you, across government in relation to that. I'm not specifically aware of the individual situation that you mentioned, but we have taken some decisions around remediation of debts and making the debt recovery system fairer, including looking at low-level debts and how we deal with those. That work is being led by Minister Plibersek, working closely with me as Minister for Government Services.

Senator Allman-Payne, second supplementary?

So-called mutual obligations force people on JobSeeker into pointless box-ticking exercises and compliance activities that deliver billions of dollars to private employment agencies but provide no real help to jobseekers. In the past year, over two million payment suspensions have been issued under this system—a system that two reports have now found may not even be lawful. Minister, can you state with confidence that the Targeted Compliance Framework is operating lawfully?

That doesn't actually fall under the same portfolio as the first question. It's a system that's run under the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. But I am aware of work that she is doing under employment services reform and is considering, in relation to the first part of Senator Allman-Payne's question. In relation to the Targeted Compliance Framework, there has been work done. I'll see if there's more information I can provide. It doesn't fall under my portfolio, but we have provided additional investment to ensure the integrity of the processes supporting mutual obligation requirements and to address concerns with mutual obligation and compliance settings. This work is recognised and is underway. If there's anything I can provide through the relevant minister representing that area, I will.

Senator Allman-Payne, second supplementary?

Minister, given that the government can't say that the Targeted Compliance Framework is lawful, as they've stated in estimates, how can the government continue to operate it? Will social services suspend payment suspensions while this remains in doubt, or will you continue to deprive hundreds of thousands of jobseekers of the funds they need to survive?

Senator Allman-Payne, I'll just remind you that the minister has informed the chamber that it's not her portfolio, but she's happy to take matters and pass them on. I invite her to answer the question in whatever way.

Just to clarify, I did not say in my answer what Senator Allman-Payne says I said. I just want to be clear about that. I wasn't there at estimates, so I'm not clear on the evidence that was provided. This is not part of my repping responsibilities. The Targeted Compliance Framework is not run by the Department of Social Services; it's Department of Employment and Workplace Relations. But, on the broader point—and I've been clear about this—there is work underway between social services and myself in government services to make sure our legislative arrangements support the policy intent of the way we deliver services. There are areas where we need to do further work and further law reform to make sure that is the case.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, Disability and Ageing, Senator McAllister. In its first term, the Albanese Labor government delivered cost-of-living relief to all Australians by strengthening Medicare and cutting the cost of medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. How is the government supporting more Australians to access cheaper medicines via the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme?

Before I begin answering, I indicate that Senator McCarthy tells me that we are also welcoming the Northern Territory's deputy opposition leader, Mr Dheran Young, in the gallery. I welcome him here today.

It's a great question, Senator Polley, because the Albanese government is slashing the cost of medicines. That is providing real relief for families across Australia. It's why, earlier this year, the government passed the cheaper medicines bill. From next year, people will pay no more than $25 when filling up a prescription on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. That is a 20 per cent cut in the maximum cost of medicines under the PBS. It will save Australians more than $200 million a year. The people who need help most, like Australian pensioners and concession card holders, will have the cost of their PBS medicines frozen at just $7.70 until 2030.

But that's not all. We are doing so much more because we want the PBS to be the best it can be, offering more Australians effective and affordable treatments. It's why a month ago, on 1 October, Australians affected by breast cancer, by rare kidney disease and by a range of other conditions received critical cost-of-living relief, with access to even cheaper medicines on the PBS. Take for example TRUQAP, which treats locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer that cannot be removed by surgery. Without listing on the PBS, a course of treatment of TRUQAP would cost a patient more than $98,000. Now we are delivering savings for up to 3,000 patients who will benefit from this PBS listing. And, for the first time in 30 years, we have listed new contraceptive pills on the PBS, because this is a government that listens to women right around the country who've told us they want more choice over their contraception.

Senator Polley, first supplementary?

Thank you, Minister. Australian women have been waiting a very long time. Australians shouldn't have to choose between seeing the GP when they need and paying their bills. On 1 November the Albanese Labor government delivered the largest ever investment in the history of Medicare, which is delivering on the government's commitment to restore bulk-billing. How will this investment help more Australians see a GP for free? I was with Assistant Minister White on Sunday with a bulk-billing—100 per cent in Newstead in my home state—

That is good news, Senator Polley. In May, the Australian people voted for a government that would deliver strong and affordable health care for all Australians. Last Saturday the Albanese Labor government's largest ever single investment in the history of Medicare—an $8½ billion dollar investment—kicked in. What does that mean? It does mean more bulk-billing for more Australians. For the first time, bulk-billing incentives will be paid to GPs for every patient that they bulk-bill. And it means it is now easier to find a bulk-billed GP appointment. Around 1,000 clinics have indicated they are moving to full bulk-billing, having previously charged gap fees. That is what Labor governments do. They deliver real benefits for everyday Australians. Our government is getting on with the job, delivering affordable health care for Australians, because the only card you should need when you're sick is your Medicare card

Senator Polley, second supplementary?

Minister, what other measures is the Albanese Labor government taking to deliver affordable health care to all Australians? Why has the government chosen this approach to build and protect Medicare, unlike those opposite?

Thank you, Senator Polley. The Albanese Labor government will always protect and strengthen Medicare, whether it is expanding bulk-billing, delivering cheaper medicines or delivering the 137 urgent care clinics, which will mean that four out of five Australians will live within a 20-minute drive of an urgent care clinic. I'd invite the Senate to compare that to the record of those opposite. They gutted the Medicare system. They tried to end bulk-billing with the GP co-payment. They froze Medicare rebates so that it would be harder to see a doctor, and the only way they could get their bulk-billing rates up was by inflating them, relying on a massive number of COVID related bulk-billing appointments that were taken during the pandemic. They don't agree on very much on the other side, but the one thing they can agree on is gutting Medicare, where Labor will always protect it and always strengthen it.

My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Senator McCarthy. The report on the Online Safety Act review was released on 4 February 2025. The government is yet to release a government response. A key theme of the review's report was the inability of current legislation to apply extraterritorial enforcement, meaning that online safety laws struggle to make sure overseas based platforms are following our laws. The review's report recommended multiple fixes for the issue, including requiring platforms to have a local presence in Australia and requiring a licence to operate. What work is being done to fix extraterritorial enforcement and ensure overseas platforms will actually follow our laws?

Thank you, Senator Tyrrell, for your question. I'm certainly conscious that we were delayed in responding to the Regional Telecommunications Review, which you mentioned at the beginning of your question, given the federal election, but we did respond just recently to the parliament. You know that, as part of the Albanese government's commitment to ensuring that Australians are protected by world-leading online safety laws, the government will be legislating a digital duty of care, and the digital duty of care will place the onus on digital platforms to proactively keep Australians safe and better prevent online harms.

Senator Tyrrell, you know that this is a space that the minister is working very diligently in, given the timeline that we have ahead of us in terms of the ban for those under 16. We are committed to ensuring the act provides strong protections and that platforms take responsibility for reducing the harms experienced by Australians online.

Senator Tyrrell, first supplementary?

The government knows platforms can avoid paying fines or following court ordered directions that enforce the Online Safety Act. Take-down notices from eSafety have been rendered practically useless by Federal Court rulings, leaving overseas platforms like X laughing. If nothing has been done yet that will be ready in time for your social media kids ban in one month's time, how do you think the ban can actually be enforced by the courts?

We know that this is a world-leading step that we are taking. We know that because of the support that the minister received on her trip to the United Nations recently. We also know that it was largely because of the words of one of the parents, Ms Emma Mason, who spoke so passionately not only to the UN but to the world in regard to what had happened to her. We recognise that there will be difficulties along the way, but the minister is working diligently to ensure that this piece of legislation and those telcos are ready for 10 December.

Senator Tyrrell, second supplementary?

Minister, as you indicated when the report was released back in February, the government has recommitted to a digital duty of care but has since been silent on this and the broader report. Almost one year on, with no government response, can the minister please provide an update on the duty of care and explain what other recommended reforms are being pursued, separate to the duty of care?

I'll certainly provide you the advice I've been given, but I'm also happy to seek further advice. I've been made aware that Australia's online safety work is world leading. To ensure the Online Safety Act is fit for purpose, the Albanese government brought forward that independent review. The government is carefully examining all of those recommendations and everything that you've mentioned today.

My question is to the Minister for Industry and Innovation, Senator Ayres. Minister, Iluka Resources are planning on suspending operations at their Cataby mineral sands mine and their only operating synthetic rutile processing kiln in Western Australia in less than a month, putting hundreds of jobs at risk. Following this, BHP has scaled back production at its Yandi iron ore mine, and South32 have announced redundancies at their Worsley operation due to increasing cost pressures, putting hundreds more jobs at risk. Across the country, we've seen the deindustrialisation of Australia, thanks to your failed energy and industry policies. How many more jobs will be lost under your watch?

I want to point out that a series of those operations clearly fall within my portfolio area as the minister for industry. A series of them, of course, fall under the responsibility of my colleague the Minister for Resources, Madeleine King. I'll try and address the overall approach in relation to those questions, but you'll appreciate that, in relation to some of those direct mining ventures, I'll have to come back to you with any additional information that we would be able to provide. I can see material that doesn't quite go to it being provided to me at the moment.

The broad question at the end of your question was about the approach of this government on industrial policy and industrial jobs. You will have seen, over the course of the last six months, our approach to securing the future viability of a series of industrial facilities that employ or cause to employ many thousands of people, including one in your home state of Queensland. The knock-on effects of the closure of that Glencore facility would have been many thousands of jobs.

I am asked about approaches to energy policy, and one of the most important things, of course, in this area is consistency. Senator McDonald, on 28 March 2023, said, 'We supported a measured, cooperative approach to net zero by 2050.' That was your position. I wonder what it is today. (Time expired)

Senator McDonald, first supplementary?

Minister, your government has overseen 8,000 Western Australian jobs lost thanks to the collapse of our nickel industry and another 800 jobs lost at Kwinana before these more recent announcements. Why are so many Western Australian jobs at risk under Labor?

I think it could only be the coalition that would blame the Commonwealth government for what is going on in the global nickel market. That is the sort of irresponsible wandering-past-the-problem approach that underscores the delinquency of the period that those opposite were in government. It's hard to find a metaphor that is appropriate. It's not just the teenage arsonist blaming the fire brigade for turning up late; it's the teenage arsonist who's still pouring petrol out and holding a lighter blaming the fire brigade for turning up too late.

Senator McDonald, second supplementary?

We've seen risks of job losses at Tomago, ALUCA, Nyrstar, Glencore and BHP. When will you admit your energy policies are failing Australians and driving up prices and costs, or will taxpayers yet again have to pay for your failures?

What is absolutely clear is that Australia is paying the price for a decade of delinquency. There were efforts by the previous government. Mr Taylor said, 'The coalition's policy to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 is a responsible and balanced plan.' Senator Kovacic said that, under the previous Liberal government, Australia committed to reaching zero by 2050. Ms Ley said, 'We have a technology agnostic approach to reaching zero by 2050.' It goes on and on. Senator Smith was over there saying the coalition is committed to transitioning to net zero.

My point of order is on relevance. I'm waiting to hear about Australia being able to compete on energy policy.

Thank you, Senator McDonald—

Order! Order!

Order! Senator McKenzie, I don't know why you think, after I've said order three times, that somehow you deserve the last word. You don't. Minister Ayres, I'm going to draw you back to the question.

We will continue to deliver the modernisation of our electricity system. We will continue to improve the gas market settings in the interests of heavy industry. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Industry and Innovation, Senator Ayres. Green iron represents a massive opportunity for jobs, investment and exports in line with a Future Made in Australia. The government has allocated $2.4 billion to Whyalla, but we have an equally valuable magnetite resource in mid-west WA. Major investors are now turning to the Middle East to invest in green iron because of positive government support, which puts future WA jobs in this sector at risk. While the WA state government is investing, we need the speed and scale that only the Commonwealth can deliver. Premier Roger Cook is in Canberra, so I'm sure WA is on the agenda. Minister, what funding has the federal government allocated for common user infrastructure at Geraldton port to crowd in private capital and investment?

Senator, thank you for that question. I know this is the states house, but I would not pit Australians against each other on these questions. Investment in South Australia, which is a very good investment—it's very important to take that facility away from its owner, who was running it into the ground, against our national interest and industrial capability—is a good thing for Australia and a good thing for South Australians. It maintains our iron- and steel-making capability in Australia while we build for the future.

You are right to point to Western Australia's enormous potential advantage here. What this government is trying to do is achieve two objectives—all of them opposed by the Liberals and Nationals, and Lord knows what the One Nation party's position is on these questions. We are for a future made in Australia for this sector, and we're doing it for two reasons. One is to secure future iron production in Australia and move up the value chain to secure good jobs.

On a point of relevance, President, I was asking specifically about the Geraldton port funding. I know there was a preamble, but you could you please direct the minister.

The minister is being relevant to your question, Senator Payman.

There are two purposes. One is to move Australia up the value chain and secure this industrial capability and good-quality blue-collar jobs in our regions, and that is very much a Western Australian story. Secondly, the objective here is to protect the future of our iron ore sector, which cannot be left unprotected to be entirely reliant upon its current export markets, because some of our customers are moving to diversify their supply chains, and that puts our iron ore sector—if we are not thoughtful about planning for the future—at some competitive disadvantage. That's the focus of our policy. That's what we're going to do.

Senator Payman, first supplementary?

The Commonwealth collect tens of billions in corporate tax revenue from the iron ore industry in WA. Minister, why is the federal government giving zero dollars to safeguard WA's No. 1 export industry and ensure the industry has a future in Australia through green iron?

As I've said, we are for Australia and Australia's capability here. The story of future iron production in Australia is very much a Western Australian story. The future critical minerals production in Australia is a South Australia, Queensland, Northern Territory and WA story. There is a billion dollars there just to deal with one program—a billion dollars in the Green Iron Investment Fund. Now, Premier Cook is here today. He is making—

Not in the chamber, Senator Ciccone, but here in Canberra. He is about the house, making representations on behalf of Western Australia. I'm sure he will be doing it in relation to future iron production. I guarantee that we will develop a joint approach, implemented over time with the government of Western Australia, in the interests of— (Time expired)

Senator Payman, second supplementary?

For all my constituents from WA who are listening in, how many well-paying highly skilled future-proof WA jobs are we potentially sacrificing by failing to invest in this opportunity now? You claim to be working very closely with Premier Cook. Surely WA is on the agenda, but you have not mentioned anything about any project in WA.

That is obviously a prewritten question that bears no relationship to what is actually happening and the progress that is being made with the government of Western Australia in the real world on our future iron investments there. The work that is being done on making sure there is a clear technological pathway through, whether it's NeoSmelt or these other projects that are being supported by overseas investors, Australia's iron ore sector, and our research and development capability will be in the interests of thousands of good blue-collar jobs, and they will protect the mining industry in Western Australia from the potential losses that would occur had this government not got a progressive agenda for a future made in Australia.

My question is also to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Ayres—it's Ayres day! Delivering cheaper and cleaner electricity is central to the Albanese Labor government's economic agenda. Can the minister confirm that the Australian Energy Regulator cited unreliable coal power plants as a key driver of higher electricity prices?

Opposition senators interjecting—

That's unreliable coal power plants as a key driver of higher electricity prices. Can he also outline why unreliable coal power drives up electricity costs?

Senator Grogan, please resume your seat. Senator Grogan is entitled to ask her question in silence.

In addition to that first section—I might just quickly run past it again. Can the minister confirm that the Australian Energy Regulator cited unreliable coal power plants as a key driver of higher electricity prices? Why is unreliable coal power driving electricity costs, and why is it a feature of the Australian grid? What is the government doing about it?

Thank you, Senator Grogan. It's a very good question indeed, and I'm sure you didn't want to provoke those opposite, who sort of ping around on these questions, perhaps from embarrassment. If only we could have an embarrassment power electricity system. You're right, Senator Grogan. The Australian Energy Regulator has been very clear. Unreliable coal power stations drive electricity costs higher. Those old plants, 24 out of 28 of whom announced or brought forward their closures while those opposite were in government, who did nothing about it, shut down without warning, requiring the use of fast but expensive gas peaking power stations. Just yesterday, on one day, there were three gigawatts of unplanned coal power outages, making electricity more expensive for households and industry.

It's not just the Australian Energy Regulator. Rio Tinto has been clear that the coal power from AGL Bayswater is too expensive after 2028. That's why we are building new generation—15 gigawatts added to the grid since we were elected and 20 gigawatts in the pipeline. We are delivering hundreds of thousands of home batteries, which make bills cheaper for Australians and help support our grid.

Opposition senators interjecting—

The constant interjections, particularly from you, Senator Canavan, but not you alone, are incredibly disorderly.

From the National Party.

Senator McKenzie, once again you have to have the last word. Minister Ayres deserves to be heard in silence. If you can't give him that respect, leave the chamber.

'Deserves' was very generous indeed, President, but I will take that, absolutely. The fact that the National Party want to drag Australia back to that policy gibberish, and these guys aren't prepared to stand up to them—

Minister Ayres, please resume your seat. Once again, Senator McKenzie and Senator McDonald, your constant running commentary is completely out of order and it's disrespectful to me, just after I've had to sit the minister down to bring you to order, to start up again. I'm serious. If you can't be quiet, leave the chamber.

Where is the courage of the modern Liberal Party? Where is the consistency? Where is somebody who is prepared to stand up in an effective way to this extremist takeover— (Time expired)

Senator Grogan, first supplementary?

():  The Albanese Labor government is focused on reform that delivers a structurally lower energy prices. You've stepped out for us how expensive coal-fired power is. What reforms are required to deliver structurally lower prices, and what parts of our community will benefit?

Thank you, that's right. Dealing with the wreckage in the energy market that was left by those opposite is the serious business of this government. We need major reform. We need affordable gas in Australia to bring down the cost of gas for industry and the energy system. That's why Ministers Bowen and King are working their way through the gas market review—

Opposition senators interjecting—

The interjections are beginning again.

whose purpose is to try and unravel the mess that was left by the show opposite. We need long-term certainty for electricity investors to make sure that more generation and transmission gets built in regional Australia in cooperation with the farming communities that this rabble opposite are wandering around, stoking division in—mostly with memes imported from far-right extremists overseas that they pretend they made themselves.

Senator Grogan, second supplementary?

What I'm hearing from Senator Ayres is that cheaper electricity is requiring a disciplined approach, unlike those opposite, and a coherent policy, unlike those opposite. What exactly are the risks if energy policy is incoherent or delivered by an undisciplined government? Could the minister step out for us what those issues might look like?

Well, I only have a minute, but the key risk is a return to the investment drought, the disinvestment and the structurally higher prices that are a consequence of the delinquent decade that those opposite were in government. Senator Canavan said in 2019 that electricity prices for manufacturing businesses in Australia had gone up 91 per cent in the last decade. What did he and the Morrison government do about it? In 2020, they gave goodness knows who $3.3 million—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Minister Ayres, please resume your seat. Once again, interjections are disorderly.

They gave $3.3 million of public money to Shine Energy—where are they now?—for a coal-fired power station in Collinsville that never got built. Not a sod was turned. I don't think they even put a fence up.

Seriously, Senator Canavan. I invite you to leave the chamber.

I'm not going to.

If you are going to stay in here, the choice is to listen in silence and be respectful to my directions and my orders.

The only thing that would guarantee more expensive power is a plan to reintroduce coal-fired power. I don't know what will be next from this lot—coal-fired trains?

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minster, Senator Wong. Yesterday Western Australian Premier Roger Cook met with the Prime Minister and other ministers on the latest Labor attempt on environmental reform, with media reporting that he said the government must deal with the resources sector's concerns and:

… we also need to make sure that industry continues to be encouraged.

Have Labor's left-wing, pro-Greens reform proposals failed Western Australian business and indeed all Australian businesses? They have been rejected by the Premier of Western Australia and business groups again.

Thank you, Senator. It gives me the opportunity to again say to you that we want faster decisions for business and stronger protections for the environment. You have an opportunity here to do the right thing and engage in good faith with the government to pass this legislation. It was your leader who first commissioned Graeme Samuel to review the legislation. You know that it's needed. So, if I may suggest, instead of coming in here and complaining about the legislation, why don't you engage in good faith with delivering legislation which improves decisions and the speed of decisions for business and delivers stronger protections for the environment? Because that is in the national interest, and that is in the interest of all states and territories.

Senator O'Sullivan, first supplementary?

The government claims to have met with the Premier and many stakeholders in developing the latest reforms, yet the very key issues they raised have not been addressed. What are the issues that have been raised, and why didn't Labor listen to the Premier and the business stakeholders and act on their concerns before drafting the legislation?

It is interesting, isn't it? My recollection is that yesterday the Greens were trying to drum up an argument that big business was all for this. Now we have an argument that we are not talking to big business. I think that's right. We've got diametrically opposed narratives here. Perhaps, instead of everybody playing politics with their own supposed constituencies, it might be a good thing if a couple of the parties in this place other than the government looked to the national interest and passed legislation which you know is sorely needed.

Senator O'Sullivan, second supplementary?

Australia is becoming less attractive as a place for international investment. Australians are missing out on jobs, and living standards are going backwards. With the Western Australian Premier and businesses calling for significant amendments to the proposed reforms, will Labor be amending the legislation to fix the issues, or will it partner with the Greens to kill off Australia's productivity?

As I said, we want to deliver protection for the environment and make better and faster decisions for business. I am advised, and I would remind those opposite, that the Premier said this:

We can produce legislation which both encourages industry and protects the environment, and I think now is the time for the parliament to act.

Why don't you do just that, Senator?

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

In question time today, I undertook to provide further information in response to questions asked of me by Senator Tyrrell in my capacity as the Minister representing the Minister for Communications relating to the digital duty of care. I am adding to that response. I am advised that the consultation on the digital duty of care will start soon. Minister Wells's office advises me that they would be happy to brief Senator Tyrrell if she contacts Minister Wells's office.

For the 117th time—

You exaggerate!

It's 120 so far. Order for the production of documents No. 197 requests a report which was already requested by Senator Bragg at Senate estimates. As indicated to Senator Bragg at the estimates hearing, the government is considering what documents are and are not in scope and appropriate for tabling. The government expects to be able to respond to him in the usual way.

Senator Bragg's initial OPD, agreed on 28 October, gave the Minister for Housing two days to respond. This original order was not followed by a compliance motion before the motion which sets up this attendance. Not only is this a departure from standard practice; it's really an abuse of the process to require ministerial attendance on an OPD that has been with the minister for a week and one day. Senator Bragg alone has submitted around 30 OPDs in the 21 days of this parliament. That is as many OPDs in three weeks as were agreed to in the 50 years between 1914 and 1964—a span that included 13 parliaments and two world wars. This is less about government transparency and more about Senator Bragg's political theatrics. It may also assist the Senate and Senator Bragg to know that the orders for the production of documents regarding housing portfolio matters are best directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing rather than to the Minister representing the Treasurer.

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

In doing so, I note for the record that the coalition wishes Senator Wong a very happy birthday. I won't break into song here, because I might shock other senators and I'm trying to show respect to colleagues!

Well, it is a very disappointing response, Minister, because this is not a new issue. There is a sense in the response of the minister that this is all new. They had to go down to the Treasury, rustle a few rats together, get a few pieces of paper and, on the servers, try and find what the dogs and the rats hadn't actually eaten down there in the Treasury building on Langton Crescent. The fact is that this issue, in terms of the governance of Housing Australia and the bin fire that it's become, was initially the subject of a freedom of information request by me back in December 2024.

In response, the Treasury—as directed by the Labor government, I imagine—replied using an exemption and neither confirmed nor denied the existence of this report. If they had read the FOI Act that they seek to gut, they would know that you cannot use a neither-confirm-nor-deny exemption except in relation to national security or to Parliamentary Budget Office documents. The last time I looked, the government's bin fire in Housing Australia, which has billions and billions in taxpayer funds but doesn't build houses, had nothing to do with national security or the Parliamentary Budget Office. This is an embarrassing mis-step that we exposed at Senate estimates—that the government is now asking the Treasury to, effectively, make up exemptions, which are not available to the department, in order to cover up documents.

This is not a new process. We have been seeking these documents for some time. There was an admission at Senate estimates that this particular document exists. We've asked for that on notice, but the order for the production of documents is a separate legal process. The minister doesn't like that we're using the Senate's powers to get access to documents, but maybe the government should reflect upon its dreadful FOI record where citizens and senators alike find it very hard to get any information. The idea that they're promoting, now that they've said the quiet part out loud, is the gutting of the FOI laws put in place by Malcolm Fraser. Malcolm Fraser believed that the government would work better for the citizens if people had information about the activities of government.

It's a pretty simple job being an opposition senator. Our job is to make sure that the government does not misappropriate funds, that there is good value for taxpayers and that they don't run programs in a way which is not in the public interest. That's what we're seeking to do. We're not seeking to have the world record number of orders for the production of documents. No-one gets out of bed every day and says, 'I really want to be the subject of Senator Gallagher's speech in the Senate about how many OPDs I've made.' The point of doing it is that we're trying to get to the bottom of things. That's the point. I can assure you that no-one gives a rats about how many orders are made by this place. People expect us to come here to the bush capital and actually do things. We're supposed to do things here. In our role, we're trying to get to the bottom of things.

The point I make is that the government's judgement appears to be that it doesn't want to provide this document through this process. That appears to be the case, because we've been seeking the document for nine or 10 months now. It's a long time. I would expect that, unless the government want to have more problems with the management of the chamber, in the end they will do what they've done with the Briggs review and provide it in some form. There's no other result we could accept; otherwise, we wouldn't be doing our job.

We're worried about the maladministration at Housing Australia, because it has a lot of money. It has billions of dollars of taxpayer funding. It doesn't build houses. It spends a lot of money on executive salaries, recruitment, legal, retrenchments and other things that do raise a lot of questions. It's also the subject of this governance probe. You have spent $24,000 of taxpayer funds on a governance probe, which you're saying you won't give us or you might not give us. In the end, we will get the document because we'll work with the senators to ensure that the government provides us this information in the way that the law dictates. If this government doesn't do that, then we'll have lengthy question times and lots of complaints. So, in the end, I'm sure we'll get the document.

I rise to make three quick points in relation to this matter. The first is that Senator Bragg is doing his job. Senator Bragg is doing his job by asking for these orders for the production of documents and getting these orders for the production of documents passed with the majority of the Senate. As we know, in the Senate, we can only get a majority of the Senate if the crossbench supports the coalition in terms of asking for these documents. So he is doing his job.

The second point I'd like to make is that, as Senator Bragg said, he first asked for these documents under the FOI Act back in December last year. It is disingenuous to say the time limit on the order for the production of documents is too short when these documents were asked for under the FOI Act in December 2024 and were also asked for at Senate estimates. These documents have been asked for under the FOI regime. They've been asked for at Senate estimates. It was only because the document wasn't produced that the order for the production of documents was passed by the Senate. The third point I want to make is that there is a theme here. I previously raised the issue in this place in relation to the report which was made by the Centre for Public Integrity—one of our outstanding non-government organisations—which says the Labor Albanese government is 'leaning into a culture of secrecy'. That is the phrase that they use.

The Senate is doing its job asking for these documents. The Senate is doing its job by scrutinising the performance of this fund, which has billions of dollars of taxpayer funding invested into it. And the Senate should keep doing its job.

I rise to speak to this attendance motion. In attending today, the minister has not provided the documents that are being sought. We're here because last week the independent review into governance and operational concerns at Housing Australia was due to be tabled. It's been sought, as we've heard, for quite some time.

The government has once again failed to comply with this OPD in a timely manner. There can be no doubt the Senate needs as much useful information about the administration of housing as we can possibly look at in what is, day to day, becoming worse and worse as a crisis in housing. In the last month, housing prices have increased by more than one per cent in a single month. We now have homeownership rates of people under 25 that are around a third, compared to 51 per cent back in the early 1970s. We've got a rate of homelessness that has increased by 10 per cent, in the years of this Labor government. So we need accountability. We need to know what's going on inside the policy solutions, so called, that the Labor government are putting forward. And we need know what's going on within the administration of this system.

I'm very concerned about what I'm hearing about Housing Australia and the Housing Australia Future Fund. We need information about these important, very large programs in the midst of a housing crisis. I'm very concerned, along with many others in the chamber, about the increasing secretive response to requests for information, particularly in relation to housing. Without publicly accessible information, non-government senators need motions like these or estimates or whatever to try and get to the answers in relation to very few questions about the administration of sizeable amounts of money to fix and respond to a housing crisis. Australians and their senators deserve to know what's going on and to have a government which is open and transparent about its spending. We want our housing system to work well. We want a housing system that responds to that frightening, rapid increase in the price of houses.

Housing Australia's mandate is to support homeownership for Australians and to improve the supply of sustainable long-term social and affordable housing—an incredibly important goal—but I remain concerned about the adequacy of the response and its administrative failures. Reporting in the Australian Financial Review notes that at least six of the top eight executives at Housing Australia have left the agency since Carol Austin took over as chairwoman in June 2023, in addition to other less senior staff who have also left, and we know, of course, Carol Austin has herself since resigned.

Publishing this independent review sought here today would help to show that the matter has been properly dealt with and that the culture within Housing Australia is working in a way to respond to a crisis that's affecting the lives of so many Australians, and we could have avoided this mess if the government had just directly invested in public housing in a direct spend, as we saw in the post-war years, that's simpler, more direct and cheaper.

An issue in relation to what's going on in our housing spend relates to the question of consultants and the budget. The issue of outsourcing public sector work, especially to consultants, really worries me. Section 46 of the Housing Australia Act states:

Housing Australia may engage consultants to assist in the performance of its functions.

Housing Australia recently said their total operating budget in the year 2024-25 was just under $60 million, but, when I look at their reliance on external contracts, it's incredible. It's really quite shocking. Over the past year, they have committed $30 million to external contracts—half the equivalent of their entire budget. That is just astonishing. How are you running an ongoing service when half of the budget or the equivalent of it is contracted out? Fourteen million of that spending is specifically on consultants—the equivalent of 25 per cent of its entire budget. I've asked Housing Australia, on notice, to explain what's in that bucket of consulting. We know what's going on in that bucket. There will be overpriced charging for poor-quality work and a failure to build up the heart, soul and capability of our public sector. Consultants are not the way forward. We need to know what this spending is doing.

In conclusion, we haven't had enough information about what's going on in Housing Australia, and we need to. We had a mere 48 minutes of questioning in estimates on this issue, and we get another go tomorrow night, which is a good thing, but we need to know more. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to all questions asked by coalition senators.

The government is presiding over a cost-of-living crisis and the largest decline in living standards across the developed world over the past three years, but you wouldn't know it from listening to those opposite. We had the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher, claim there has been substantial progress made in Australia's economy and the cost of living over the past three years, but the evidence indicates quite the opposite. Just this week, we had Homelessness Australia say that they have seen a 33 per cent increase in the number of Australians who have had to sleep rough over the past two years. We've had the Foodbank hunger report highlight that one-third of Australian households have experienced food insecurity in the past 12 months, with one in five households skipping meals or entire days of eating all because of the cost-of-living crisis that this government has presided over.

Unfortunately, the news is not getting any better. Last week, the Australian Bureau of Statistics issued the quarterly inflation figures, which show inflation surging from an annualised rate of 2.1 per cent to 3.2 per cent—outside the Reserve Bank's band. Underpinning that, we've seen electricity prices rise by almost 24 per cent over the past year. We've seen utility prices rise by 14 per cent. We've seen the price of coffee and tea and eggs rise by between 13 and 14 per cent. We've seen rates go up by six per cent. The cost of everything is getting higher.

The consequence of this inflation that is out of control under this government is what we saw from the Reserve Bank just yesterday: the Reserve Bank's decision to hold rates as they are, noting that inflation is 'materially higher than expected' and outside the Reserve Bank's band.

Remember that, just a few months ago, analysts, commentators and forecasters were all expecting there would be further cuts in the cash rate in Australia. The Reserve Bank has now indicated that further interest rate cuts are off the cards. Indeed, many commentators now expect the next move in interest rates to be up. If you're an average mortgage holder in Australia, you are already paying $1,800 more per month, on average, then you did before the Albanese Labor government came to office, and there is no relief in sight.

Before becoming elected, Anthony Albanese promised, 'Life would be cheaper under me.' But the lived experience, the evidence and all the figures since show the exact opposite. We have seen, in Australia, the largest decline in living standards across the developed world. Look at the OECD, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which is the club of advanced, developed economies like Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Italy, France, Germany and Spain; these are all members of the OECD. Over the past three years, since 2022, their economies have not been great, but their living standards have improved by somewhere in the order of five to seven per cent. Over the past three years in Australia they have gone backwards, the largest decline in the developed world. Why is that? It's because people are paying more taxes under this government because they are being pushed into higher income tax brackets, they are paying more for life essentials because inflation is running so high and they are being hit by higher interest payments. Other central banks around the world have been able to cut interest rates in response to an easing of inflationary pressures, but inflationary pressures here in Australia have not eased, and the Reserve Bank is trying to counteract expansionary government fiscal policy.

I wanted to touch on that because, ultimately, what is causing all this is the government's own prolific spending. In the government's own budget papers, we see that government spending is increasing at a rate four times that of the economy. That is an unsustainable rate of growth. We have government spending at the highest level, as a share of the economy, in 40 years—outside the emergency conditions of the pandemic. Last week we saw gross government reach $970 billion; it is forecast to hit $1 trillion this financial year, a record for Australia. Interest repayments on that debt are running at $50,000 per minute and are now one of the most rapidly growing items in the budget.

What we have got here is government spending fuelling inflationary pressures and starving the private sector of resources, meaning that people are paying more for life's essentials and that interest rates are being held higher than they need to be by the Reserve Bank. Australia's living standards are going backwards, and everyone is feeling it.

That was an interesting contribution. I probably have a slightly different perspective on some of those areas, but let's just look at the core areas that were raised during question time by those opposite. They started off with housing and housing supply, with a series of questions from Senator Bragg. Then we went to energy policy, to industry development and to environment laws. What I find quite interesting is that these are four core areas that the government and our good colleagues opposite have been arguing about for many a decade.

Casting my mind back to 2021, we were building up towards the 2022 election. Everyone was putting forward offerings to the people of Australia: Who should you vote for? What is the kind of country you want to live in? What is it that you believe? How are you going to cast your vote here? I think the people of Australia looked at that.

Let's just take the four areas raised today in question time. On housing supply, quite clearly the coalition were in government for 10 years, and, for those 10 years, they neglected housing. You can't turn around the supply of housing in a year or even one term. You're talking about significant structural change to get the housing supply that we need in this country to ensure that people have choices, that we protect renters, that we provide opportunities and support for people to purchase their own homes and that supply is there for people in need, people who need social housing and supports. But, no, a decade of neglect has meant that we are where we are now, and we saw that the Labor government was elected in 2022 by the people who had a look back over 10 years and went, 'Hell, no!' That's where we stand now. When we came to 2025 and the same propositions were put, the people of this country had a long, hard look at the coalition and their offerings and, once again, said, 'Hell, no!' And who could blame them?

It's not just housing. Other issues were raised today, such as energy policies. They had 23 different energy policies over that period over time. They couldn't decide which way they were going and what they were going to do, and now all we see on our televisions at night and on the front page of every newspaper around the country is how divided, confused and uncertain they really are. They have no clue where they're going and no clue what they're offering the country. It's no wonder nobody wants to vote for you.

Then we move on to industry development. Since the Albanese Labor government have come to this side of the chamber and have been in charge, we have made huge strides in industry, bringing back a sense of pride in our country to build things here, build jobs, support people and improve our training and education system so that our young people have opportunities for good jobs and can see a rosy future. When those opposite were in charge, what happened to industry? What about the car industry, anybody? Has anybody ever heard of the car industry? We used to have one—but not anymore.

Then we go on to the other area that was raised today in question time, and that's environmental law. There are those of us who have been engaged on that issue for some considerable time. What we saw, as in each of those other areas that we've been talking about today, was absolutely shocking and woeful neglect. And now we stand here with a bill that has been introduced, the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, which will turn around the neglect of the environment, actually help business and the environment and give clarity to those wishing to build housing et cetera, while also making sure we draw a hard line about what our environment should look like and what we will not tolerate.

I would say to you that today's question time was entertaining. Absolutely not those over there— (Time expired)

Australians, having listened to today's question time and the answers given to questions asked by coalition senators, would have the right to feel as though this is a building that's not really listening to them. I should know; I work in here. The only job for a government is to put Australia and Australians first, and 'Australia first' means that everything we do every single day in this building must serve Australia's interests first and foremost.

But what does that mean in real terms? It means that our government's duty is to its citizens—our workers, our farmers, our communities—not to foreign interests and not to the government's friends in the global elites that it's trying to cosy up to. This government is like the parent that takes their neighbour's kids to Dreamworld when their own kids need food and clothes. There's nothing these people love more than rubbing shoulders with the European elites and listening to their think tank speeches. By way of example, I give you the current energy policy and the reckless rush to net zero emissions, driven by the UN and their climate mandates, whose ideology has crippled our energy grid. While the swamp here in Canberra seems very concerned about climate change, climate targets, our UN obligations and so on, most Aussies just want to see their power bills reduced. Any government that puts Australia first would harness our abundant coal, gas and uranium to deliver cheap power, which would in turn ensure our industries thrive and households are not left in the dark.

The second limb to Australia first is our borders, which are, of course, the bedrock of a sovereign nation. This government's immigration policies have thrown the gates open. An Australia-first policy would cap migration at sustainable levels. It would prioritise skilled workers where they're needed—people who share our values. It would strengthen our borders to protect our sovereignty.

Third, we have the bloated foreign aid budget. The question has to be asked—and it's not asked often enough in this place. Why are we pumping money into other nations when there are upwards of 300,000 to 400,000 Australians living homeless on our streets? Why are we doing that? In 2025-26, Australians will deliver just over $5 billion in the Official Development Assistance fund, three-quarters of which is going to be spent in the Indo-Pacific, much of it on global climate initiatives, while Australia's regional hospitals and schools struggle for funding. An Australia-first government would redirect those funds to build our infrastructure, support our farmers and ensure that our defence focuses on simply protecting our shores.

Fourth, we actually need an economy that works for Australians. Our acquiescence to globalisation has gutted manufacturing in this country, leaving us dependent on foreign supply chains. The free trade obsession and failure to protect local industries has cost jobs. An Australia-first economy would incentivise local production, protect our sectors—steel, agriculture and the like—and bring back jobs for our workers, not just for the profits of multinational corporations.

Finally and often overlooked, an Australia-first government would be protecting free speech. It's the lifeblood of a free country and it's in a perilous position in 2025—I would say as perilous a position as it has ever been in this nation. The reality of this is that, without a proper set of protections for free speech in this country—and I'm not just talking about digital rights; I'm talking about across the board, with the incursions throughout all aspects. You name it; it's being clamped down on. Without it, there is no ability for Australians in this country to challenge what's going on in this building, to challenge the global elites and their friends in the mainstream media who continue to push these censorious policies.

An Australia-first movement would defend Australians' right to speak freely, ensuring that no-one is silenced, regardless their views. An Australia-first government which was grounded in these five principles would restore our sovereignty, protect our borders, prioritise our security, rebuild our economy and defend our free speech, because that is what it means to be Australia first.

Well, it takes a lot of gall to come in here and make the day about homelessness and cost of living by those opposite, and that hollowness was reflected in the answers given by the minister today. That gall is based on hypocrisy. We have a real homelessness problem in this country. It's been growing and it's something that the government is focused on addressing. Five thousand social and affordable homes have been built since 2022. In nine years in government, the opposition built 373. So, when you talk about who's left Australians behind on homelessness, who's left Australians out in the cold, it's those opposite.

We have invested 20 times more than the coalition in social and affordable housing, and that's in spite of the impediments put in this place by the Liberals and the Greens last year, when they blocked our housing policies again and again until we finally got them through. Twenty-five thousand social and affordable homes are now in construction and planning, so don't tell us we've left Australians behind. We are working very hard to get Australians off the streets, and any help would be much appreciated.

Then we had a lecture on interest rates and inflation, and it's interesting to see, whenever the RBA delivers a report, the two styles the coalition adopt in this particular chamber. When the RBA does something like holding the interest rate steady, they come in here like storm crows and lecture us about the problems of inflation. When the RBA reduces interest rates, as it has done a number of times since we've taken office, there is a deafening silence from those opposite.

In March 2022, interest rates were at 5.1 per cent and rising. They peaked in December 2022 at 7.8 per cent, and since then the trajectory has been downwards. It's at 3.2 per cent today. That trajectory has not necessarily been perfectly linear, but its overall trend is down, and what that does is it takes one piece of pressure off household budgets—because we know the cost of living in this country is informed by three things. It's informed by the prices people pay for goods and services, it's informed by the wages that they earn and it's informed by the support government provides.

We've not only reduced inflationary pressure in this country but also increased the wages that Australians are earning. We've increased the minimum wage in this country multiple times, so people on the minimum wage are tens of thousands of dollars a year better off. These are the people on the downside of advantage. We've finally had not large but some real wage growth, which means wages outpace inflation. It means the actual money in people's pockets is going up, and that's vital to take pressure off household budgets.

Finally, the government has shown a consistent willingness to invest in support for people through government measures, and they're measures that those opposite always criticise. They describe it as profligate spending when it's to help people who are doing it tough in Australia, and then they come in here and lecture us about people being left behind. We're talking about energy bill relief, which they opposed before they supported. We're talking about lifting bulk-billing availability across the country. We're talking about Medicare urgent care clinics so you can get in to see a doctor without having any out-of-pocket expenses. We're also talking about the longer term measures to improve the financial position of Australians in retirement. We're talking about increasing the superannuation guarantee to 12 per cent. We've expanded paid parental leave to 24 weeks, and now super is being paid on all government paid parental leave. These are things that have been opposed by the coalition. We cut student debt by 20 per cent, and we've kept the price of medicines at $25 or less per script.

When you take a big step back on all of this, and you look at the picture of those three things, this is a government that has made advancements in each of those areas. It's not to say there isn't more work to do; of course there is, and the government's got an ambitious agenda in that regard. But it would be easier to get that work done if those measures were not opposed in this chamber. It would be easier to get that work done if those opposite didn't come in here and take points against the government, while opposing the very measures they purport to support. This is a government that has reduced inflation, increased real wages and provided cost-of-living relief. That is something that supports all Australians.

What have we seen here at question time? What has been revealed to us in this chamber, to the Australian public, once again is that the Albanese government has a problem with the truth. But the one truth is this: Labor lies. Whatever the topic, be it the cost of living, housing, energy or the economy, we don't hear facts from Labor; we only hear falsehoods. Beware of catchphrases like 'cost-of-living relief' when they throw a dixer at themselves: 'What are we doing to deliver cost-of-living relief?' They're always in delivery mode because they never seem to get there. What we don't get is honesty from this government. Instead, we get fantasy, we get evasion and we get obfuscation from this government. But Australians aren't mugs. Australians have got a pretty good radar for BS. Let me touch on a few of the issues and cut through Labor's spin and sensationalism—through their deceit and distortion.

On cost-of-living relief, today we've heard Senator Wong talk about tax cuts and bulk-billing, and how this is supposed to contribute towards cost-of-living relief. Perhaps the government should have a read of the Foodbankhunger report 2025. Perhaps, when it comes to homelessness, they'd want to understand that homelessness has in fact increased 33 per cent over the last two years. While they claim they might be delivering in terms of homelessness, in fact it's on the increase on the watch of this Albanese Labor government. We are experiencing severe food insecurity in our country. Listen to what Foodbank Darwin manager, Jack Barrett had to say in an ABC online article:

"Food insecurity comes in all shapes and forms," he said.

"Often, it means making different nutritional choices to suit your budget—or skipping meals even, from time to time."

"In many cases, it's parents that will sacrifice for their children."

He said the Darwin hub had been kept busy, especially over the past year, as families struggled to make ends meet and keep food on the table.

"Interestingly—

This is the kicker—

60 per cent of all households that utilise a Foodbank do have some kind of employment," Mr Barrett said.

I don't know if the government has bothered to read this report, but it also suggests that their so-called cost-of-living relief measures are failing, because what the data is telling us is really concerning. The cost-of-living measures that the federal government tried to provide didn't affect what people were putting on the table. It may have helped to offset other costs, but the truth of the matter is that it didn't translate to food on the table.

This idea that they're providing housing for the Australian people is more falsehood. I'll go to the Northern Territory. Every Australian, especially young Australians, deserves a fair shot at owning a home, not to be shut out by terrible policy and soaring costs. In the Territory, it's terrible. Labor's supposed to support first home buyers, but they're locking them out of the Northern Territory under their home guarantee scheme. There are no guarantees. It's not making housing cheaper, especially when they'll push up prices and dump $60 billion of burden on the taxpayer.

They've capped homes in Darwin at $600,000, despite the fact that median prices are now topping $660,000. This is the fastest-growing rate in the nation. The Northern Territory treasurer, the Property Council and local builders all say the cap needs to be raised, but is this government listening? No. The cost-of-living pressures in the Northern Territory are, of course, getting worse and worse. This government is not really interested in addressing these problems, just as they're not interested in being transparent. It is our job as the coalition and as the opposition to call out their failures and hold them to account for the fact they are making the lives of Australians harder, not easier, in this country, and we will not stop calling them out over this.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services (Senator Gallagher) to questions put by Senator Allman-Payne regarding the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme and the government's responses.

First of all, I want to acknowledge the continued presence in the chamber of Jenny Miller and Kath Madgwick, who both lost their boys to the appalling, criminal scandal that was robodebt. Of course, like so many Australians, they have been looking to the government to implement the recommendations from the royal commission. Of course, why do we have a royal commission? We have a royal commission to find out what on earth went wrong, but we also have a royal commission to fix what went wrong. The third reason we have a royal commission is so that we have the information needed to hold those who did wrong to account.

On all three levels, I'm sad to say, this government has not delivered for the victims and survivors of robodebt and their families. I acknowledge that there have been some modest changes by the government to some of the most extreme elements of robodebt, yet we do not see a comprehensive commitment by this government to say, 'Never again will we let automated decisions destroy people's lives.' We haven't seen that commitment to ensure there will always be human oversight—someone with a heart and a mind—before someone's benefits are taken off them. We look forward to that, and I commend the work of my colleague Senator Allman-Payne to bring forward active proposals so that we legislate for that.

I want to be clear—there's no barrier to this. The Greens will support the recommendations from the royal commission. We haven't seen this government legislate to remove the six-year debt limit. There are people surviving on next to nothing who could potentially face a debt that is 10 or 15 years old being dragged up and then have their benefits stopped. These people with almost nothing, no financial resources, being thrown into even more abject poverty. We say to the government: bring forward the legislation, and we'll join with you and put a legislative prohibition on chasing that debt.

We also haven't seen the action needed to ensure that vulnerable people are not thrown off benefits, people who we know, if they lose benefits, will fall into homelessness and their kids will fall into homelessness. They might have other vulnerabilities that mean their life can spiral out of control. Where is the clear prohibition, and when will the government introduce the clear prohibition to say that the most vulnerable people in our society will not be thrown into that spiral of poverty and despair that comes when they have their benefits cut off? Bring forward the legislation. We'll pass it in a heartbeat.

The final thing I'd like to contribute to this debate is that whilst the victims and survivors are looking at this parliament and saying, 'When will you legislate?' they're also asking: 'When will the architects of robodebt be held to account? When will those people on six-figure salaries that were ignoring the law and consciously putting into place illegal and harmful practices be held to account and lose their jobs and, if they engaged in illegal conduct, face criminal prosecutions?' When will that happen? When will there be a clear statement that the politicians and the senior bureaucrats who were responsible for robodebt, who did it with their eyes wide open, who knew it was harming people's lives, who turned away from the truth that it was actually killing people and taking their lives—when will those politicians and senior bureaucrats be held to account. When will they called out and named as corrupt? When will their names be on the front pages of newspapers and websites so we can say: 'That's who did it. You will never get another job in this country. You'll never get another job from the public service.' When are we going to see that?

When will we stop the secrecy? Right now, Jenny and Kath and all those who lost loved ones, millions of Australians, they're told that something is happening in the NACC and, 'Don't you worry about that.' Well, they're bloody well worried about it because they've seen the way this place works. They've seen the way the powerful are shielded from accountability. When they're told that a secret hearing in front of the NACC—a NACC which is riddled with a history, in its two short years, of failing to deal with conflicts of interest—is the pathway to justice, they don't believe it. Shine a light on this. Have public hearings into the scandal that is robodebt in the NACC and have this government implement the recommendations and make this system safe. (Time expired.)

Question agreed to.

I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 242 standing in my name.

I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:

That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to Customs Tariff Amendment (Geelong Treaty Implementation) Bill 2025, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.

I also table a statement of reasons justifying the need for the bill to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statement incorporated into Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows—

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE     IN THE 2025 SPRING SITTINGS

CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT (GEELONG TREATY IMPLEMENTATION) BILL

Purpose of the Bill

The Bill provides for the domestic ratification of the Nuclear-powered Submarine Partnership and Collaboration Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (the Geelong Treaty), signed on 26 July 2025. The Bill inserts a new item in Schedule 4 of the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to provide a concessional rate of duty on imports into Australia for goods related to the United Kingdom's implementation of the Geelong Treaty. In line with Article XXI of the Geelong Treaty, the concessional rate of duty for these goods is proposed to be free.

Reasons for Urgency

Passage of the Bill in the 2025 Spring sittings is required to facilitate the Geelong Treaty entering into force before the end of 2025. The Geelong Treaty was signed on 26 July 2025 and would replace the AUKUS Pillar I—Interim Bilateral SSN AUKUS Cooperation and Delivery Arrangement that expires 31 March 2026. Australia and the United Kingdom have also considered that the Treaty's entry into force by the end of 2025 is key to allow progress and continuity of key components of the SSN AUKUS program. The United Kingdom have indicated they are now ready for entry into force, their parliamentary scrutiny period having expired on 30 October 2025.

The Geelong Treaty provides for the long-term framework for cooperation between Australia, the United Kingdom and their respective industries on AUKUS Pillar I. The Treaty must be in force before the expiry of the Security Cooperation and Delivery Arrangement on 31 March 2026 as it is critical to the delivery of SSN-AUKUS across all aspects of production, operation, sustainment, and disposal. Article XXIII provides that the Geelong Treaty comes into force on the completion of the domestic requirements of the Geelong Treaty and an exchange of diplomatic notes has occurred. This Bill fulfils the domestic ratification of Article XXI of the Geelong Treaty that requires readily identifiable value added taxes, excise and customs duties, similar charges and quantitative restrictions on imports and exports are not imposed in connection with the agreement.

At the request of Senator Whish-Wilson, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 for today.

I move:

That the Higher Education Support Amendment (End Dirty University Partnerships) Bill 2025 be considered at the time for private senators' bills on Thursday, 6 November 2025.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be grated to the following senators:

(a) Senator Farrell from 4 to 6 November 2025, on account of ministerial business;

(b) Senator O'Neill for 5 and 6 November 2025, on account of parliamentary business; and

(c) Senator Sheldon from 4 to 6 November 2025, for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the Minister representing the Treasurer has failed to fully comply with orders for the production of documents nos 109 and 139, agreed to on 27 August 2025 and 2 September 2025, relating to the 2023-24 Survey of Income and Housing (the survey),

(ii) despite the Senate rejecting, in whole or in part, both of the Treasurer's stated grounds for the withholding of the requested documents from the Senate, no further documents have been tabled in relation to this order, and

(iii) a sample of the data from the survey was publicly released as part of the survey review report; and

(b) requires the Minister representing the Treasurer to attend the Senate on 6 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 20 minutes and shall have precedence over all business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, by no later than 5 pm on Tuesday, 25 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 Attorney-General and/or her office and the Attorney-General's Department in relation to the financial impact of the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025, including any modelling of the aforementioned financial impact.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Hume, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Industry and Innovation, by no later than midday on Wednesday, 5 November 2025, the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation's 2024-25 annual report.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Barbara Pocock, I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Fair Work Act 2009, 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 table an explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

The Greens stand with workers.

In the 47th Parliament, we achieved real, concrete improvements for workers, including the right to disconnect and the criminalisation of superannuation theft.

Now we're introducing a statutory right for employees to request to work from home for up to two days per week.

This is a strong measure that has been sorely lacking from this Government's minimal industrial relations agenda.

At a time when insecure work is widespread, the real value of wages is under pressure, and nothing is in the way of employers pocketing the productivity benefits of artificial intelligence while returning little if nothing to workers, it is not enough to merely hold the line.

Workers deserve stronger and expanded protections in a changing labour market and economy.

Labor has an opportunity this Parliament to work with the Greens not just to protect existing entitlements but to enshrine new rights for workers.

The first step would be supporting a Greens' right to request to work from home for at least 2 days a week where reasonable.

This Bill recognises that flexible working arrangements have become an essential feature of modern workplaces and that reasonable access to remote work can improve productivity, inclusion, and work-life balance without undermining business needs.

It would maintain safeguards for employers where such arrangements are impractical or impossible due to the inherent requirements of the role.

But for millions of workers flexible work arrangements, such as the ability to work from home, have enabled them, many of them women, to balance care responsibilities with paid work.

Legislating the right to work from home, where it is sensible and doable, will not only protect women's access to the labour market and economic equality gains, it will also increase workforce participation and ultimately boost productivity.

It gives families time, reduces costs, and cuts emissions.

A few months ago, I moved amendments to the Fair Work Act calling upon the government to legislate a right to work from home for up to two days a week where it is reasonable to do so.

Now, I'm introducing a Private Senator's Bill to do just that.

We have the numbers to deliver this improvement for all workers in Australia.

All that is standing in the way is Labor's lack of ambition.

Work from home rights in Australia are long overdue.

There is wide public support and very strong demand for this change. Its benefits stack up for employers and for employees.

Australian workers are doing it tough. They are on average contributing six weeks of unpaid overtime a year to their workplace. They are raising kids, battling the cost of living, and have adopted all kinds of productivity-enhancing technology over the last 20 years.

For many Australian workers, talking about productivity sounds like yet another push from their bosses to work faster and harder. In fact, in the last 10 years we've seen the rate of profit increase at twice the rate of wages, despite all the adaptation that Australian workers and their families have done.

The pandemic showed us that new ways of working are possible. Up to 40 per cent of Australian workers transferred to working from home during COVID-19. We saw that many of us can do our jobs from home, saving money and time and getting the flexibility which, in the words of the Productivity Commission, has been fundamentally positive in unlocking value to be shared between workers and their firms.

The work from home trend has outlived the pandemic. The old rhythms of eight-to-four or nine-to-five in a central workplace are no longer the reality for millions of Australians.

Public opinion polls and extensive research on work from home show us there is strong support and positive benefits to come from it. Most workers know they are at least as productive at home as they are in the workplace, and many of their employers agree. Most workers want a hybrid model, where they work some days at home.

The evidence tells us that the average cut in their commuting time is more than an hour a day, and there's research that shows that workers split this saving with their employer—half to the employer and half to themselves—as they increase their working time and add to their personal rest and recreation.

Working from home is one way in which we can share the benefits of work between workers and their employers more fairly. Many Australians are already doing it, and many more want to.

The latest surveys tell us that two-thirds of Australian workers want hybrid work in their organisation. Workers say that 60 per cent of their bosses permit hybrid working arrangements.

With most workers covered by the national Fair Work Act, the Greens want to see a sensible national approach. One state can't do this and reach workers outside state and local government. Our workplaces are mostly regulated at that national level through the Fair Work Act, which means a national law, a national approach, on working from home makes sense.

And women shouldn't have to give up their careers to have a family. By improving work from home rights, we're protecting women's rights to work while caring for their families.

This isn't just a win for women, carers, workers and families, it's a win for our economy.

There is a substantial evidence base behind this Bill.

This Bill would expand the right to request flexible working arrangements under the Fair Work Act. Previously, only certain employees with care, disability, or age-related circumstances could request flexible work. Now, all employees may request changes, thus expanding the right universally.

This Bill would also define a new category of request, a "work from home up to 2 days request".

It would require employers to consider, before refusing such a request, reasonable adjustments that could accommodate the request.

The Bill has safeguards for employers, as it would limit refusal to cases where the arrangement would make performance of the role's inherent requirements impractical or impossible.

It would also provide powers for the Fair Work Commission to review refusals and to make binding determinations, and would ensure consistent procedural requirements for handling requests and disputes.

In summary, this Bill would give Australians the legal right to work from home at least two days a week where it is practical and reasonable.

Australia must have a fair and equitable workplace relations system that upholds the rights of all working people.

It's time for the Albanese government to deliver on a more ambitious set of reforms that will address the current circumstances and real experiences of Australian workers in our diverse households and workplaces.

It's time to reimagine what a fair workplace looks like.

I urge the government to support this Bill that would make workplaces more inclusive, particularly for women, carers, and disabled people.

The world of work has changed. Our laws must change with it.

I commend the Bill to the Senate.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I move:

That—

(a) the Senate notes that:

(i) the review of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 recommended that the Independent Review of Resourcing in Parliamentarian Offices (the resourcing review) recommend principles to be considered by the Prime Minister in determining staffing allocations, and

(ii) the resourcing review did not make any such recommendations; and

(b) the following matter be referred to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by the first sitting day in 2026:

Sections 4 and 12 of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984, with particular reference to:

(i) the appropriateness of transferring the ability of the Prime Minister to determine the number of personal employees allocated to parliamentarians to the Remuneration Tribunal, for the purpose of ensuring that all parliamentarians are adequately resourced to represent their electors, and

(ii) any other related matters.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

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

Question negatived.

At the request of Senator Cash, I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 243.

Leave granted.

I move the motion as amended:

(1) That the following matter be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report by 20 March 2026:

(a) the scope of sanctions imposed by the Commonwealth against the Russian Federation since February 2022, including but not limited to:

(i) curtailing the importation into Australia of fuels derived from Russian crude oil,

(ii) identifying, seizing, freezing and liquidating Russian financial assets, including Russian central bank assets in Australia, and

(iii) personalised restrictions against specific individuals and organisations;

(b) the intended effects of sanctions imposed;

(c) the effectiveness of Australia's sanctions, including in comparison to overseas measures;

(d) the extent of efforts by Russia and other affected entities to evade Australian sanctions;

(e) the extent of Russian retaliation and other responses to Australia's sanctions;

(f) the attitudes and responses towards Australia's sanctions regime from Ukraine, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, European Union and other partners in the Coalition of the Willing; and

(g) any other related matters.

I seek leave to move an amendment to the amended motion in the terms circulated.

Leave granted.

I move:

(1) That the following matter be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report by 20 March 2026:

(a) the scope of sanctions imposed by the Commonwealth against the Russian Federation, Republic of Belarus, the Republic of the Sudan, Israel, Myanmar and other countries, including but not limited to:

(i) curtailing the importation into Australia of fuels derived from Russian crude oil,

(ii) identifying, seizing, freezing and liquidating Russian financial assets, including Russian central bank assets in Australia, and

(iii) personalised restrictions against specific individuals and organisations;

(b) the intended effects of sanctions imposed;

(c) the effectiveness of Australia's sanctions, including in comparison to overseas measures;

(d) the extent of efforts by affected entities and countries to evade Australian sanctions;

(e) the extent of Russian retaliation and other responses to Australia's sanctions;

(f) the attitudes and responses towards Australia's sanctions regime; and

(g) any other related matters.

The question is that the amendment to general business No. 243, moved by Senator Shoebridge, be agreed to.

Senators, I'm not sure who the advisers, if they are advisers, in the back of the room are, but I saw a phone being held up. If a photo was taken, that is out of order, and it needs to be deleted. I'll now move to general business notice of motion No. 243 and the amendment, as moved by Senator Askew at the request of Senator Cash. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.

I withdraw general business motion 236.

by leave—I inform the Senate that, in the absence of Senator Sheldon, I will be Acting Chief Government Whip for today and tomorrow.

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

The need for the Australian Government to reform their $181 billion tax breaks for wealthy property investors and their 5% deposit scheme which are threatening the stability of our housing system while the big banks are on track to make $30 billion in profits this financial year.

Is consideration of the proposal supported?

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

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

I move:

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

The need for the Australian Government to reform their $181 billion tax breaks for wealthy property investors and their 5% deposit scheme which are threatening the stability of our housing system while the big banks are on track to make $30 billion in profits this financial year.

I'm speaking to the urgency of the housing crisis. We're in a housing crisis that's becoming more severe every day in this place. I know young people who are too frightened to open a newspaper for the bad news that lies there every day about what's happening to house prices. There was a more than one percent increase in a single month, in October—the fastest monthly pace in the last two years. House prices are increasing everywhere—in every city, in every regional town, in every country town. One in three houses in Australian suburbs is now worth an incredible $1 million. No wonder 59 per cent of renters don't think they'll ever be able to afford to buy their own home. Homelessness levels are at their worst in living memory, and homelessness services are being pushed to the brink.

The major parties are failing us. Labor has been in government for three years; when will they take accountability for making the crisis worse? Labor's failure to reel in the tax breaks for wealthy property investors—$181 billion in tax breaks over the next 10 years—is also fuelling the crisis. South Australians contact me every single day telling me to urge this government to wind back these handouts. We know that Labor's policies and lack of ambition are making things worse, but don't be fooled into thinking the Liberals would be any better. It's ironic that yesterday the Liberals called the home guarantee scheme irresponsible, given that it was originally their own policy. It's also funny that Liberals are calling any housing policy irresponsible, given that they've recently dumped their widely criticised 'super for housing' policy.

Neither of the major parties truly have the interests of renters and first home buyers in their minds. They've had a quarter of a century to fix this, and instead they've spent a quarter of a century making things worse. Together, they have cooked housing in Australia, and they've landed us in a giant housing bin fire. Just last week, Labor, the Liberals and One Nation teamed up to vote down our urgency motion on housing. The major parties may not think this is urgent, but Australians do—89 per cent of Australians agree that we're in a housing crisis. They know because they're living it every day. Every Saturday morning, across our country, we see first home buyers standing alongside investors, being priced out of auctions, unable to secure housing for themselves.

First home buyers don't stand a chance. Our housing market is driven by speculation, not demand—not by the need to put a roof over everyone's head, instead by the desire to increase investment wealth. We've increased the demand for housing without increasing supply. As a consequence, we don't have a functioning housing system that looks after everybody, especially those most in need and vulnerable. We have a generational lottery, where young people are staring down the barrel of lifelong renting, precarious leases and a housing market that is rigged against them.

Housing should not be an intergenerational tug of war. House prices, especially those in lower and medium price brackets—where entrants and first home buyers are very focused—are not within the budget of first home buyers. They are rapidly growing in price—much faster than the house prices in higher brackets. That's about a lack of supply in that lower priced and mid-priced bracket. We're seeing declining rates of homeownership among young people and rising rates of homelessness. That's on the coalition for its years of policy failure and now on Labor for its failures to fix the tax system and build enough social and affordable homes.

We know where Labor's priorities lie. They're with the wealthy property investors and banks, not renters and not first home buyers. We know because bank profits are booming. Australia's biggest banks are expected to make over $30 billion in this financial year. They are making an enormous amount of income out of this crisis—more than $200,000 in profit over an average 30-year mortgage for a first home buyer. That's $200,000 off every mortgage of those first home buyers.

We can't keep going like this. We're in a crisis. I spent my life studying employment, and I know employment matters to a good life chance for kids and adults, but housing is even more critical, and we need to make sure that we build enough social and affordable houses, and we must end tax breaks which are delivering so much to the very wealthy property investors who don't need to increase their housing portfolios anything like that we need to put into—

Thank you very much, Senator.

I thank the Greens for putting forward this matter of urgency. It is a matter of urgency that the parliament consider the state of the nation's housing woes. The government brags that it's spending $43 billion on housing. It's actually more like $60 billion over the period of this government. It's $60 billion for what? I can tell you, it's for fewer houses than were built during the last government. I wonder whether the government at times just imagines that the Australian people are all idiots. I wonder whether that's the thought that enters their brain. I don't think people are impressed with the bragging about how much money's being spent, because a lot of it is being wasted. I think what people are looking for is government programs which actually build houses. I think that's what they want. I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation—that taxpayers' funds, if they're going to be used to support the development of housing, would actually result in more houses being built.

The scoreboard shows that we're down to about 170,000 houses a year on average, which is down from 200,000 on average under the last Liberal government. The so-called signature policy of the government, their Housing Australia Future Fund, has been going for two years. It's got $10 billion. It's built no houses. It's been buying houses. Mr Albanese and the good doctor—whatever he calls himself—turn up at auctions and holding up a paddle-pop stick and say: 'Can I buy this house? I've got to put it into my future fund. I need to buy some houses because I couldn't build any.' This is where we're at now in Australia. You've got a monolithic housing fund going around and buying houses because they couldn't build any. Meanwhile this organisation is mired in governance problems. It's got massive turnover. It's got a board which is collapsing. It's going so well down there that the government's appointed an observer to the board. They send someone down from the bowels of the Treasury, they dust off their overcoat or their cardigan, they turn up at the Housing Australia board meeting, and they don't have Christopher Pyne's cup on the wall to listen into what the monkey pod's saying. They didn't get that one. I wish they had Christopher Pyne's cup and the monkey pod. It could be good. But they don't have that. Instead they've got direct access. They're in the board room.

We found out at Senate estimates—and Senator Darmanin and I were able to hear this testimony—that the observer at the board is actually not an observer. They're actually a participant. They engage like a director. This brings the whole integrity of the fund into question. Is this board of Labor Party appointees and political hacks making judgements about housing investments based on what the best outcome for the people is, or are they bringing in their political considerations? I used to be an internal auditor, for my sins, and if I were doing an audit report—

Do you miss it?

I don't miss it, thank you very much. If I were doing a report on this, the first risk would be: why is a person who is not on the board in this meeting about the expenditure of large sums of public funds? I would be very worried about that.

We have seen from the first round of the HAFF tender that the biggest beneficiaries are the major superannuation investors, Senator Gallagher's best friends. They're the biggest beneficiaries of round 1 of the HAFF. They get 2.8 billion bucks. It's nice money. Easy money. I tell you what, if you're a super fund in Australia, you can take off your hat and put it in the street and it'll fill with money. It's a magic trick! There are rabbits and money in there. It's a good magic trick.

But this is not a laughing matter. The serious point here is that we have seen gross maladministration of the housing fund. We've seen fewer houses being built. Now we see this demand-driven home guarantee scheme which is driving up prices for first home buyers. I think the prices for first home buyers should go down because I think they've been driven up by this government, and it's making it unbearable for younger Australians to access their piece of the Australian dream. It's an absolute disgrace.

When the Greens say that housing is an urgent issue, I agree with them, but it is only this side of politics who wants to do something about it rather than just talk about it in this chamber. The Greens are the same party who have spent the last week chumming up with the coalition in this place. When we see the coalition and the Greens using the same talking points, you know it's just about politics, and the Australian people are going to get dudded time and time again. When we see the Greens huddle over at the coalition's adviser box trading tactics, as we have over the last week, we know that it's Australian renters and first home owners who will be the ones that lose out in this political game. To try and deny hardworking Australians the life-changing opportunity to own their own home with a five per cent deposit, as they have tried to do in this place over and over again, is disgusting. Quite frankly, I can't take this motion seriously. The hypocrisy is so obvious and so extreme that it is failing.

They're crying that five per cent deposits will make the banks richer, but what the coalition and Greens forget is that ordinary people need to go to see a bank or a mortgage broker to get a loan to buy a house. People like me, mums and dads from the burbs in Queensland, have to go to a bank to get a loan. That's been the way for many, many decades. In fact, I don't know anyone who could pay cash for their first home, so I don't know how you're going to buy a home without a loan. I don't know why people should be demonised for getting a loan, because that is the way people are buying homes, and it has been for a long time. So I'm sick of hearing this business about banks getting richer—demonising hardworking Australians who scrimp and save to try and get a loan together by saying that somehow saving towards a deposit is making a bank richer. It's ridiculous. I don't know anyone who could pay cash for a home, but I'd hazard a guess that the people opposite in the coalition know a few of them.

The coalition and the Greens want to slam the door in the face of the 190,000 Australians who have bought their first home with Labor's five per cent home deposits. That's 190,000 Australians who have bought their first home with a five per cent deposit. In my home state of Queensland, Labor's five per cent home deposits are making a real difference to Queensland families. I would suggest that the people arguing against it get out of this chamber and go and knock on some doors. Go and tell the Australian people and the people in Queensland—particularly those 190,000 people who have bought a home with our five per cent deposit—that you think they don't deserve to be in that home, that somehow a five per cent deposit is a bad thing. Go and do it. I dare you to. Because, in my part of the world, in the seat of Longman, in the booming growth corridor of Caboolture and its surrounds, 2,337 people have bought their first home. In the seat of Wright, 2,256 people are now in their own first home. In Groom, around the mighty city of Toowoomba, 1,217 people have used our five per cent deposit scheme to get their home. Finally, on the Sunshine Coast, in the seats of Fairfax and Fisher, 1,537 people have used this great Labor policy to buy a home. In those locations alone, Labor has helped more than 7,300 people to own their own home. That is 7,300 people the Greens and the coalition would prefer aren't in homes.

What an incredible turnaround we have seen in three short years, after a decade of neglect and denial by the Liberal Party, who have been aided in their political games by the Greens. They work together, they scheme together and they vote against five per cent deposits together. Do you guys go on holiday together too? Nothing would surprise me anymore. It's no wonder the Greens spokesperson Max Chandler-Mather and the coalition's housing spokesperson Michael Sukkar were both shown the door at the last election. That was not a coincidence. The Australian people are sick of the political games that the coalition and the Greens are playing on housing yet again.

Australia has hundreds of thousands of people who are homeless. Rents are skyrocketing. They are up by 44 per cent in just the last five years. That's $10,500 a year on top of the average rental bill. House prices in the capital of Queensland increased 1.8 per cent in just one month—a 22 per cent annual pace. Australians have been lied to and told this is only about supply. They can get away with this because no-one tells Australia how bad demand is. With 1.8 million permanent visa holders and 2.9 million temporary visa holders, we currently have 4.7 million non-citizen visa holders in this country. Is mum and dad having one investment property really causing the housing crisis? Come on. Or is having 4.7 million visa holders in the country outstripping supply? Running this program of mass migration is incredibly profitable for big business, especially our big four banks. This week, one of those banks, Westpac, posted a $7 billion profit.

There are some abusers of negative gearing. It could do with some tweaking. On the whole, however, it's a minor impact in the scheme of supply and demand. There's a far bigger problem than mum-and-dad landlords with one house negatively geared. There's a growing and worrying acceptance of foreign, corporate landlords in Australia. These predatory multinational corporations are backed by investment firms like BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and First State. They only have one goal, which is to extract as much money as possible from the Australian population through gouged rents and siphon those profits out of the country tax free.

Last year, the Greens joined with the Labor government to give these foreign, corporate landlords a 15 per cent tax cut on the profits they're sending overseas with the build to rent act. One Nation stood strong on principle and opposed handing foreign corporations a 15 per cent tax break. We couldn't believe it. The fact is, Australia is still in a full-blown housing crisis. It's an assault from all sides on nearly every aspect of supply and demand. One Nation took to the election the most comprehensive policy to fix the housing crisis of any party. Many Australians agreed, which is part of the reason why we doubled our number of senators.

Here's our comprehensive plan on housing. End the mass migration program, which places huge strain on housing while only 0.6 per cent of migrants are building workers. We will establish people's mortgages—30-year, fixed interest rate mortgages issued by the government, similar to government bonds and replacing the government's Housing Australia Future Fund. We will allow people with HECS debts to roll their debts into their people's mortgage, allowing them to get into a home loan that the banks would never give them, at a cheaper rate. We will ban foreign purchases and foreign ownership of Australian housing and farmland. The Liberals and Labor have talked about a two-year pause on foreign buyers of new houses. Come on; be fair dinkum!

One Nation will extend that to new and existing houses, making the ban permanent while forcing current foreign owners to sell to an Australian within two years. We will implement a GST moratorium on building materials, cutting 10 per cent off the materials cost of building a home. We will conduct a root-and-branch gutting of the National Construction Code, especially changes that force every single new home to be completely NDIS wheelchair compliant, adding an estimated $50,000 to the cost of building each home. We will allow a person's superannuation account to invest in their home, closing the deposit gap while protecting their superannuation. We will boost the Australian timber industry to make housing materials as cheap as possible. And we will deport—remigrate—200,000 people.

One Nation's comprehensive plan takes care of all aspects of supply, demand, financing and cost. Only One Nation has a comprehensive housing plan.

I have to say it is impressive how hard this government works to wreck young people's futures. Take Labor's so-called housing policy. They spin their five per cent deposit scheme as a helping hand onto the property ladder. But the reality is that it's more like a shove into deeper debt. You only have to look at the numbers to see that.

Property prices are now rising at the fastest pace in two years. In Melbourne, the median home costs nearly $974,000, while the median salary barely hovers around $70,000. How on earth is a young person, or even a family, supposed to make that work?

Instead of tackling the root causes, Labor refuses to touch the $181 billion in tax breaks for wealthy property investors—capital gains tax discounts and negative gearing. These giveaways inflate the market, push up prices and lock out first home buyers. Their five per cent deposit scheme has thrown petrol on the fire, turbocharging an already out-of-control housing crisis in this country.

For renters it's even worse. Rents have skyrocketed by 44 per cent in just five years! Essential workers—including nurses, teachers and ambos—can't afford to live in the communities they serve. More than 70 per cent of young people now believe they will never own a home. The odds are well and truly stacked against them.

But this isn't just a housing crisis. It's a morality crisis, a failure by consecutive governments to treat shelter as a basic human right. Housing schemes mean nothing for the thousands of people sleeping rough in cars across this country. In Victoria, 86 per cent of councils report a rise in homelessness while public housing towers are being demolished. The Australian dream of secure, affordable housing has been sold off and buried under decades of policies designed to protect investors, developers and the big banks. And those banks are on track to rake in $30 billion in profits this financial year! That's absolutely obscene and disgusting. Meanwhile, there's no serious plan to fix supply, no real investment in public or community housing, and no vision for long-term security.

The message from this government is clear. They will keep fuelling a system that rewards speculation over shelter and profit over people. The Greens will keep fighting to make housing a human right, not a plaything for the wealthy few.

The housing market in this country is rigged; it's a scam. It's rigged against young people and against people trying to buy a home for themselves. One of the key parts of that rigging is the capital gains tax discount. The CGT discount is the most regressive, unfair tax break anywhere in the Commonwealth tax code. It is so regressive that 50 per cent of the benefit—half of the dollar benefit—of the capital gains tax discount goes to the top one per cent of income earners in this country. That is grossly unfair. It is skewed massively to people who are the highest income earners in this country. For reference, in the original stage 3 tax cuts, which themselves were grossly unfair, only seven per cent of the benefit of the original stage 3 tax cuts went to the top one per cent highest income earners in the country, and yet—because the Greens came into here day after day after day and campaigned against those tax cuts, and many thousands of Australians out in the community did the same—Labor, quite rightly, with no mandate from the Australian people, in the last parliament, came in, and they knocked the rough edges off those tax cuts and they made them less unfair. I say to the Labor Party: if you can do that to the stage 3 tax cuts with no mandate from the Australian people, you better get to work on the capital gains tax discount.

There is a massive scam in this country. Whether you're a sparkie or a nurse or a cleaner, if you work for a living, you will pay double the tax compared to a property speculator who makes the same amount of money by flipping investment properties. There is something cooked about a tax system that punishes work relative to property speculation, but that is where we find ourselves—people who make a living flipping investment properties pay about half the tax of someone who goes to work to earn the same amount in a year. It's a disgrace and it's unfair.

Every Australian, no matter where they live or what they earn, deserves the security of a place to call home, and we, on this side, acknowledge that. After nine long years of no housing policy under those opposite, finally, there is hope again for the would-be homeowners. Labor have not stood by and done nothing, like those opposite. We have a plan—a comprehensive, ambitious and practical plan—to build more homes, support renters and help more Australians achieve the dream of homeownership. Our vision is clear: to make housing more affordable and accessible and to ensure that everyone has a fair go in the housing market. We are investing in new homes across the country. We're supporting renters with fairer laws and greater protection. We're giving first home buyers a fighting chance to enter the market, and we are rebuilding our social housing system so that the most vulnerable Australians are not left behind, as they were in the almost decade under those opposite.

In stark contrast, the Liberal Party has no plan. For nine years, when they were in government, the coalition failed to deliver a single meaningful housing policy. They did not have a housing minister. That's how much importance they placed on housing. They come into this chamber with crocodile tears when they couldn't even appoint a housing minister for most of their time in office. When Australians cried out for action, they offered excuses. When real solutions were put forward, they chose to obstruct rather than support that legislation.

The Liberals and the Greens—Senator McKim's motion today is so hypocritical of him. He comes into this place—he was very happy to join with the Liberals and the Nationals to have no vote on our housing policy for the housing future fund, so we spent a week in this place having votes so we wouldn't have a vote on the legislation. For those in the Greens and in the opposition, it's very hypocritical to bring a motion like this when they have been the ones standing in the way. The Labor government invested $10 billion, and all they did was want to stall that and not vote against the legislation, for over a week, but vote not to have a vote. Their record is one of neglect, indifference and missed opportunities. While Australians struggled with sky-rocketing rents and housing shortages, the coalition sat on their hands and did nothing.

Labor is leading where the Liberals failed. Our $43 billion housing agenda is the most ambitious is the most ambitious in a generation. We're investing in homes, jobs and communities that will shape Australia's future. At the centre of this agenda is the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, a landmark investment designed to build 55,000 new social and affordable homes in just five years. Social and affordable homes have been neglected not just by those opposite when they were in government but by the Tasmanian Liberal governments. They invested nothing in social and affordable homes. Senator McKim would know that as well, coming from Tasmania. Shame on them as well.

This wasn't just a promise. It was a plan of action that the Albanese government has now delivered. We are breaking ground with new developments. We are supporting communities. We are actually providing homes, and we're building more homes across every state and territory to make sure that we get real value for every dollar that we invest. We will deliver for those in need. The investment will create thousands of jobs in construction and related industries while ensuring that more Australians have a secure roof over their heads.

We have those people on the other side coming in and talking about transparency and policy, and what have we seen this week? We had Mr Wilson from the other place going on television talking up how you should be able to use your super to put down your deposit which is not what it was meant for. Then we had the great campaigner for using your super to put down a deposit on a house—because if you don't have a rich parent then, like Malcolm Turnbull said, you wouldn't get one—drop it. That's just gone. How many housing policies have they had this week? Where is their interest aligned? It's not with the Australia people. (Time expired.)

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Barbara Pocock be agreed to.

The Senate will now consider the proposal, under standing order 75, from Senator Kovacic, which has been circulated and is also shown on the Dynamic Red:

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

The continued serious allegations of corrupt and criminal conduct within the CFMEU under administration under the Albanese Labor Government and the Administrator's failure to take appropriate action.

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 now set the clock in line with the informal arrangement made by the whips.

I move:

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

The continued serious allegations of corrupt and criminal conduct within the CFMEU under administration under the Albanese Labor Government and the Administrator's failure to take appropriate action.

I believe it is a matter of urgency for us to consider and investigate the allegations of criminal conduct and corruption within the CFMEU and the challenges within its administration. The latest expose a couple of weeks ago on 60 Minutes confirmed what many of us had worried about with this administration, and that is that those individuals who have vested interests and who, for a long time, have influenced that organisation continue to wield that influence—figures like John Setka, Mick Gatto and the associates of the CFMEU's Victorian head, Zach Smith.

We are pleased to see that, over the last week or so, Mr Zach Smith has resigned from the ALP National Executive. It is right that he has done that.

Great pressure from the coalition.

It was wonderful pressure, as Senator McKenzie has noted, from the coalition, including members in the other place, such as Mr Tim Wilson, and Senator McKenzie, me and Senator Hume. Many of us have spoken on this. It is very important, but what we need to do now is continue to ask the question as to why Mr Zach Smith still sits on the National Construction Industry Forum, which provides advice to Minister Rishworth. Minister Rishworth is silent on that. She hasn't answered any questions in relation to that.

She's also still silent to questions from Mr Tim Wilson, from the other place, that were sent to her over a month ago in relation to these allegations—complete silence. We have had in this chamber, on a number of different occasions, obstructions to attempts set up a Senate inquiry into the administration of the CFMEU. We will persist with that. We will keep persisting because it is really important for Australians to have an understanding of what is going on within that administration and to be reassured that it is being effective, and, if it is not being effective, then it needs to be held to account. There is nothing unreasonable about that—nothing whatsoever.

That administration was set by this place, the Parliament of Australia, and this Senate should have the right, via its committee process, to scrutinise the function of that administration when there's information coming to light, via the media and whistleblowers, that suggests the criminal and corrupt conduct has been ongoing during the administration. We're not talking about matters that occurred before the administration. We're talking about matters ongoing after the administration had been established.

We've also had some commentary that this is an attack on everyday CFMEU rank-and-file members. It is absolutely not. They deserve this inquiry into this administration. They deserve to know whether the union movement, to whom they pay their dues, is actually doing work in their best interests or is still a protection racket for vested interests. Anybody that truly values the work of those workers would be supporting this inquiry, because this inquiry would do one of two things. It would expose and stop the ongoing criminal and corrupt conduct, or it would lay the matter to rest, and we could go, 'There's nothing to see here.' But we know that's not going to happen, because we have seen so many allegations around the ongoing kickbacks, the ongoing underworld activity and a cycle of corruption that keeps going.

Mr Zach Smith ordered one of his organisers to meet with Mick Gatto. How can we explain that as being a normal part of an organisation? I asked those questions to the Fair Work Commission in Senate estimates. We also asked the question of whether or not Mr Zach Smith was still meeting with Mr Gatto, and the Fair Work Commission said they would have grave concerns if that were the case. Guess what? It was the case. Further to that, the administrator knew about it before the meetings. So we want to know what else the administrator has known about. We want to know what else they have turned a blind eye to. And we also want to know what Minister Rishworth has known, what the Prime Minister has known and when they knew it.

The Albanese Labor government does not tolerate corruption, criminality and violence in any part of the construction industry.

Opposition senators interjecting—

But you do. You actually do!

We've taken concrete action to—

Concrete is appropriate!

clean up the industry where the coalition and ABCC completely failed. Following multiple referrals from the Albanese Labor government, relevant federal agencies—

I have Senator Ayres on his feet. Is there a point of order?

Yes. The point of order is that there ought to be a little bit of shoosh. Senator Kovacic was heard in complete silence—not just a little bit of silence, complete silence.

Thank you, Senator Ayres. You have reminded other senators that the interjections are disorderly. I'm not sure that 'shoosh' is in the standing orders, but Senator Dolega will be heard in silence.

Following multiple referrals from the Albanese Labor government, relevant federal agencies, including the AFP, the Fair Work Commission and the Fair Work Ombudsman, have about 88 active investigations, cases, audits and reviews ongoing into the construction sector and have commenced 36 proceedings in the Fair Work Commission and the courts. State and territory police forces also have multiple investigations on foot. We have also taken tangible actions to stamp out corruption, criminality and violence within the CFMEU's construction division by appointing an independent administrator to the union.

It's clear from this publicly available material the administration has achieved more progress towards cleaning up the union in its first 15 months of operation than the coalition and the failed ABCC did in a decade, including commissioning multiple investigations by pre-eminent barristers and removing in total at least 330 individuals from their positions in the union. The coalition and the ABCC completely failed to deal with corruption. No action was taken by them to remove leaders or employees who are found to have behaved unlawfully. Unlike the coalition, the Albanese Labor government is committed to the hard work and serious work of the long-term industry reform. A key part of this work is being driven by the National Construction Industry Forum, a national tripartite body of industry leaders established by our secure jobs, better pay reforms. On 22 September the NCIF, which consists of employers, unions and government, unanimously endorsed a blueprint for the reform of the construction industry. In November, the NCIF will start work on a new joint industry charter setting out behavioural expectations for the sector.

These are not easy issues. There are no quick fixes, but we will keep working with employers, contractors, unions, state and territory governments, regulators and law enforcement agencies to clean up this vital industry.

The whole purpose of appointing an administrator to the CFMEU was to get the administrator to clean up the corruption at the CFMEU. That was the purpose, because that corruption in the CFMEU construction division is costing Australians millions and millions of dollars. In my home state of Queensland, the unlawful actions of the CFMEU have led to infrastructure cost blowouts of nearly every single major road, hospital, government building, school, university building—every single one of them had a blowout in the order of 30 per cent. That's the taxpayers' money. That's money which could have been spent on building additional roads, additional hospitals, additional schools, but, because of CFMEU corruption and because of the CFMEU's unlawful behaviour, the taxpayers haven't had the benefit of that additional spending.

The whole purpose of the administration was to fix the corruption in the CFMEU, but the administration is failing. It is failing to clean up the CFMEU. It is failing to weed out the bad actors. It is failing to do what it was appointed to do. And now it is losing the confidence of the Australian people, and action is required. Why? Because of articles like this in the Age from 25 October 2025 entitled, 'A house, a hot rod and a bashing: CFMEU sackings heap pressure on Albanese'. That's the title. This is happening after the administrator was appointed, not before. This is happening after. Let me quote from this article:

One was shown the door for taking "bribes", the other told to leave over an assault. Both contribute to a crisis engulfing the troubled union's administration.

Federal police are investigating allegations building companies paid massive bribes, including financing a $2.5 million property development and a $150,000 luxury vehicle, to a union boss—

listen to this very carefully—

recently promoted to help lead the Albanese government-backed clean-up of the scandal-tainted CFMEU.

This bloke referred to in this article was actually promoted by the administrator in the CFMEU. The administrator is meant to clean up the corruption in the CFMEU.

I go on:

The rolling CFMEU scandal has also infected NSW, with a second official there abruptly sacked days ago after this masthead—

and the Age newspaper is doing a great job in this regard—

confronted the union's administration with evidence he had engaged in a violent act in the company of a former Hells Angels bikie gang boss in late 2024.

So we've got the fellow in Victoria who got promoted by the administrator and then had to be sacked after the media uncovered this corruption scandal, and then we have the official acting within the administration in New South Wales who had to be sacked after the newspaper presented evidence to the administrator with respect to his 'violent act in the company of a former Hells Angels bikie gang boss'. This is exactly the sort of behaviour that was occurring before the administrator was appointed. So the administration is failing.

The article goes on:

Six serving and former union insiders told this masthead on Friday, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive information, that a small number of other organisers still employed by the administration were strongly suspected of improperly lobbying on behalf of select labour hire companies, including those run by their relatives and close friends, in return for benefits.

That's money. Six serving and former union insiders, whistleblowers, went to the Age newspaper to try and get the administrator to do the job the administrator should be doing—namely, clean up the CFMEU. This administrator is failing to do their job. It is a matter of public urgency that a committee of this Senate, with all the powers of this Senate, looks into this disgraceful episode in the history of the CFMEU construction division.

I was having a cup of coffee with an old school friend the other day whose family runs a building business. I said to her, 'You surely have seen an improvement in behaviour on your worksites since this administration of the CFMEU began?' She said no, in fact it's gotten worse. She said it has actually got to the stage now where the CFMEU are laughing because they have realised just how powerless the government is. In fact, the administrator they have put in place has allowed the CFMEU to become more permissive, not less permissive. The corruption, the bikie gangs, the underworld figures, the cartel kickbacks—all of this is running rife, and it's happening in my home state of Victoria. We know this because we understand that this is pushing up the cost of construction. It's pushing up the cost of construction in Victoria. No wonder we have seen so many cost blowouts on our infrastructure projects—the West Gate Tunnel, the North East Link. The list goes on. Wait until we get to the Suburban Rail Loop; heaven help us with what is going to happen there.

The latest exposes, including on 60 Minutes, confirmed what all of us have known all along—that the CFMEU remains entangled with figures like John Setka, Mick Gatto and associates of its Victorian head, Zach Smith. I was very pleased to see that Zach Smith has finally stepped away from the executive of the Labor Party, because the idea that the Prime Minister could sit shoulder to shoulder with a man who associates with these figures that are intricately connected to criminal behaviour is unthinkable. But there are still cash flows, there are still kickbacks and there are still cartel levers, and, until they are cut off, this problem will only deepen. Corruption will remain rife, the bikie gangs will flourish, criminal behaviour will continue and our construction sites will remain unsafe and highly inefficient for taxpayers.

The administrator, Mr Irving KC, was appointed specifically to clean up the CFMEU and restore integrity, but the fact that he has been so ineffectual and potentially enabling has shocked us all. There was a union official named Mr Charles Farrugia who went public and called out that administrator as someone who actually protects figures like John Setka rather than removing them. The administrator has elevated people who have later been exposed as being corrupt, such as Mr John Perkovic. He was promoted to deputy leader, only to be removed after cartel kickback allegations. This is quite extraordinary. In the 60 Minutes episode that I'm sure we have all watched by now, Mr Gatto gave Mr Perkovic a gold bracelet. Did the administrator know about this? Was he aware? This isn't just a one-off incident. This is a pattern of behaviour, a pattern of corruption, and it's not being stopped; it's being recycled.

Workplace Relations Minister Rishworth has tied her reputation to this administrator's performance. Heaven help Ms Rishworth because, if that is the case, she is in all kinds of strife. She's described the administrator's actions as the strongest possible response and says she has full confidence in him. I do not think that that confidence is shared. I know it's not shared by the coalition. I don't think it's shared by Australians, because they're the ones that are paying the price for this ongoing corruption.

The Fair Work Commission told this Senate that they would have grave concerns if Mr Setka remained an influence within the CFMEU, yet there has been irrefutable evidence that Mr Smith meets with Mr Setka socially, he plays cards with him and he maintains contact with him. This isn't reform. This is business as usual for the CFMEU.

The parliament established the administration of the CFMEU, and the parliament deserves the ability to scrutinise the effectiveness of that administration. We were promised 'the strongest possible action'. That is not what we have seen. This corrupt and criminal union—and this is not a disparagement of all unions. That is absolutely not what we are saying. Unions have an important place in civil society. But this union is bad to its core. The public interest is clear. The corruption must be removed, and Labor's self-interest is what is getting in the way. Australians are not fools. They see this corruption being exposed by journalists. It's time the government got on with the job of delivering— (Time expired)

I rise to address this matter of profound public concern and urgency, particularly on behalf of the great state—or should I say the once great state—of Victoria. The continued pattern of serious, corrupt and criminal conduct allegations within the CFMEU during a period in which the union is supposed to be under administration—an administration appointed by, supported by and politically enabled by the Australian Labor Party here in Canberra—shows it isn't working. It's clearly not working, because journalist after journalist, whistleblower after whistleblower and small business after small business are coming forward and talking about alleged criminal activity and corruption occurring on worksites with the CFMEU, bikie gangs, organised crime—I could go on and on.

Yet, despite public assurances of reform, what we're witnessing is not a clean-up by the Labor Party here in Canberra; it's an absolute cover-up. In fact today, when they could have been standing up here in the Senate and debating this issue, they've got the newest backbench senator they could find to speak for a paltry five minutes to get the debate off and then they've left the chamber. There's not a Labor senator willing to stand up and argue for the CFMEU and their behaviour or willing to argue for the work of the administrator.

It's another day and another headline regarding the CFMEU and cost blowouts on federally funded projects, especially in my home state of Victoria. As the Financial Review reported on Tuesday, the Victorian Labor government is setting aside another eye-watering $736 million for the North East Link road project. When it was first announced in 2016, the North East Link road project was projected to cost around $10 billion. That estimate then climbed to $15 billion, and by 2023 it had blown out to $26 billion. That's more than double the cost in six years. That's $2.6 billion a kilometre, making Victoria the most expensive place in the world to build roads. But it's not just Victoria that's paying for this, because every Australian taxpayer is paying for the Albanese government's commitment of $5 billion of federal funding to this project.

We know that senior engineering and construction sources quoted by the Australian Financial Review identified costly disruptions linked to the CFMEU's behaviour, inefficient site practices and an absence of competitive tendering as contributing factors to the spiralling budget. I'm looking forward to examining these issues relating to the drag on productivity in our construction sector and in public infrastructure projects in the newly set-up productivity inquiry with Senator Bragg.

What is appalling is that, if you just go a little way outside of Melbourne, our roads are crumbling in regional Victoria. I note that there are some regional Victorians in the gallery today; it's great to have you here. If the President would allow it, I bet they would be yelling about the state of our roads outside of Melbourne. Instead we're spending an additional $736 million on the North East Link road project. That would have paid for an additional five hospitals in Victoria or 15 new primary schools, which our suburbs and crowded peri-urban areas need.

But the state government in Victoria doesn't care about that. The state government, led by the appalling Premier Jacinta Allan, are more interested in keeping their mates happy in the CFMEU, keeping the kickbacks happening and keeping their cosy arrangements through procurement—wink wink, nod nod—so that everybody's pockets get lined. Who ends up paying? It's Victorians, because their roads are worse and they're not able to build the hospitals and schools they need. Who else loses? It's the Australian taxpayer.

Under federal and state Labor governments the CFMEU's toxic reach is now extending to northern Victoria in the delivery of projects like the Inland Rail. We're seeing CFMEU subcontractors prioritised over local companies, which wasn't supposed to happen under this project. Australians deserve to know what you're doing, Labor. (Time expired)

The question is that the urgency motion moved by Senator Kovacic be agreed to.

by leave—I table the names and photos of 273 Palestinian journalists and media workers killed by Israel's genocide in Gaza in the last two years.

by leave—I table a petition signed by 15,537 people who would like to hold the National Anti-Corruption Commission accountable for robodebt injustices.

() (): I present Scrutiny digest 7 of 2025 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, dated 5 November 2025, together with ministerial correspondence. I also seek leave to incorporate by tabling statement into Hansard.

Leave granted.

The incorporated speech read as follows—

As Chair of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, I rise to speak to the tabling of the committee's Scrutiny Digest 7 of 2025.

This Digest contains the committee's consideration of 14 bills introduced between 27 October 2025 to 30 October 2025 and amendments agreed during this period. The committee has commented on 6 new bills and 1 amendment, and concluded its consideration of 1 previously introduced bill.

I wish to take this opportunity to draw Senators' attention to the committee's comments on several bills that enable charges to be set in delegated legislation. While not the sole focus of this Digest, this recurring theme serves to illustrate why fees, charges or taxes in delegated legislation raise scrutiny concerns.

Among the most fundamental of the Parliament's functions is the making of laws that impose taxation. Under the Constitution laws imposing taxation must only deal with taxation and the Senate may not initiate or directly amend such laws. That the Constitution imposes such constraints underscores the significance of taxation—including duties of customs and excise—being legislated directly by the Parliament.

Where a bill permits the Executive to set charges, levies or duties by delegated legislation, the Parliament's oversight and scrutiny of these matters is reduced.

Clause 7 of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity (General Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, for example,allow for charges to be prescribed by regulations in relation to any prescribed matters connected with the administration of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.Identical provision is made by the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity (Customs Charges Imposition) Bill 2025 and the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity (Excise Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, albeit for customs or excise duties.

The committee's consistent scrutiny view has been that it is for the Parliament, rather than the makers of delegated legislation, to determine the rate of taxation. In this instance, the committee has welcomed that each of these charging bills explicitly require that charges must be no more than necessary for appropriate recovery of costs. However, the committee's expectation is that bills should themselves set an amount for any charge that may be characterised as general taxation. Where charges are to be set by delegated legislation, fixing calculation methods or maximum charges in primary legislation serves to ensure greater parliamentary scrutiny.

The committee is therefore seeking further information about how these charges are to be determined and whether it is necessary to do so in delegated legislation.

The committee also raises similar concerns in relation to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Restoration Charge Imposition) Bill 2025. The bill seeks to impose various charges relating to measures proposed in the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025. It provides that the amounts of these charges, which must be more than zero, may be set out in regulations. The regulations may also provide the method to calculate the amount of these charges.

The committee is requesting information from the minister about the appropriateness of these matters being set in delegated legislation. The committee has enquired whether the maximum amount for these charges or further guidance about the calculation methods could be provided within the bill.

The bill would also require the minister to arrange regular independent reviews of all charging regulations made under the bill. While the reports from these reviews must be published on the department's website, there is no requirement that they be tabled in the Parliament. As this may further limit Parliament's scrutiny of the charges imposed by regulations, the committee is seeking the minister's advice about why these reports would not be tabled in Parliament.

I draw the Senate's attention to the fact that the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, introduced in the House of Representatives less than a week ago, has not been considered by the committee in this Digest. At 473 pages long, the bill is the largest to have been introduced during this Parliament. This is more than 300 pages longer than the second largest bill that has come before the 48th Parliament. The committee has agreed to consider the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 prior to the resumption of the Senate on 24 November.

With these comments, I commend the committee's Scrutiny Digest 7 of 2025 to the Senate.

I present the report of the procedures committee on motions to take note of answers, and I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

This is basically looking at the issue of taking note after question time and the allocation of time in that half-hour period between the various parties. There had been a referral from the crossbench, I believe, in the previous parliament, and once again in this parliament, for this issue to be considered.

I just want to make a couple of points. The Senate Standing Committee on Procedure has always been of the opinion that it is important to have a representative balance in the taking note period; however, it's not the case that this can be done perfectly on every occasion. It is going to be something that changes with the changing dynamic of this place following elections. The procedure committee is also very keen to emphasise that we are not giving instructions to the whip on how that time is allocated. We are merely providing the whips with some guidance on what could be a path forward. However, at this stage, it is a matter for the various party whips to work out how the crossbench allocation, in particular, is utilised between the parties, based on, perhaps, whoever may have questions on a particular day. However, again, this is something for the whips to consider. The appendix offers some guidance, but it is not a formal direction. It is something for the whips to discuss.

Question agreed to.

I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning the Consumer Data Right, industry facilities at risk, the Environment Protection Reform Bill and incoming government briefs prepared by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water.

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

by leave—I move:

That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:

Community Affairs Legislation and References Committees —

Appointed—Participating member: Senator Thorpe

Economics Legislation and References Committees —

Appointed—Participating member: Senator Thorpe

Education and Employment Legislation and References Committees —

Appointed—Participating member: Senator Thorpe

Electoral Matters — Joint Standing Committee—

Appointed—Participating member [for the purposes of the committee's inquiry into the 2025 election]: Senator Thorpe

Environment and Communications Legislation and References Committees —

Appointed—Participating member: Senator Thorpe

Finance and Public Administration Legislation and References Committees —

Appointed—Participating member: Senator Thorpe

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation and References Committees —

Appointed—Participating member: Senator Thorpe

Implementation of the National Redress Scheme — Joint Standing Committee —

Appointed—Participating member: Senator Thorpe

Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy — Select Committee —

Appointed—Participating member: Senator Thorpe

Intergenerational Housing Inequity — Select Committee —

Appointed [from the appointment of the committee on 17 March 2026]—Participating members: Senators Bell, Hanson, Roberts and Whitten

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation and References Committees —

Appointed—Participating member: Senator Thorpe

Operation of the Capital Gains Tax Discount — Select Committee —

Appointed—Participating members: Senators Bell, Hanson, David Pocock, Roberts and Whitten

Procedure — Standing Committee—

Appointed—Participating member [for the purposes of the committee's inquiry into orders for the production of documents]: Senator Thorpe

Productivity in Australia — Select Committee —

Appointed—Participating members: Senators Bell, Hanson, Roberts and Whitten

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation and References Committees —

Appointed—Participating member: Senator Thorpe

Treaties — Joint Standing Committee —

Discharged—Senator Brockman

Appointed—Senator Collins

Question agreed to.

This motion, of course, seeks a referral to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee so that that committee can seek public submissions and review the AUKUS fiasco that both Labor and the coalition have taken Australia into. There are many reasons to review the AUKUS deal, but I think one of the most pressing is the recent critical minerals deal that is underpinned by AUKUS. As Greens, we recognise that the world's critical minerals and rare earths will be necessary for the renewable energy future. We recognise that Australia has an important role to play in the global supply of critical minerals and rare earths.

But, of course, when Donald Trump—who pats Defence Minister Marles and Prime Minister Albanese on their respective heads when he looks to Australia—the United States military and some tech bros in the United States look to Australia, to our critical minerals and to our rare earths, they see supplies for their weapons industry and supplies for their tech bros and they are absolutely not seeing Australia's critical minerals for the renewable energy future we need.

What has the Albanese government done? The Albanese government has said, 'Yes, absolutely.' They are absolutely willing to amend our nature laws to allow a so-called national interest exemption to allow First Nations land to be ripped apart, despoiled, so that critical minerals can be extracted and given to the Trump administration not for renewable energies but for their weapons and for their tech bros. AUKUS is ripping this country apart, and we're being sold to the US. That's why we need a review. (Time expired)

(Quorum formed)

AUKUS is a core pillar of the Albanese government's national security policy to protect our nation's interests and security and to keep Australians safe. As the National Defence Strategy affirms, we confront the most challenging strategic circumstances since the Second World War, and we do so at a time when Australia's economic connection with the world has never been greater. AUKUS is in the strategic interests of Australia, and our investment commitment to AUKUS is fundamental to our national security. AUKUS will be one of the greatest industrial endeavours Australia has ever undertaken, supporting industry, jobs and infrastructure over decades. Our investment in conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines is fundamental to making sure our ADF has a much greater capacity to protect and defend Australia.

Importantly, we are delivering AUKUS at pace. AUKUS is happening. Since the announcement in March 2023, we have seen tangible progress on all fronts. This is an agreement that Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom have been pursuing. We recognise that the investment is significant. It is an opportunity to build a future made in Australia, and we need to engage the industrial base of the entire nation. It will be the single biggest increase in our military capability since the establishment of the Navy more than a century ago and will be profoundly important to Australia's national security.

The Albanese government's plan to deliver AUKUS will create around 20,000 direct jobs over the next 30 years. This includes, at its peak, up to 4,000 Australian workers employed to design and build the submarine construction yard at Osborne in South Australia. A further 4,000 to 5,000 direct jobs will be created to build nuclear powered submarines in South Australia when the program reaches its peak. Around 3,000 direct jobs will be created to deliver infrastructure upgrades at HMAS Stirling in Western Australia, and 500 more jobs will be created to support the sustainment of nuclear powered submarines from 2027.Our focus is on sticking to this plan and seeing it through. That is how we will get this capability.

Senator Shoebridge wants to play peacenik and stand up to protest against Australia's defence industry when he's talking to Greens members. I wonder how many of you know about his own defence policy for the Greens, where he announced plans to turn Australia into a major missile manufacturer. The Greens have made it clear that they don't believe in our ADF and that they don't believe in AUKUS. The Albanese government has promoted regular parliamentary engagement and community consultation through regular oversight in existing parliamentary committees and scrutiny through the Senate estimates process. The Greens are welcome to support the Albanese government to reintroduce legislation to establish the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence. This committee will enable scrutiny of classified matters in a secure setting, ensuring enhanced transparency, accountability and oversight of Defence decisions, capability, development and strategic planning, including AUKUS.

I just walked in and heard the remarks of Senator Chisholm. I heard him talk about the investment in infrastructure around Stirling and Garden Island. The problem, though, which any Western Australian and anyone in the area will know, is that it's all well and good and it is important investment and infrastructure on Garden Island, but what we need is the enabling infrastructure in and around that area. We've got significant bottlenecks when it comes to traffic getting onto and off of the island. You've got what is essentially just a goat track once you get across the causeway into Rockingham, and the road literally runs through suburban residential streets. Now, we've got all of this increased traffic—trucks and all the expected increase in traffic that's going to come as a result of AUKUS—and we're not seeing any progress at all for what is necessary. The truth is that this is something that has been talked about for a long time. In fact, the Hepburn-Stephenson plan was set out in the 1950s and actually designated what's called the Garden Island Highway, and there is still an easement that goes through the area that is able to be built up as a significant road to enable traffic to get in and off the island. Again, this government has done nothing with it. They announced a feasibility study in 2025. This is something that we've known about for a long time. The feasibility study should have already been done, and what we should be seeing right now are the graders and the road construction crew building the necessary infrastructure that's in and around that area.

In addition, further up the coast is the Henderson precinct. Again, there were big announcements about what's going on and the important investment of what needs to happen there on the land side of what's necessary to support the submarines, shipping and the defence precinct there at Henderson. But, again, the enabling infrastructure that's necessary to allow that to reach its full vision is not happening. You've got the Russell Road, Cockburn Road and Stock Road intersection. Again, that is a very significant bottleneck. You only need to go down there early in the morning on any day of the week—these operations run seven days a week—and you will see the significant congestion that is there with all the tradie traffic going in and out of Henderson already. That is without the $12 million of investment at Henderson. The government needs to step up to the plate here. They need the enabling infrastructure.

I'll finish with this point: AUKUS needs a social licence as well. The community impacted the most by all of the development and all the opportunities that are going on are in and around those areas of Garden Island and Henderson. Those communities ought not be frustrated by what's going on in their local community. They should be seeing the opportunity, because there are wonderful opportunities, particularly for young people to take up the trades, the skills and the jobs that are going to be required for decades ahead. They should be excited about it, but they're frustrated by the lack of enabling infrastructure that's necessary—the pressure that's been put on housing. Unfortunately, we're not seeing enough.

Premier Roger Cook is here, talking to the government. He and the state government need to step up, with all the planning and everything that needs to happen, and actually work together with the federal government to actually get stuff happening, because there's not enough happening. We've just got feasibility studies and planning that really should have been done over the last few years and is only now commencing. It's not good enough. I asked questions about this in estimates just a few weeks ago, and we heard that it's only just commenced. It's not good enough. They've got to hurry up and move on because the social licence is absolutely essential for this project, AUKUS, to realise its full potential.

AUKUS is set to rob Australians of $368 billion by the time it delivers—or, more likely, doesn't deliver. That's equivalent to over $13,000 taken from every Australian alive today—money that will go straight into the pockets of the US and UK weapons manufacturers. For what? Not a single guarantee that Australia will ever have full control of these submarines or ever have submarines at all. There's no guarantee they'll be built, and definitely no guarantee that they will make us safer. AUKUS isn't a defence strategy; it's a blank cheque to the American military industrial complex signed by the Australian taxpayers. That's why this should be referred to inquiry. The Australian people deserve to know exactly what they are paying for and what they're giving up.

We are told that this is about security, but the question is: security for who? Over the past fortnight, I have raised in this chamber the crisis facing community primary health, with bulk-billing GP services in my home state closing their doors due to a lack of government funding intervention. I've raised the housing crisis that's pushing families to sleep in cars and young people to give up on the dream of ever owning a home. I've heard from survivors of extreme weather events. Just today Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action were talking about the empty climate adaptation plan that was handed down with no funding attached, while floods, fires, droughts and heatwaves grow worse every single year. Talented early childhood education workers have sat in my office and told me there is no secured ongoing funding for the Early Years Support program that provides high-impact early childhood and development services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and families across this country.

Prime Minister Albanese, I have an entire shopping list of things we could fix together with even a fraction of the money we are throwing at AUKUS. But what are we hearing? Nothing. Nothing about these critical services that Australians are crying out for, and yet we somehow have billions of dollars for nuclear submarines. Imagine if we spent that money on what actually keeps people secure, supported and cared for.

For $368 billion, we could fully fund universal early childhood education—multiple times over, in fact—providing every family in this country with free, high-quality care for every single child. I know there has been a resounding endorsement of that in New York today. We could properly pay educators what they are worth and raise quality standards across the board, improving educational outcomes and letting families participate fully in the workforce. That is what real security looks like—children learning, parents working, if they so choose, and families thriving. The Prime Minister himself committed to a legacy of universal child care, but frankly he has made more progress in securing photo opportunities with Donald Trump than he has in moving towards universal early education, a goal that parents, families and educators are so desperately calling for.

We could build hundreds of thousands of affordable homes, not just for American military personnel, as was Labor's first housing move in this new parliament, but for the everyday Australians, teachers, nurses and care workers who make this country function. We could invest in properly funding community health and properly building climate adaptation resilience. We could invest further in clean energy and in the programs that actually make people's lives better and this planet safer. Instead, this government has chosen to pour our collective wealth into a project that fuels an arms race and shackles our sovereignty to the whims of an increasingly unstable United States.

Prime Minister Albanese's meeting with President Trump was sold as a sign of strong friendship, but what it really showed is how much Australia is willing to give away for a photo opportunity. AUKUS doesn't even require the US to deliver these submarines. There is no binding commitment and no guarantee that the US will even have the industrial capacity to build them. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister has offered Trump dibs over our critical minerals—the very minerals that are supposed to support our clean energy transition. Australia's critical minerals should be fuelling a green future, powering solar panels, batteries and electric vehicles, not fuelling the US military, one of the world's biggest polluters. Instead of leading on renewable technology, the government is binding us to a climate denialist agenda, where profits for billionaires and weapons manufacturers come before people and planet. That is not sovereignty; that is surrender.

Let's be very clear about what AUKUS really is. It is a one-sided deal that commits us to decades of US military ambitions in the Pacific. It increases the risk of conflict. It locks Australia into the United States and United Kingdom's nuclear technology and military plans, leaving us dependent on their decisions. It does not guarantee Australia any real control or oversight over how that technology is used. If the US or UK change their level of cooperation at any point, our ability to operate these submarines and our defence capability would be directly affected. That is not sovereignty. It is dependency, locked in for half a century at least.

We are being to surrender our sovereignty, our independence and our public wealth for a security promise that exists only on paper. But true security doesn't come from submarines or missiles. It comes from peaceful diplomacy and strong democratic values. It comes from stable communities, healthy and supported families and a planet that we can actually live on. Australians do not want their safety to depend on Donald Trump, a man who ridicules world leaders, escalates conflicts and mocks the idea of peace and climate action, or his administration. They don't want to see their taxes funding the US war machine while their local health clinics close. They do not want to see billions of dollars spent on submarines while they can't afford rent, groceries or medication. They want leadership that invests in people and planet, not in war. It's time to bring some transparency, scrutiny and sanity back into this debate via an inquiry, and it's time to put people, not weapons, at the heart of Australia's security.

I rise to join my colleague and good friend Senator O'Sullivan in talking on this issue because it is of such vital importance to our home state of Western Australia. The first point I want to make is that the AUKUS arrangement, as is revealed in its name, is a deepening of the relationship between three countries that have had an extraordinarily strong relationship for decades. In the case of the United Kingdom, it has been for longer.

The relationship between Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom and the defence relationship is a key pillar of security for not just Australia but also internationally, and it is vitally important that that coalition legacy is continued. However, sadly, under this government, while we have seen much rhetoric in support of the AUKUS arrangement—something that we absolutely support—there has also been a failure on the ground to progress the key underlying infrastructure that is required to make sure these arrangements can actually take place in a timely fashion in the timeframes that were originally envisaged by the coalition government that entered into these arrangements.

As Senator O'Sullivan rightly pointed out, there are some really basic roads that need to be built or changed to make sure that the scale of the infrastructure can actually be supported. We need to rearrange the Australian Marine Complex to ensure that the berth space, the wharf space, is actually there to carry out the sustainment-type operations that are required in Western Australia for this. We need governments to engage with all aspects of the private sector to ensure that all parts of the very complex system of private-military relationships that will be required actually exist.

For example, there is still debate and decisions to be made on the storage of low-level radioactive waste, and we have a facility in WA that's already approved, already supported, through active land use agreements and the like. It's owned by the company Tellus and is fully compliant to store radioactive material. That exists. Yet, as far as I know—and hopefully this has changed—no conversation has yet taken place with that company. I think it's really important that those sorts of discussions are entered into not in three or four years but now. In fact, they should have been started years ago, but, sadly, this government has been sitting on its hands.

In Western Australia, as my friend and colleague Senator O'Sullivan pointed out, whilst the Cook Labor government has finally seemed to have turned its attention to the needs on the ground, it is happening too late and not with the urgency that is required. Take housing, for example. It's an issue of vital importance when you consider that the relationship requires thousands of people to come to our country from the United States and the United Kingdom and be based in Rockingham and the surrounding areas, but no provision has yet been made. And, at the rate that this government can build houses, I doubt its ability to even get its head around the needs of that Defence housing in a timely way. At the rate they're going and with the amount they're spending to build a few houses under the Housing Australia Future Fund, it makes me deeply worried that they will be completely incapable of doing those basic infrastructure needs that are required to see this arrangement come to fruition not just over time but in a timely fashion that supports the ongoing deepening of our relationship.

But of course AUKUS is not just Pillar I; it's not just submarines. This is what many people either fail to understand or fail to reflect in their comments. It is a deepening of the defence relationship across a number of different areas, and this is something that, in an increasingly dangerous world, will be of vital importance to our safety and security in the years ahead. So we need governments, at both state and federal level, that are aware of risks, are aware of their responsibilities and are willing to actually make the decisions required in a timely fashion to make sure that AUKUS is all it should be. And, sadly, the Cook Labor government, in Western Australia, and the Albanese Labor government here are failing.

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

I rise today to speak on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025. The coalition will support this bill in the Senate today; however, we hold concerns about certain provisions that merit closer scrutiny. At all times, we must remember that Australia's social services safety net is among the most robust and generous in the world. This system does not sustain itself. It must be carefully managed and responsibly administered because it is funded by Australian taxpayers—by the men and women who work hard, take risks and shoulder the responsibility of supporting our social security system. Few countries in the world offer a social safety net as comprehensive as Australia's. It is something we can truly take pride in but also something we must safeguard and preserve. Our social security safety net is funded by those who pay taxes—small-business owners, primary producers and frontline workers, who keep our country running. They do so because of a belief in a fair go and that one day they might need that safety net too. It is sustained by those on the frontline—the nurses working through the night, the teachers shaping young minds and the police who put themselves in harm's way to keep us safe.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Can I remind senators that there is a senator on her feet giving a speech on the second reading debate. Please leave the chamber if you're not doing so in silence.

We must never forget that every dollar spent on social security is a dollar that is earned by someone else. It means that every measure, every amendment and every program cost must therefore be justified. It must be fair, sustainable and targeted to assist those in genuine need while preserving the integrity and future of the system itself. We also carry responsibility for future generations. The choices we make today about the structure and sustainability of our welfare system will determine the burden and opportunity inherited by Australians tomorrow.

Income support should deliver a strong and sustainable safety net and encourage a path to employment for those who can work. Employment is the single most effective way to improve living standards for individuals and families. That conviction has long shaped our approach to social policy and continues to guide our priorities in opposition. These priorities are especially important in the midst of an enduring cost-of-living crisis driven by Labor's economic mismanagement at a time when households across Australia are struggling with rising costs and stagnant wages, and when the new working poor must decide between heating or cooling and eating.

When in government, the coalition demonstrated disciplined and responsible economic management. We were able to deliver the largest permanent increase in the JobSeeker payment at that time, ensuring that there was a safety net for those in need. In April 2021 the coalition increased working-age payment rates, including JobSeeker, by $50 a fortnight. We also permanently increased the income-free area to $150 per fortnight, giving job seekers greater flexibility and incentive to take on work as they re-entered the workforce. During the height of the pandemic—one of the greatest economic and social challenges of our generation—the coalition government provided $32 billion in emergency payments to help Australians get through. This is the record of a coalition government that understood the balance between compassion and responsibility, between helping those who need help with targeted and timely responses and ensuring that the system remains fair to those who fund it.

This bill's schedules amend a number of acts, including A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999, the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010, the Social Security Act 1991 and the Student Assistance Act 1973. These amendments in this bill have significant consequences for how social security payments are administered and how debts and undetermined debts are treated. The bill includes provisions providing clarity to income apportionment, a practice introduced under Labor. The bill seeks to do several things. It sets out preliminary and definitional matters as well as income apportionment method statements. It validates income apportionment as a method of apportioning employment income in relation to entitlement periods before 7 December 2020. It also clarifies the lawful methods of apportioning employment income when determining debts or rates of payment for periods before that date. It expands the instances in which the special circumstances waiver may be applied to waive debts incurred under the relevant acts. It increases the threshold for waiving a small debt of $250 and provides for that threshold to be indexed annually to the consumer price index. It provides a one-off waiver for the Commonwealth's right to recover small, undetermined debts worth less than $250 that are currently recorded in Services Australia's systems but are yet to be raised.

Another significant measure is the establishment of the Income Apportionment Resolution Scheme. This scheme will provide resolution payments to people whose debts were affected by income apportionment between 20 September 2003 and 6 December 2020. The bill gives the minister power to determine matters relating to the scheme through legislative instrument and it provides for a new special appropriation to fund these resolution payments. Additionally, now the legislation allows for the minister responsible for the Australian Federal Police to issue a notice to the Minister for Social Services requiring the cessation of certain payments as well as concession cards in circumstances where a person is subject to an outstanding arrest warrant for a serious violent or sexual offence. Taxpayers should not fuel the means for people to evade the law.

While these measures are important, they are not without concern. The first issue relates to the process by which this legislation has been developed. It appears that income apportionment measures have been informed by the Commonwealth Ombudsman's own-motion investigation and its recommendations, yet we're informed that there was no direct consultation with the Ombudsman in the development of the legislation. A reasonable person would think that, if the measures stem from the Ombudsman's own findings, it would be reasonable to expect from the government that they have engaged directly with that office to ensure the legislation aligns with those recommendations. You would think so, but, no, not for this government.

Second, the timing of this bill raises serious questions. The government has waited until the tail end of the sitting calendar to bring this legislation forward. As a result, scrutiny has been rushed, with only a single day allocated for Senate committee examination. That Senate inquiry heard almost exclusively from social service advocacy groups and not-for-profit organisations. This narrow consultation raises legitimate concerns about how many voices the government actually listened to when preparing this bill.

The Ombudsman, in its submission to the Senate inquiry, highlighted a serious omission—namely, that the issue of remediation for individuals who have been criminally convicted in relation to debts that were invalidly calculated using income apportionment is not addressed in the bill. That is not a minor point. It goes to the heart of fairness, accountability and justice. If the government acknowledges that income apportionment was used unlawfully for years then the question of how that impacts those who face prosecution or conviction as a result should not be left unanswered.

Further, the bill leaves many operational details unresolved. It is not clear how the Income Apportionment Resolution Scheme will interact with the Scheme for Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration, the longstanding framework for compensating individuals adversely affected by administrative errors. Much, it seems, is being left to legislative instruments, meaning that critical decisions about the design and implementation of the scheme will be made outside the direct scrutiny of the parliament. That is deeply concerning.

Due to the absence of these essential details in the primary legislation, parliament's capacity to properly scrutinise the resolution scheme has been restricted by this Labor government—the same one that said it would govern with transparency. Once the delegated legislation is tabled, we will, of course, examine it.

The government itself has belatedly recognised the flaws in its own work and been forced to amend its legislation with over 12 pages of amendments in the House of Representatives alone. This is yet more evidence that the bill was brought before parliament half-baked, without the necessary scrutiny or consultation and rushed through the legislative process. A responsible government would have taken the time to get this right. Instead, what we have seen is a series of reactive amendments and last-minute fixes. A feature of this government is to be focused on political expediency, it seems, rather than on good governance.

Through its amendments to the bill in the House of Representatives, the government included an entire additional schedule. The public should know that there was no opportunity for these last-minute amendments to be scrutinised through the committee process. While we agree with the intent of the measures in schedule 5, the committee process is important to ensure that there are no unintended consequences and that the legislation is fit for purpose. It is entirely inappropriate that the amendments weren't put to scrutiny in the committee process.

It was a coalition government that first announced it would crack down on offenders and criminals with outstanding warrants by withholding welfare payments. Under the measures announced by the then coalition government, the Commonwealth could suspend or cancel the welfare payments of individuals who had outstanding state and territory arrest warrants for indictable criminal offences. It was a commonsense measure that was scrapped by the Albanese government in its first budget, as a result of its spending audit. Now it is actually seeking to reintroduce it. The minister described this measure last week as 'commonsense' and 'in line with community expectations'. Why was this measure not viewed by this government as commonsense and in line with community expectations in October 2022 when they actually scrapped it? What has changed? Why was this schedule not included in the original legislation?

I'm going to turn now to the special circumstances waiver. There are also unresolved questions about how the waiver will operate in practice because this bill provides little detail about the measures, procedures and thresholds that will guide Services Australia in deciding whether such circumstances exist. Without clear criteria, there is a real risk of inconsistent decision-making and unequal treatment of applicants. How will staff be supported to make informed and compassionate decisions? These are not academic questions; they go to the heart of how the law will affect real people.

Minister Plibersek, in her second reading speech, said that existing safeguards would be strengthened to prevent manipulation of the waiver system. There is still little detail provided on what these strengthened safeguards will look like or how they will operate in practice to prevent misuse or manipulation of the social security safety net.

The coalition will continue to engage constructively where possible. We acknowledge that this bill contains a number of technical amendments seeking to address long-standing administrative challenges within the social security system. However, we will also continue to hold the government to account for the way in which these measures are developed and implemented. The Australian people are entitled to transparency, accountability and assurance that their parliament is performing its role diligently. While the coalition will support this bill in the Senate today, we remain concerned about the absence of key operational details on the income apportionment resolution scheme within the primary legislation. The coalition will closely scrutinise and consider the legislative instrument establishing the resolution scheme once it is tabled. We expect the government to clearly explain how the scheme will operate in practice, how fairness will be upheld and how the integrity of the social security framework will be maintained.

Every dollar spent through the social security system is a dollar earned by a hardworking Australian. It is our responsibility—in fact, it's our duty—to ensure that those dollars are spent wisely and with the integrity required so that they strengthen, not weaken, the foundations of our social security safety net, and that any instances of fraud and misuse are dealt with appropriately. Above all, our task in this place—in this parliament—is to ensure that Australia's welfare system continues to support those in genuine need. It must provide meaningful pathways to independence and remain sustainable for generations to come. That's what we need to ensure for the social security system. This is the coalition's enduring commitment to fairness, responsible governance and the integrity of Australia's social security system.

The Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025 may carry the word 'technical' in the title, but its purpose is anything but minor. Beneath the fine print, it deals with fairness, accountability and the basic dignity owed to every Australian who has relied on our social security system. Australia's social security system really is one of the most targeted in the world on many measures. It's generous in purpose but it's precise in its delivery. In fact, if you reflect on how targeted it is, the proportion of the funds that flow to the top 20 per cent versus the bottom 20 per cent are 12 to one. That is $12 for every $1 to the bottom 20 per cent. That's targeted. That's fair. Similarly, two-thirds of all government transfers go to the bottom 40 per cent. This demonstrates why it's one of the most targeted systems in the world. Few countries direct such a high share of support to those in the lowest income cohorts.

I turn to the bill. At its heart, it really addresses how employment income was treated for people receiving income tests of payments between 1991 and 2020. For decades, Services Australia and its predecessors used a method known as income apportionment, spreading a person's pay across the period it was earned rather than just the day it was received. That method was intended to reflect the real world, where workers are paid weekly, fortnightly or monthly and their hours do not always line up neatly with the government's pay cycles. But, in recent years, questions arose about whether that approach was technically lawful under the Social Security Act. While the method was widespread, there was a risk that debts and payments assessed using that approach could be challenged. This bill, therefore, provides legal certainty. It validates the longstanding use of income apportionment from 1991 to December 2020, ensuring that Services Australia can continue to apply a fair, consistent and administratively sound system. Importantly—and I stress this point—the bill does not validate the income averaging practices that caused the robodebt scandal. It does not validate that. It draws a clear legal and moral line between legitimate administrative methods and the unlawful data matching and averaging that hurt so many Australians.

The robodebt royal commission showed us what happens when governments stop listening, when compassion is replaced by spreadsheets and when vulnerable Australians are treated as statistics instead of human beings. This bill is part of the Albanese government's ongoing effort to rebuild trust in our social security system. It will make sure that people are treated fairly, that debts are based on fact and that those who have been wronged receive a proper resolution. It also establishes an income apportionment resolution scheme. This is a process that will allow the Commonwealth to make resolution payments to people whose debts were affected by these technical issues. That scheme will apply to debts between September 2003 and December 2020, covering the majority of cases that may have been impacted. The aim is to give clarity and closure, to prevent years of appeals and uncertainty and to resolve matters quickly and fairly.

Beyond these technical changes, the bill takes real steps to make the system more compassionate. The bill standardises and indexes the small-debt-waiver threshold at $250, recognising that chasing very small amounts often costs more than it recovers. This reform has been welcomed by the Australian Council of Social Services, who say:

Reform of the small debt waiver provisions is sensible and improves fairness. Currently, the Commonwealth can recover debts as small as $50, with the small debt waiver provisions having remained the same for over 30 years. Lifting the small-debt threshold is long overdue, not only to reduce stress and hardship experienced by people receiving income support, but to also reduce the administrative burden for Services Australia.

It also expands the special-circumstances-waiver provisions in multiple ways, including where a person is facing domestic or family violence, serious illness or other exceptional hardship. In doing so, it responds to recommendation 58 of the 2024 inquiry of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Corporations and Financial Services into financial abuse, and I congratulate Chair Senator O'Neill for the work of that committee and the report. The special-circumstances-waiver reform has also been welcomed by ACOSS, who said:

Currently, someone who underreports their income to Centrelink because of coercive control and is then found to have a debt, cannot be considered to receive a special circumstances waiver for that debt because the person 'knowingly' gave false information. Part 1 updates this schedule to allow for consideration of other circumstances like coercive control and family and domestic violence that led to falsely reporting income and allows the decision maker to waive a debt that arises in these circumstances.

It's small, incremental reforms like this that make me proud to be a Labor senator within this government. The special circumstances waiver isn't going to apply to millions of Australians, but, for those who it does affect, it impacts them greatly. To those people, the government is saying: we hear you, we see you and we're taking action to help. We're also aligning the provisions across the Social Security Act, the Paid Parental Leave Act and the Student Assistance Act so that, no matter which system you interact with, the same standards of fairness apply and the same standards of compassion apply.

In a similar way, the bill proposes to enable certain Commonwealth payments and concession cards to be cancelled where a person is subject to an outstanding arrest warrant for a serious offence. Currently there are no provisions to cancel an individual's payments or concession card in circumstances where there is a warrant issued for the arrest of the individual with respect to a serious, violent or sexual offence and they are evading arrest by police. I think most Australians would agree that it is inappropriate for these individuals to be in receipt of benefits provided by the Australian government. And I note the advice given by the Minister for Social Services in the other place:

We propose this new power to be used only in the most serious circumstances, and only following a thorough and considered decision-making process.

Some stakeholders have raised concerns about the retrospective elements of this bill, particularly the validation of past administrative practices. That's an important debate, and the government has approached it carefully. Retrospective legislation should always be justified. It should be exceptional. In this case, it's justified to prevent years of uncertainty, to ensure consistent treatment of recipients and to protect individuals from unnecessary distress. Without this bill, tens of thousands of Australians could find themselves trapped in appeals or reviews over technicalities that have no bearing on whether they were entitled to their payments. This legislation closes that door, and it does so transparently, with clear exclusions for any practices found to be unlawful.

The bill complements the broader work we're doing to restore integrity in government through Services Australia reform and through the ongoing implementation of the royal commission's recommendations. It fits squarely within Labor's mission, building a fairer society where no-one is left behind in our social services system. At this point, we should recognise the efforts of the Minister for Government Services, Senator Gallagher, whose leadership has resulted in shorter waiting lists at Services Australia. Shorting waiting times are what it's all about. If people have entitlements, there shouldn't be delays in receiving them and in receiving the help they need to access the entitlements that are lawfully theirs.

The bill may be described as technical, but its effects are deeply human. It offers compassion to those facing hardship or violence, it offers closure to those whose lives have been upended by administrative uncertainty, and, crucially, it draws a line under a shameful chapter in our social security history by reaffirming that the Australian government must always act lawfully and always treat people with dignity. For all these reasons, I commend the bill to the Senate.

The social security system in this country is in crisis, and, instead of confronting that crisis, this bill represents yet another attempt by the government to sweep it under the rug—to quietly tuck it away. The government will tell you that the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025 is a win. They'll claim that it delivers justice for people affected by income apportionment. But it's not a win, it's not justice, and it certainly doesn't adequately address the harm caused by the government's actions. Income apportionment was used to calculate social security payments when a person's work period didn't align with their instalment period or when it wasn't clear when income was earned. This method was used from 1991 until 2020—30 years of unlawful practice.

It's yet another example in a long line of unlawful actions by successive governments in the social security system: income apportionment, robodebt and the Targeted Compliance Framework. And the pattern continues. There's now a class action seeking compensation for 20,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people forced to work longer hours and do harder labour than city workers under the Work for the Dole program. That's the second class action alleging racial discrimination in that scheme. Every few weeks there's another crisis. Just last month, 44,000 people were found to have overpaid their debts, some by more than $20,000. These are not small mistakes. Hundreds of thousands of people have been affected. In the case of income apportionment alone, over $5.5 billion in debts and more than four million individual debts may be impacted.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has identified serious concerns with this bill. It found that the legislation would restrict people's rights to an effective remedy as well as their rights to social security and to an adequate standard of living and health. This is not a report the Labor government can seriously claim as a victory for justice.

The Greens have major concerns about the compensation scheme attached to this bill. In her second reading speech, the Minister for Social Services outlined the following payments: for debts under $200, full repayment; for debts between $200 and $2,000, a payment of $200; for debts between $2,000 and $5,000, a payment of $400; and, for debts above $5,000, a payment of $600. The minister claimed that these rates 'reflect the size of the original debt'. But, unless your debt was under $200, that's simply untrue. The larger your debt, the less you'll be compensated for the government's unlawful conduct. Worse still, the scheme makes no allowance for the broader harms caused to mental health, people's housing stability and access to food, or the devastating impacts of wrongful prosecution.

It's been revealed that the largest debt arising from income apportionment was $151,369. Under this scheme, that person would receive a maximum of $600. That's not restitution; it's an insult. And, if you wish to claim this compensation, you must first agree to waive any future right to hold the government liable. The human rights committee rightly warned that this requirement fails to take into account the vulnerability of social security recipients and provides no safeguards to ensure people can make an informed decision.

The government is endlessly forgiving of its own law-breaking. When it's the government that acts unlawfully, they simply legislate to excuse themselves. But, when it's people on social security who fail to report a change of circumstance or can't repay an unlawful debt, the system comes down on them with full force. Payments are suspended or terminated, even for people undergoing life-saving medical treatment. Prosecution is common. This bill continues that double standard. It retrospectively validates an unlawful practice that should be strongly rejected. Dr Christopher Rudge told the inquiry:

… retrospective laws intrinsically represent an encroachment on the rights and freedoms of citizens they affect.

This bill risks preventing people from overturning criminal convictions based on unlawful debts. It perpetuates institutional injustice—the very injustice the robodebt royal commission exposed. The minister should know better. In 2011, she introduced the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2011 to retrospectively validate 15,000 wrongful convictions. That law was struck down by the High Court in 2013. Yet here we are again, 14 years later, repeating history.

As if that wasn't enough, late last week the government added an entirely new schedule, one that goes even further in disregarding human rights. Under these amendments, the AFP could request the cancellation of parenting payments, paid parental leave and family tax benefit payments for anyone charged—not convicted—with a serious crime. ASIO could do the same for anyone alleged to have prejudiced national security. This crosses a line. Punishing people who have not been found guilty of a crime violates the presumption of innocence, a principle enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and multiple international covenants. These amendments were snuck in at the eleventh hour, without scrutiny by the Senate inquiry or the human rights committee. They also create a real danger for women and children, particularly survivors of family violence. The Council of Single Mothers and their Children warned that false reports already harm too many women, many of them First Nations, who are misrepresented as perpetrators or unfairly drawn into child protection systems. They urged the government to withdraw the amendment until the full consequences for children and primary carers have been assessed.

This idea isn't new. In the 2018-2019 budget the then prime minister, Scott Morrison, proposed similar powers to suspend welfare payments for people with outstanding arrest warrants. Now, Labor has decided to copy the playbook of Scott Morrison, the very architect of robodebt and the same man behind the Targeted Compliance Framework, another dodgy system Labor refuses to halt. Scott Morrison's social security policies are not the test paper Labor wants to be copying from.

Following these last-minute amendments, the Antipoverty Centre released a joint statement opposing them, signed by nearly every major community, advocacy and legal organisation consulted by the government. The signatories included the Antipoverty Centre, Anglicare Australia, Anti-Poverty Network South Australia, ACOSS, the Australian Unemployed Workers' Union, Community Restorative Centre, Consumers of Mental Health WA, Council of Single Mothers and their Children, Disability Advocacy Network Australia, Economic Justice Australia, Everybody's Home, Mental Health Lived Experience Peak Queensland, NATSILS, New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties, Queensland Advocacy for Inclusion, Single Mother Families Australia, Wirringa Baiya Aboriginal Women's Legal Centre and the Law Council of Australia. When every single expert and advocate the government consults says, 'This is wrong,' the government should listen.

There are some small bright spots in this bill. The first is the increase in the small debt waiver amount, but we make the observation that even that hasn't kept pace with inflation. Advocates and experts told us at the inquiry that if the government were to increase the waiver to keep pace with inflation since it was introduced, it would be closer to $440. The Greens also welcome the introduction of debt waivers for people affected by domestic violence or financial coercion, reforms that the Greens have long called for. But even these long-overdue changes have been cynically bundled into legislation that potentially harms women and children in other ways.

No doubt Labor and the coalition will, once again, team up to pass this bill because, on this issue, they're not that different. Both parties have a long history of perpetrating institutional injustice against people who rely on our social security system. This bill continues that legacy. It excuses government wrongdoing, it entrenches inequality, and it undermines human rights. For all these reasons, the Greens cannot support it unamended. I move the second reading amendment standing in my name on sheet 3501:

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

(a) the proposed quantum of resolution payments in the bill will mean that many people impacted by unlawfully calculated debts:

(i) will receive less than the quantum of the overpayment they made to the government, and

(ii) will not be adequately compensated for the additional harm and inconvenience caused; and

(b) a more just approach would be for all affected debts to be waived".

I rise to speak on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025. It is a bill grounded in two of Labor's most enduring values—dignity and fairness. Those values are at the heart of why Australians built a social security system in the first place: to make sure that, when life takes an unprecedented turn, no-one is left without help.

The Albanese Labor government believes that dignity should never depend on circumstances. Whether it's a job loss, illness, caring responsibilities or simply bad luck, every Australian deserves a system that treats them with respect. This bill is about restoring that respect. It fixes longstanding flaws in the way our social security debts are managed and strengthens protections for those who have been harmed by coercion and financial abuse. It draws a clear line under the mistakes of the past and builds a fairer foundation for the future.

Before I get into the detail, I want to pause to reflect on what this means in human terms. When we talk about debts or income apportionment, it can sound dry or bureaucratic, but, for the people affected, these are not abstract concepts. They are letters that arrive unannounced, phone calls from private numbers and sleepless nights spent worrying about how to pay back money they should never have owed. In my own state of Tasmania I've spoken to people who still feel anxious every time they see an unknown phone number on their phone, because they've lived through years of being chased over minor or mistaken debts. Many were older Tasmanians, carers, or people living with disability, who'd done their best to comply with complex rules that even experts struggle to understand. That is why dignity matters. When bureaucracy forgets compassion, real people suffer. This bill ensures that that never happens again.

We all remember the harm caused by the unlawful robodebt scheme. It was a national disgrace, a cruel policy, that replaced fairness with automation and compassion with indifference. The Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme made that clear. It was not just a technical failure; it was a moral one. Our government accepted, or accepted in principle, all 56 of the commission's recommendations. Seventy-five per cent are already implemented or well progressed. We ended the use of external debt collectors; strengthened oversight within Services Australia; and placed dignity, transparency and respect at the centre of service delivery. This bill continues that work. It delivers on recommendation 18.1 of the royal commission report, which says that debt administration must be ethical, proportionate and focused on the needs of individuals. It ensures that we learn from the mistakes of the past and that 'never again' is not just a slogan but a commitment written into law.

The first major reform in this bill is the overhaul of how small debts are managed. Until now, the threshold for automatically waiving a small debt was just $50—a figure set more than 30 years ago and never indexed. In today's terms, it's meant that Services Australia could spend more to recover a $70 debt than the debt was worth. Under this bill the threshold rises to $250 and, for the first time, will be indexed annually to the CPI. That change alone will make a tangible difference. Around 1.2 million small or undetermined debts will be waived or never raised in 2025-26. That means that 1.2 million Australians—many of them low-income earners or single parents—will no longer face unnecessary stress or anxiety over trivial amounts. This reform is not about letting anyone off the hook. Fraud protections remain. It's about recognising common sense—that chasing small, accidental debts helps no-one. It's about using taxpayers' money responsibly while treating people decently.

The bill also expands the special circumstances waiver, giving Services Australia the discretion to waive debts in cases involving coercion, family violence or financial abuse. This matters deeply. For too long, women fleeing violent partners have found themselves burdened with debts that were not theirs to begin with—debts incurred because a perpetrator manipulated their finances, accessed their online accounts or forced them to make false declarations under threat. These reforms say clearly that survivors of financial abuse should not be punished by the very system meant to protect them.

Alongside fairness, this bill also includes a measure to strengthen community safety, with the introduction of the benefit restriction notice. This change allows, in limited and serious circumstances, for payments or concession cards to be suspended when a person is subject to an outstanding arrest warrant for a serious violent or sexual offence and is actively evading police. This is not about punishing poverty or policing disadvantage; it's about ensuring taxpayer funded benefits are not supported for those who pose a risk to the safety of others. The process is tightly controlled. A benefit restriction notice can only be issued on request from a senior police officer and with the authorisation of the minister responsible for the Australian Federal Police. The Minister for Social Services must also consider the likely effect on any dependants before approving a notice. These safeguards mean that compassion and safety work hand in hand. It is a rare power, expected to be used only in exceptional cases, but an important one to protect the integrity of the system and the safety of the community.

Another key reform in this bill addresses the longstanding issue of income apportionment. Between 1991 and 2020, Services Australia and its predecessors used a method of spreading reported income across multiple fortnights when calculating entitlements. The intention was to be fair to recipients whose pay cycles did not line up neatly with Centrelink reporting periods, but, as the full Federal Court confirmed in the case of Chaplin v Department of Social Services, the method was inconsistent with the law as written. Our government has never used income apportionment, but, as the government responsible for restoring integrity to the system, we must resolve the legacy issues it created. Without legislative certainty, millions of old cases—some dating back more than 20 years—could be reopened, causing chaos and distress for people who believed their debts were long settled.

This bill retrospectively validates the old calculations to provide legal certainty, while at the same time recognising that some people may have repaid debts they should not have. To address that, the Income Apportionment Resolution Scheme will offer payments of up to $600 to those affected between 2003 and 2020. Economic Justice Australia and ACOSS will receive funding to help people navigate the process. It is a balanced and compassionate solution, acknowledging a genuine administrative mistake without reigniting trauma or diverting scarce resources from the frontline.

Tasmania has one of the highest rates of social security reliance in the country. In some suburbs of Hobart and Launceston, more than one in three households receive some form of income support. When debt rules are unfair or inflexible, the impact lands hardest on small communities like ours. In Glenorchy and Moonah, I have met parents juggling part-time work, studying and caring responsibilities. A missed pay slip or a delay in reporting an income can easily lead to an accidental overpayment. For families already counting every dollar, even a small debt notice can cause enormous worry. By lifting the waiver threshold, this bill gives those families breathing space. It allows Services Australia staff to focus on helping people find work or access training, rather than on processing minor debt adjustments.

The expansion of the special circumstances waiver also means that Tasmanian women escaping violence—those supported by services like the Hobart Women's Shelter or Women's Legal Service Tasmania—will have better protection against being left with debts tied to abusive relationships. By establishing the benefit restriction notice regime, the bill gives our police the tools they need to act when somebody wanted for serious violent or sexual offences is avoiding arrest while still claiming Commonwealth payments. That is about keeping communities safe. In short, this legislation delivers fairness for those who need help, accountability for those who seek to exploit the system, and peace of mind for the vast majority who do the right thing.

At its core, this bill asks a simple question: what kind of government, what kind of country, do we choose to be? On election night earlier this year, the Prime Minister said that Australians had voted for Australian values of fairness, aspiration and opportunity for all. He said we are a country that shows 'courage in adversity and kindness to those in need'. He said that, in uncertain times, Australians chose to look after each other while building for the future. That is exactly what this bill does. This bill is about making sure no-one is held back and no-one is left behind. It's about recognising that people are doing it tough and that many are under pressure and about answering that with practical help instead of judgment. It's about a government that does not walk past hardship and pretend it is a personal failure. It's about a government that sees dignity as a right not a reward.

Kindness is not a weakness. It is a deliberate act of fairness. It is building a system that understands that life is complicated, that people make mistakes, that sometimes people are put in impossible situations and that their government should respond with respect instead of punishment. This legislation puts that into practice. It makes debt recovery more humane. It protects people, especially women, from financial abuse. It wipes small accidental debts instead of chasing people for sums that are barely enough to cover groceries. It keeps the community safe by still considering the impact on dependants. It balances accountability with empathy, safety with fairness and administration with humanity. This bill closes a chapter in the history of our social security system and opens a new one defined by fairness, transparency and respect. It says to every Australian who has ever needed help, 'Your dignity matters.' It says to every public servant tasked with administering payments, 'We trust your compassion and judgement.' It says to every community across the country, 'The safety net will be there when it is needed, run with humanity and care.'

In the wake of robodebt, Australians demanded their government do better. This legislation is one more way where we're keeping that promise, because government should never be about catching people out. It should be about lifting people up. That is the choice we make every day as a Labor government. It is the choice to govern with decency, with fairness and with kindness. I commend the bill to the Senate.

I rise first of all to acknowledge the work of my colleague Senator Allman-Payne and to endorse the words and the contribution that she's made to the chamber. But I also rise to oppose schedule 5 of the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025, which gives the power to cancel welfare payments for people with outstanding arrest warrants—not people who've been found guilty but simply with outstanding arrest warrants. There's a name for that. It's called punishment without trial, and we've been here before.

The Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme was damning. Commissioner Holmes found that robodebt was a crude and cruel mechanism, neither fair nor legal, that made many people feel like criminals. In essence, people were traumatised on the off chance they might owe money. Now, in a different way, this government is repeating those mistakes. It's a different mechanism but the same callous disregard for fairness and the same assumption that welfare recipients are criminals until proven otherwise. These amendments were added after committee scrutiny finished, after the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee reported and after the Joint Committee on Human Rights examined the bill—after scrutiny of bills, you might say.

This government has deliberately avoided parliamentary oversight for these amendments, and is it any wonder? The coalition tried this in 2018, and they couldn't get it through because at the time Labor thought it was unprincipled and wrong. But of course now Labor's in government they've basically become the coalition, haven't they? In 2018 states and territories opposed it, and this government said in the 2022 budget that they would not proceed with it. So what's changed? What on earth is wrong with the Australian Labor Party? Since 2014 there have been so-called security notice provisions that allow the minister to cancel payments for people who've had visas or passports cancelled on security grounds, essentially terrorism related cases involving ASIO. Those provisions were controversial enough at the time, but this bill massively expands that power. Now the minister can cancel payments for anyone with an outstanding arrest warrant for serious offences. We're moving from a narrow national security power to a broad criminal law enforcement power that removes power from often-essential support for themselves and their families. This could cover potentially thousands of people with outstanding warrants.

It might not too.

This isn't a 'minor technical amendment'; it's a fundamental expansion of ministerial power over welfare payments. Again, I say to those on the government benches who are now interjecting, trying to suggest that there's some decency or fairness in this: maybe listen to what the stakeholders—

Government senators interjecting—

Before those members on the Labor benches interject angrily to try and support this, maybe listen to what some of the stakeholders have said about this before you jump in to defend yet another attack on the most vulnerable from Labor. This isn't a minor technical amendment; it's a fundamental expansion of ministerial power over welfare payments. I say again: Labor snuck it into the bill after it had gone through committee scrutiny. That is a shameful tactic from Labor. A warrant is not a conviction. It's not even a charge, yet this bill strips people of critical supports before they've had their day in court, if they even have one, since we know, of course, many charges fall away well before that stage.

On 29 October, 18 different organisations issued a joint statement calling on the government to abandon this amendment. I repeat: 18 organisations issued a joint statement. We have Labor senators in this chamber barracking for these amendments and barracking for this attack on some of the most vulnerable people in the community. Before they jump up and do that, maybe listen to what Anglicare Australia, the Australian Council of Social Service, the Australian Unemployed Workers' Union, the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services, the Council of Single Mothers and their Children and many others have said. They've raised serious critical concerns, including the impact on victims of family violence. Abusers could use this as an additional tool to harm their victims by reporting them to police to trigger a warrant. Then, suddenly, the victim loses their income, their home and their ability to care for their children on a decision made not by a court but by an AFP officer without any understanding of the family dynamics or by an ASIO officer who has no understanding of the family dynamics—not tested in court, and, often, the person charged probably wouldn't even be able to afford a lawyer.

The Council of Single Mothers and their Children warn that this could see 'too many single mothers and their children, many of them Aboriginal, misrepresented as perpetrators of violence and then effectively stripped of their payments'.

That's not true.

Again, I hear Labor senators interjecting and saying, 'That's not true.' Say it to the Council of Single Mothers and their Children. Say that it's not true to Anglicare Australia. Say it's not true to ACOSS. Say it's not true to the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services, who are telling Labor that this is unfair. They're telling Labor that, just like so many attacks on welfare, it's going to come and hit the most vulnerable.

The robodebt royal commission recommended Services Australia design its policies and processes with a primary emphasis on the recipients it's meant to serve, including avoiding language and conduct which reinforce the feelings of stigma and shame. This bill does the opposite. It treats people as guilty and it targets the most vulnerable. This measure also breaks the fundamental principle that welfare should be based on need and clear criteria, not on ministerial discretion or politics. This measure concentrates power in the minister's hands, with no administrative review, or, if there is review, it's legal review before the courts. We know judicial review is not available to people on welfare and even less available to people who have had their welfare taken off them by the decision of a Labor minister.

We know from overseas exactly who these policies hurt. In New Zealand, similar provisions saw 71 per cent of sanctions applied to Maori people, despite being only 36 per cent of benefit recipients. Their welfare expert advisory group has recommended removing this sanction because of its attacks on New Zealand's First Peoples. In the United States, fugitive felon provisions disproportionately affect elderly and vulnerable people, often unaware of warrants being issued against them. This part of the bill is deeply unconscionable. It should never have found its way into this bill without review. It's a betrayal of commitments Labor has made. It's an attack on the most vulnerable and it should not pass.

The Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025 is an embarrassment and example of the Labor government's hypocrisy and deceit. Before and during the last federal election, Labor used the robodebt scandal—and it was a scandal—as an election weapon to electorally gut the previous coalition government. It worked, and Labor won the election based on the incompetence of the coalition and on what Labor highlighted as the coalition's cruel betrayal of robodebt victims.

So what do we have here? Labor wants to pass this bill to retrospectively validate the unlawful income apportionment method that underpinned the robodebt rip-off. You pretended to oppose it, and now you want to invalidate it—the injustice, deceit and betrayal. To make matters worse, persons ripped off to the extent of thousands of dollars are being offered puny payments to a maximum of $600 when actually owed $15,000 or more. That's not justice; that's theft. Labor is inducing people to take $600 now so people go away and to ensure they never become able to reasonably claim what the government legally owes them. You're conning these people. They're already in misery, and now you're conning them.

Applications for the scheme will only be open for 12 months. Accepting a resolution payment will discharge the Commonwealth from any further liability. That ends it. In other words, the compensation scheme is completely inadequate. Worse, it's deceptive, deliberately dishonest. Many robodebt victims likely voted for Labor to get justice on robodebt. That's what you promised them. Those same people will now never get close to what they're owed. The government is blatantly cheating robodebt victims out of thousands of dollars—in some cases, tens of thousands of dollars.

This is not just an uncaring government, and on this issue its approach is not just lazily getting around paying lawful entitlements. No; this government is working hard to rip off innocent, vulnerable taxpayers. These faulty assessments extend back to September 2003—22 years. Instead of paying back exactly what each victim of the unlawful robodebt calculations is owed, the government is trying to introduce retrospective legislation to make what was unlawful then now lawful. And you wonder why we're upset. This sneaky new bill is making what was illegal legal—the very reverse of your promise before the election. It will try to validate debts which were unlawful when they tried to collect them. I will say that again, in fact. This bill will try to validate debts which were unlawful when they tried to collect them.

With potentially millions of unlawful debts to deal with, the government is using this bill to welch on its debts to innocent Australians who are victims of government dishonesty. There's been little consultation with this bill, and it shows. There is little detail about how the scheme should work, and in some areas detail is totally missing. Instead, much of the detail is left to the minister's use of future legislative instruments to bypass parliament, to bypass scrutiny. Now there's Labor's catchcry: 'bypass scrutiny'—two words that tell us all about Labor in government at the moment. It is the complete opposite of transparency—bypass scrutiny.

The government has not justified why it considers it necessary to rely on retrospective validation of the previously found unlawful means of calculation. The intention is clear: the government wishes to validate previous decisions that were made on an unlawful basis. You want to validate what you were supposed to fix. The rip-off that you were going to fix you are now validating, quietly cementing in place the Liberals' violations that before the election Labor screamed about.

Anglicare Australia, the Australian Council of Social Service and even the Commonwealth Ombudsman have indicated their concerns that the bill does not address cases where income apportionment wrongly resulted in debts and, in some instances, criminal prosecutions. This bill is an example of the government trying to cover up and weasel out of responsibility for the damage caused to innocent Australians who have been victims of the incompetence of governments, both the coalition and Labor.

On this issue, the coalition in government was incompetent, negligent and uncaring. People died because of this—suicide. Labor in government, though, is deceitful, deliberately dishonest. Only One Nation has the integrity to restore sound, honest and caring government. Only One Nation cares about the Australian people. Only One Nation puts our country, Australia, first. One Nation will always act to protect the interests of Australians, and we'll oppose this pathetically woeful bill, this dishonest, deliberately deceitful Labor bill.

I rise to speak on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025. This bill is another example of the Albanese Labor government's commitment to fairness, accountability and decency in the way we administer social security. It shows again that Labor does what the Liberals never do. We face up to problems honestly, we fix them properly and we always put people first.

This bill addresses the legacy of income apportionment, a technical method used from the early 1990s to 2020 to calculate debts when pay slips didn't specify which workdays they applied to, and the courts have confirmed that this practice had no valid legal basis. It was never used by this government, but it's our responsibility, now we are in government, to fix this and to do this fairly and in a cost-effective way.

I want to be clear that this is not robodebt. It wasn't a deliberately cruel revenue-raising scheme disguised as compliance. It was technical error that Labor is resolving. Robodebt, by contrast, was an unlawful scheme run by the former Liberal government. It relied on automation instead of evidence. It ignored all the warnings and treated vulnerable people like criminals. It destroyed lives. It shattered public trust. That shame belongs squarely to the Liberal and National parties of this place. Labor is not repeating their mistakes. Where they broke the system, we are rebuilding it. Where they acted with secrecy and arrogance, we're acting with transparency and compassion. This bill reflects careful, evidence based work by the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, the Department of Social Services and Services Australia in turning a complex legacy issue into a fair, workable solution,

On that note, I would also like to acknowledge the Minister for Social Services, Minister Plibersek, for her leadership on this piece of legislation. It actually shows what good government looks like. It's grounded in evidence, guided by compassion and focused on results. This legislation is about respect for the people caught up in a confusing system and for the idea that Australians doing it tough deserve fairness. They don't deserve to live in fear.

Behind every debt notice is a person and a family. They're not a statistic. This bill introduces a proportionate resolution scheme. Depending on the size of their debt, affected Australians will receive between $200 and $600, while debts under $200 will be wiped entirely. More than 6,000 people will see their debts cleared all together. To ensure that fairness reaches people and that no-one is left behind, the government is funding Economic Justice Australia and ACOSS to help people understand and access their payments. This bill also clarifies the law so we don't waste years and billions of dollars recalculating tiny, decades-old debts. That's responsible fiscal management—fair to people and fair to taxpayers.

For the first time in over 30 years, the small debt waiver threshold will rise, from $50 to $250. Let me repeat that: we are raising the small debt waiver threshold from $50 to $250, preventing 1.2 million petty debts from ever being raised. And that's amazing. Australians will no longer be chased for amounts that cost more to recover than they're actually worth, and Services Australia staff will be able to focus on helping those who truly need support. I think that that's what we can agree to across this place.

Together these reforms strengthen integrity, efficiency and humanity, making the system work better for the people that it serves. Those opposite talk about value for money, yet, under their watch, we saw the most wasteful, cruel welfare administration in Australia's history. Hundreds and millions were spent defending robodebt in court, and hundreds and millions more were spent on compensation once their own illegal scheme collapsed. Labor is rebuilding the capability they destroyed, restoring the professional Public Service and ensuring that decisions made about people's livelihoods are being made by trained public servants, not algorithms.

Our goal is clear—a social security system that is fair, transparent and efficient, delivering good outcomes for both its recipients and for taxpayers. This bill delivers exactly that. It ensures that Australians who have done nothing wrong aren't left in limbo because of administrative errors from decades ago. It gives Services Australia the clarity it needs to move forward and demonstrates that this government deals with legacy issues quickly, fairly and very sensibly.

As a proud Yamatji Noongar woman and senator for Western Australia, I know fairness must reach every corner of our country—from the city suburbs to the most remote communities. I have spoken to people who rely on social security to keep their family, to recover from illness and to get back onto their feet. For them, even a small debt can mean sleepless nights and shame, made worse in remote or Aboriginal communities by language and distance. And that is why this bill matters. It delivers fairness, rebuilds trust and reminds Australians that their government sees them, values them and will never weaponise the social security system against them.

Labor will always protect the integrity of the system without punishing those who rely on it. We will work to fix what's wrong, and we'll do that fairly. That's the Labor way—responsible, compassionate and focused on the people. For those reasons, I commend this bill to the Senate.

I rise today to talk about the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025. This bill contains a number of measures, some of which are very welcome. I recognise that designing an approach to respond to income apportionment is difficult as it could require the government to recalculate potentially millions of debts over many, many years. The retrospective application of this bill to validate income apportionment is a very serious thing for this chamber to do as it will potentially deny justice and rightful compensation to those that have been impacted by this unlawful scheme. However, I note the establishment of the Income Apportionment Resolution Scheme as a means to provide some payments to those that have been impacted. It is a difficult balance of circumstances to weigh, and I think it challenges us to consider what is just and what is fair.

There are some genuinely very welcome measures in this bill, and I want to thank Minister Plibersek, in particular, for the changes that are being made to debt waivers. The introduction of special circumstances provisions will be very welcome for people who are facing financial coercion, family and domestic violence, mental ill health, homelessness or substance dependence. I also welcome the increase in the small debt waiver threshold to $250 with future annual indexation. However, I note that if the $200 threshold had been indexed all along, it would now be over $440.

This has been a very difficult bill to consider, but I recognise that the government is presenting a solution in good faith. I also want to note the amendments by Senator Allman-Payne—and the work that she's done on this bill—some of which I feel genuinely improve the fairness in this bill and strike a much better balance.

With all that being said, the government then went and did something that I think makes it really difficult to support this bill and to look at the evidence, to look at submissions, to see what stakeholders are saying and to say, 'This is a bill I can vote on on behalf of people in the ACT.' At the eleventh hour in the House the government introduced new clauses which would give the AFP minister and the ASIO minister the power to cancel someone's social security benefits if there is a warrant out for that person's arrest. These provisions weren't considered in the inquiry. They were basically just paperclipped to the bill on the way out of the House into the Senate after the inquiry had finished. That is not a good faith move from the government. I don't know if the government thought that no-one would notice or whether it was some sort of deal to get support for the bill, but I really think it is in poor faith and very disappointing, given that the rest of the bill is, I think, genuinely in good faith. You can see the government has grappled with a very hard issue and tried to provide a solution.

I'm most disappointed, though, not because of the sneakiness of trying to insert something at the last minute that hasn't actually been through an inquiry but because this is yet another example of a government treating people on social security like criminals. The bill now seeks to treat someone as guilty before they have been put before a judge and seeks to strip them of their benefits. We're not just talking about JobSeeker; we're talking about the parenting payment as well and even paid parental leave.

The part I find most disturbing is that the measures to protect any dependants, any children, are extremely thin. On current reading, the minister's department has to seek advice on whether a decision the minister makes would impact a person's dependents. But here he's the kicker: it seems like, from the bill, they don't actually have to read that advice. They don't have to consider that advice or even receive that advice into their mailbox. They just need to ask for it. This is not a protection, and this has the potential to harm children. It is something that I simply cannot support. No matter if someone is being pursued for a serious crime, it is not fair, it is not proportionate, it is not reasonable and it is not ethical to put their dependents in harm's way or to leave them without the basic necessities of life.

To quote the Aboriginal Legal Service (NSW/ACT): 'Under this legislation, people's benefits could be stripped away simply because they are unaware police have issued a warrant for their arrest and without any opportunity to access legal help. The proposed amendments will inevitably have a greater impact on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, who are grossly overrepresented at every stage of the criminal process. Cutting off people's Centrelink payments will not only impact those individuals but put their children and families, too many of whom already live below the poverty line, at risk of homelessness and child removals. Such a controversial proposed legislative change should be the subject of considered consultation with community and legal experts. We call on the government to withdraw this proposal.'

This is from the Council of Single Mothers and their Children, who also raised that powers such as these have every possibility of being weaponised against partners: 'Council of Single Mothers and their Children are perturbed by this proposed amendment which has the to cause further harm to women and children who have already been subject to family violence. We have plenty of evidence that perpetrators of such violence are often skilled at using government systems to weaponise their violence. False reports of child abuse and of violence already see too many single mothers and their children, many of them Aboriginal, misrepresented as perpetrators of violence or taken into child protection. We call on the government to withdraw the proposed amendments—withholding social security payments, concession cards, family assistance payments or paid parental leave payments on the grounds of arrest for any reason—until any unintended consequences for children and their primary carers can be fully and openly assessed.'

I go to Anglicare and what they've said. They've said:

Cutting off someone's income before they have been found guilty of any crime is punishment without conviction. We should not have to explain why this has no place in a fair society. This is a shocking overreach of police powers into the social security system. We've seen too many times what happens when governments rush through changes without thinking through the consequences. Robodebt should have been warning enough. We're calling on the government to withdraw these amendments and commit to a system that upholds people's rights and dignity, not one that tears them away.

This is incredibly disappointing of Labor. On reading the bill, as I said, I think much of it is in good faith. Then you've tacked on this amendment that clearly has no support from organisations who are actually working on the front line with people who will potentially be affected the most by it. I note that the Labor Party actually opposed these measures under the former government.

In the first instance, I'm proposing that we split this schedule back out of the bill, put it in its own bill and send it to an inquiry. As Senator Liddle said earlier in this debate, it is entirely inappropriate that these measures were not put before a committee. The Law Council of Australia has said:

Adding Schedule 5 after a parliamentary scrutiny process vastly undermines the democratic rule of law principles which underpin Australian lawmaking …

The Law Council urges the Senate not to pass the Bill with Schedule 5 included. Instead, Schedule 5 should be separated from the rest of the Bill and referred to a parliamentary committee for proper and careful public scrutiny.

I urge the Senate to heed the advice of the Law Council. Pass these powers if that's what you really want to do but at least do so after an inquiry where we can actually interrogate the measures, where stakeholders can have their say and where we can ensure that we're not putting a single child in harm's way.

I will also be proposing a smaller amendment to make sure that the AFP minister must seek advice and, crucially, consider how any decision they make under these laws will impact a person's dependents. I think this is really the bare minimum, and I really hope that the government and opposition see the sense in ensuring that a decision cannot be made if a dependent is going to be put into poverty, put into danger or left without the basic necessities of life.

Just finally, I want to come back to the robodebt royal commission. When you look at Commissioner Holmes's comments and the recommendations in the report, you see that this is a golden opportunity for this parliament to actually act on the maladministration and the secrecy we saw that had devastating consequences. One of the things that really struck me in Commissioner Holmes's remarks was the way that politicians and the parliament talk about people who are receiving social security payments. She urged us to do better. She urged us to change the way we talk about people in Australia who are receiving support that they're entitled to. As a community we've decided that we want to live in a country where, if you need that support, you're going to get it. Yet, tragically, here we have a bill that's not aligned with that. It's saying that, before you're proven guilty, we're going to strip that away because, in our minds, you're either a criminal or a dole bludger. It's just not good enough. I urge the Senate to reconsider these sorts of things, which, when you add them all up, are exactly what Commissioner Holmes was talking about.

I sincerely thank all senators for their contributions to this debate. With the passage of this legislation, the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025, our social security system will be stronger, it will be fairer and it will be more responsive to the needs of the Australian community.

I want to touch on some of the very important measures this bill contains. The bill expands access to the special circumstances waiver to protect victims-survivors of financial abuse and coercion. These debt reforms will make a big difference to many women who have suffered financial coercion and abuse. In doing so, I want to recognise the important work of many people in this chamber and in the House on really highlighting the importance of this issue and the measures that can be taken to respond.

The bill also increases the small debt waiver threshold to $250, to be indexed annually in line with the consumer price index. This change will wipe $1.2 million in under-determined debts from the backlog in 2025-26 alone. In doing so, the government is sparing many thousands of low-income Australian families the stress of being pursued for those small debts.

The bill also takes a fair and reasonable approach to tackling the longstanding error known as income apportionment. By validating the past use of income apportionment, we spare taxpayers the cost of having government recalculate millions of debts going back decades. This validation recognises that a debt was likely still owed, but it was often miscalculated at the edges. The bill provides, as senators have recognised, the important Income Apportionment Resolution Scheme, which has been carefully designed to remedy this issue. The scheme provides a clear pathway for those affected to receive resolution payments. However, no-one is obliged to participate in this scheme or is prevented from exercising any legal rights to pursue a claim relating to their debt.

Finally, I want to address the nature of the measures that we are taking to restrict social security payments to people who have outstanding arrest warrants for serious violent or sexual offences, because I want to put it on the record what this measure does and the types of people that we are talking about. It is very clear in the bill that we are looking to provide for the use of benefit restriction notices so that people who are subject to an outstanding arrest warrant for a serious violent or sexual offence can have their social security and family payments cancelled. This is a power only for the most serious of circumstances. I want to repeat that just so it is clear. It is only to be used in the most serious of circumstances. This change will help uphold the integrity of our social security system, and it means, to be clear, that those who are accused of serious violent and sexual crimes and are evading police cannot benefit from the social security system. We as a government believe that is an important measure to take.

I want to again thank all senators for their contributions. I want to thank all of the people who contributed to this bill. I want to thank the minister for bringing these measures forward. In summing up, I want to thank again the many women in this place for their very hard work that has resulted in the financial coercion and abuse measures, because I know that an enormous amount of work has gone on on both sides of the chamber and in the House to make sure that we can provide, in our social security system, these protections for victims-survivors of financial abuse and coercion—an incredibly important step for this parliament to take. Thank you.

We'll firstly deal with the amendment that was moved by Senator Allman-Payne. The question is that that amendment be agreed to. A division having been called, it will be deferred until tomorrow. The debate is adjourned.

I rise today to speak in support of the Criminal Code Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) Bill 2025. This is a long overdue and critically important measure that closes a dangerous gap in our national security framework. This bill empowers the Australian government to formally designate foreign state entities as sponsors of terrorism and introduces new criminal offences for conduct involving these entities. It has come about to enable Australia to finally list the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the IRGC, as a terrorist organisation. This bill gives our law enforcement and intelligence agencies the tools they need to investigate, disrupt and prosecute those who assist or support these regimes.

But, while the coalition wholeheartedly supports this bill, we must confront the truth that it has come far too late. The coalition has long called for the IRGC to be listed as a terrorist organisation, calls that have spanned almost three years. Following the death of Mahsa Amini in September 2022 and the Islamic Republic of Iran regime's brutal crackdown on the rights of women and girls, the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee inquiry, which I at the time chaired, recommended that Australia list the IRGC as a terrorist organisation. The recommendation to list the IRGC was not made in isolation. It was powerfully supported by our local Iranian community, whose tireless advocacy since Mahas Amini's death, through the inquiry and beyond has been instrumental in keeping this issue on the national agenda.

That inquiry report was tabled in February 2023. We know, at that time, the Albanese government had in its possession the necessary evidence, legal documentation and bipartisan support to act. The Department of Home Affairs had drafted documents, a statement of reasons for listing the IRGC and a nomination form for a terrorist listing. Yet this government chose to delay instead of taking decisive action. Even after the coalition offered to amend the Criminal Code to enable the listing, like we're doing with this bill here today, the Albanese government resisted, citing limitations in the existing legislative framework.

This inaction persisted despite the mounting threats of the IRGC and the IRI regime. The fact that the government was developing the documentation to list the IRGC in 2023 only reinforces how unacceptable this delay was. Nearly three years have passed since that work began, despite clear evidence that the IRGC posed a serious security threat to Australia. Throughout this time, our incredible Iranian Australian community have continued to call for decisive action, urging the government to act on findings of the inquiry and the growing threat posed by the IRGC. They weren't making these calls for frivolous reasons. They were making these calls because they were concerned about being stalked, harassed and intimidated, both physically and online, by IRI regime operatives. They were continually raising reports about the regime conducting foreign interference operations here on Australian soil.

We must remember that the Iranian community weren't the only ones raising these concerns. In February 2023, just a few weeks after I tabled the inquiry report in this chamber, the then Home Affairs minister Clare O'Neill publicly attributed a local foreign interference attempt to Iran, and still the Albanese government did nothing to hold the IRGC to account. Fast forward 2½ years, it wasn't until the director-general of ASIO publicly confirmed that the IRGC had directed terrorist attacks on Australian soil that the Albanese government finally acted.

These attacks were not abstract threats. They were real, they were targeted, and they were devastating. In October 2024, the IRGC orchestrated the firebombing of Lewis' Continental Kitchen in Sydney. Just weeks later, the Addas Israel Synagogue in Melbourne was set ablaze, causing millions in damage and endangering lives. These weren't isolated incidents. They were part of a deliberate campaign by a foreign regime to stoke division, intimidate communities and undermine our sovereignty. This is state sponsored terrorism from an abhorrent authoritarian regime which should have been held to account for its actions far earlier than now. The IRI regime uses its proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as its military arm in the IRGC, to spread terror throughout the Middle East and throughout the world, including here in Australia. Our country must not be a safe haven for such conduct, and we must not hesitate to confront state sponsored terrorism wherever it occurs. This bill sends a clear message: if you are a foreign government that supports terrorism, you will be held accountable; your agents, your proxies and your collaborators will face the full force of Australian law.

The legal architecture of this bill is well constructed. It introduces a new part, 5.3A, to the Criminal Code, establishing a framework for listing foreign state entities as sponsors of terrorism. The listing process requires the AFP minister to be satisfied that the entity has engaged in or advocated terrorist acts targeted at Australia, it requires written agreement from the foreign affairs minister, and it requires a briefing to the Leader of the Opposition. This ensures that national security and foreign policy considerations are weighed together. It also provides a mechanism for delisting entities if circumstances change, with oversight from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. But let me be very clear. Under this legislation, if you are a foreign entity engaging in or preparing acts of terrorism on behalf of a foreign regime, you will face prosecution; if you provide or receive training to carry out such acts, you will be held accountable; if you fund, recruit for or associate with listed entities, your actions will not go unnoticed; and, if you possess materials or documents intended to facilitate state sponsored terrorism, you'll be prosecuted under Australian law.

The coalition supports this bill unequivocally, but we must also acknowledge the regrettable delay in its introduction. The government had ample warning. The opposition offered their support for legislative change, yet action was only taken after the worst possible outcome—a terrorist attack on Australian soil happened. This reactive approach to national security must end. We must be prepared to call out regimes that use terrorism as a tool of oppression and aggression, we must ensure that our laws reflect the seriousness of that threat and we must stand firm in the defence of our values.

Before concluding my remarks, there is one more point that I want to make here this evening. On 28 August this year, my colleague Senator Cash and I moved a motion, which the Senate agreed to, ordering the Albanese government to finally table the listing documents for the IRGC which were originally drafted by Home Affairs in January 2023, after the third reading of this bill. These documents have been requested several times by this chamber, and, every single time, the government has refused. We all know that this government is the most secretive government in Australia's history. Anyone who's made an FOI claim and any senator in this place who's lodged an order for documents knows that this government is seemingly allergic to sunlight. So I say here today to the Albanese government: here is your opportunity to do the right thing. Here is your chance to show Australians, to show our Iranian community, that you do believe in transparency and accountability. When this legislation passes this place, as I hope it will tomorrow, release the documents. Release the statement of reasons and the nomination form for the IRGC which your own department drafted in 2023. It is time for the government to be upfront about just how dangerous the IRGC is and when they knew about it.

In concluding my remarks today, I want to reflect on just how important this legislation is to this country. My hope is that passing this bill is not the end but, rather, the beginning of a new chapter in our national security strategy. We must ensure that our agencies are resourced to implement these powers, we must monitor the effectiveness of this legislation and we must remain alert to the fact that the evolving tactics of hostile regimes pose a real threat to our country. And, when this happens, we need to act faster. Never again should we have to wait for a terrorist attack on Australian soil before listing a terrorist entity, as we have sadly had to do in the case of the IRGC. Never again should an organisation like the IRGC be allowed to spread terror and antisemitism in our community without having the full force of law enforcement crack down on them quickly and decisively.

The Criminal Code Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) Bill 2025 is going to be a vital tool in our fight against terrorism. It empowers our government to act, it protects our communities, and it sends a clear message: Australia will not be intimidated, infiltrated or undermined by authoritarian foreign regimes. I commend this bill to the Senate.

Debate interrupted.

After a decade and more of Liberal leadership, we are rapidly approaching a staggering $13 billion in state debt in my home state of Tasmania. This isn't just a number on a government balance sheet. It's a burden, heavy and real, that every Tasmanian will bear for generations to come. It will shape our future, define the choices we can make and limit the dreams we can pursue. When we talk about the state debt, we're talking about the money borrowed to pay for government spending, whether it's hospitals, schools, roads or public services, and what we can tell is that they have the same issues the opposition had when they were in government: no investment in health, no investment in schools and not the investment that we need in housing, including affordable housing for those who need it.

What we've got now are some of the worst figures for chronic illnesses in the country. We have our schoolchildren who are not getting the education that they need, because that investment has not been made in teachers. In fact, you've got the teachers out on strike, as you have with other public servants. What we are seeing now is that that excessive borrowing has put us into such a state that future governments will have to pay the price. It is going to be ordinary Australians. It's our children, our grandchildren and every hardworking family struggling to get ahead. Debt at this level means more of our taxes will go towards interest payments, not to improving our schools, our hospitals and our kids' future. It means less flexibility to respond to emerging challenges, whether they are natural disasters, health crises or economic downturns. It means we are mortgaging our future and, more importantly, mortgaging our kids' and our grandkids' futures. It's narrowing their options.

The Tasmanian Liberals are responsible for this mess, just like those on that side, having spent almost 10 years on government benches, left us mess after mess after mess to clean up, whether it was around not building enough houses, cutting funding to hospitals, cutting TAFE and training or not doing anything to keep manufacturing on our shores. That's the methodology that has been followed by the state government. They are very poor financial managers.

You could not write a movie or a series about the disaster of the Tasmanian Liberal government ordering two new Spirits, which are the lifeblood of getting people on and off the island—our trade, our tourists coming in, our caravanners. They ordered the two ships but—oops!—forgot to build berthing facilities for them. So they spent tens of millions of dollars having them anchored up in Scotland. We now finally have one back in Tasmania, which when you go to Hobart is a constant reminder of the disaster, the financial mismanagement and the arrogance of this government that they have spent tens of millions of dollars—in fact, hundreds of millions of dollars—and we've got nothing to show for it except being the laughing-stock of the nation.

That doesn't go anywhere near talking about the icebreaker that was built under their watch—the icebreaker, our connection to the Antarctic. What did they do? They didn't check to see if the ship was going to be able to go under the bridge in Hobart so it could refuel. So what has to happen? It costs more money to go all the way to Burnie to refuel. That is the incompetence of this government. They have taken what they thought was the short-term fix for political expediency at the cost of the Tasmanian taxpayer. Renowned economist Saul Eslake has been vocal on this issue. He has pointed out that the Tasmanian budgetary position is now worse than at any time since the early 1990s. Eslake notes that the size of the debt is not just a reflection of COVID-era spending or one-off infrastructure investments; it's the result of persistent deficits year after year under Liberal mismanagement. That's what Tasmania has from that government in my home state, a reflection of what you guys did with the mess you left— (Time expired)

What a farce we have seen this week in Canberra. We've had the Premier of Western Australia, Roger Cook, and his deputy premier and treasurer Rita Saffioti over here supposedly lobbying this prime minister, who they trust, about the GST arrangements that only a coalition government could deliver.

You have to ask yourself, though: why did Premier Cook and Deputy Premier and Treasurer Saffioti feel the need to come over here to convince this federal Labor government to retain the coalition's GST arrangements if they trusted this federal government and the Western Australian members of this federal government to actually stand up for Western Australia and for that GST deal delivered by a coalition government in the face of Labor representatives from Western Australia saying that it was impossible? Labor members and senators from Western Australia said it was impossible, but the coalition government delivered it for Western Australia.

Now you have the premier, Roger Cook, coming over here to meet with his supposedly trusted friend Prime Minister Albanese to convince him to retain those arrangements. You have to be a bit suspicious for one reason. The Western Australian state government has also committed $1 million to an advertising campaign about protecting the GST arrangements.

I'd like those opposite to realise—and I'd like Premier Cook to realise—that that $1 million is taxpayers' money. If he really trusts Prime Minister Albanese and if he really trusts the WA members of this parliament to stand up for WA, why in goodness's name would he need to spend a million dollars of taxpayers' money advertising to defend that? You're only left with two choices—either Premier Cook and Deputy Premier and Treasurer Saffioti don't trust the Prime Minister and don't trust the Labor members of this parliament to actually stand by their word and defend that deal or the Labor premier and the Labor treasurer of Western Australia are willing to waste a million dollars of taxpayers' money advertising for their own political benefit. Either way, Western Australians need to take notice. You have a premier who's over here to supposedly lobby to protect the GST deal, but he's still willing to spend a million dollars of taxpayers' money, and he says he trusts the Prime Minister. He's either not being truthful in his statement that he trusts the Prime Minister or taking the taxpayers of Western Australia for mugs.

The taxpayers of Western Australia are not mugs. They know it was the coalition government that delivered the GST deal. It was Western Australian Liberals who took that GST deal forward and made sure that it was put in place, and it is the West Australian members of this parliament who will defend it—not the Labor members.

Australia's tertiary education system is one of the best in the world. Under the HELP scheme, every Australian student can study a university degree without paying a cent in tuition until they earn over $67,000 a year. We actually raised that threshold. It was previously sitting at around $54,000 a year. We have lifted that to $67,000 a year to provide some cost-of-living relief to students.

But tuition fees aren't the only barrier to university education. For many students who live out of home and whose parents earn above the income threshold for youth allowance, a part-time job is the only way for them to get by. It's super common for students to work part time. These students deserve of to feel supported and to have their needs accommodated, but, for too many working students, their experience is anything but.

Law students at Monash University were recently reminded in an email from the dean of law that they should not be working any more than eight to 10 hours per week. They were told to consider reducing their study load and that this kind of time management is 'an important professional skill and well regarded by employers'. This could not be more tone deaf. For an average student, eight to 10 hours per week is less than $230 in their pocket. For students who rely on part-time work to get by, the message is loud and clear: either reduce your study load or drop out altogether. For international student, reducing your study load isn't even an option. Either get by or go home—that's the subtext.

The consequences are plain to see. In 2018, a survey by the Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education found that an overwhelming number of students were experiencing financial stress. One in three students had living expenses that exceeded their income. One in seven students reported regularly going without food and other necessities. One in five students reduced their course load for financial reasons. No student should have to choose between eating and getting an education. No student should be going to class hungry or worrying how they're going to afford rent.

That's why the Albanese Labor government is working to ease the cost of living for students. We've wiped over $16 billion in student debt, lifted the HELP repayment threshold, increased youth allowance and Austudy, boosted the number of Commonwealth supported university places and introduced Commonwealth paid pracs, targeting students of nursing, teaching and social work, who can now apply to receive up to around $330 per week when they are undertaking their mandatory placements. We also introduced tax cuts for all Australians. This will particularly benefit the 1.5 million taxpayers aged 18 to 24, who would have received an average tax cut or around $1,007 per year. We've also introduced broad-base measures to ease the cost of living for all Australians, including young Australians and students, like lifting bulk-billing rates over the next five years. We've cut the price of medicines, which will fall to $25 from 1 January next year. We have rolled out over 90 urgent care clinics, aiming for 137 by the middle of next year. And, of course, contraception is now a whole lot cheaper, given that two-thirds of women of child-bearing age are on contraception.

But universities need to do their part. I say to Monash University: 'Where is your empathy? Do better.' I say to those Monash students: 'Join your student union, and make sure you amplify your voice. Join your student union.'

'For the faith, in the service of humanity' is the motto of St John. These words not only describe what my St John brothers and sisters do every day but also inspire us to continue to give care to thousands of people around the world. Many of you may think when you see our fantastic St John volunteers at a fete or a sports event that our activities are confined to providing first aid as well as teaching first aid, but the St John family stretches across the world, from Kenya to Hong Kong and from Australia to the north of Scotland.

I recently had the privilege of hosting the global leaders of St John here in Parliament House. They are an exceptional group of women and men who have dedicated themselves to the service of others. It was especially wonderful to spend time with my brothers and sisters from the Pacific. St John's work was discussed at the forum and, in particular, the hospital founded in Jerusalem. In 1882, St John took the courageous decision to found a hospital in the Holy Land. This endeavour was inspired by the highest humanitarian aim to alleviate the suffering caused by eye disease, and it was the first of its kind in the world.

The now styled St John Eye Hospital Group continued to grow and now has clinics in Palestine and the occupied territories. The global St John family raises the money to fund this incredibly important work. This year, the eye hospital opened its newest daycare centre in Nablus, the commercial and cultural hub of the northern West Bank. The hospital brings much-needed services to over 1.2 million people. Since opening, the hospital has treated over 2,500 patients, including 450 children. The new facility stands as a symbol of hope and progress at a very difficult time for the region.

In nearby Gaza, despite the challenges, 28 brave members of staff are continuing to provide care under the most difficult circumstances imaginable. The St John Hospital in Gaza has treated more than 30,000 patients since the war broke out. Our hospital was damaged in the war. It has now been renovated and is operational. This herculean task was achieved in an environment of extreme danger and scarce building resources. Surgical services have recommenced in Gaza City, making St John the only provider of retinal surgery.

Treating St John patients in such distressing conditions is a stark reminder of the imperative of our work in the service of those in need. I thank the leaders and staff of the hospital for their courage and commitment during this dangerous time in the Holy Land. You never leave my thoughts and prayers. In the written history of the hospital, titled Beacon of hope, psalm 146 was given special prominence. I will read it to you:

Praise the Lord …

Who executes justice for the oppressed,

Who gives food to the hungry.

The Lord gives freedom to the prisoners.

The Lord opens the eyes of the blind;

The Lord raises those who are bowed down …

Thank you to everyone in the St John Hospital and satellite hospitals in the Holy Land.

Senate adjourned at 19:48